The New York Herald Newspaper, December 15, 1868, Page 5

NEW YORK CITY. THE COURTS. wee GMITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. The Watson & Crary Distillery Case, Before Judge Biatchford, ‘The United States vs. The Reotifying Distilery 17, 113 ana 115 Christopher street.—Thia is a branch of the case of the United States vs. 3,800 barrels of dis- ‘lled spirits, for which Messrs, Watson & Crary, Gistilers, were claimants, and the trial of which having commenced on Monday, the 7th inst, was ot closed tll the Friday morning following, result fg in the condemnation of the property seized by the verdict id to be rendered by the Court to that effect. The trial commenced yesterday Is for the condemnation of the premises 171, 173 and 176 Christopher street, on which the 8,800 barrels of ‘whiskey were seized, and other personal property. It presents a somewhat diferent aspect as regards ‘the Internal Revenue Jaw, or rather to the provi- sions of that law, as presented by counsel on either ide in the former case, the main points of which Were reported in the HewaLD at the opening dresses by counsel and as they arose from time time during the examine®ton of the witnesses, + There was consideravie delay in interrogating the anel of jurors as to the business of each juror, his owledge of the claimants, his acquaintance with case and as to impressions be migut have the previous trial, Only four jurors were re- Jected on challenges, \. Oounsel for the government, United States District geome Courtney and General Hubbard; for the ts, Messrs. Henry L, Clinton and J. B, Bul- ¥ OPENING BY COUNSEL. General Hubburd, for the government, opened the case, he said this action was brought for the for- Pere the rectifying establishment 171, 173 aud 75 Christopher s.rect, for Which Messrs. Watson & Crary, rectilying distillers, were claimants and tor the property found therein, enumerated as tol- jows:—Twenty leach tubs, two receiving cisterns, ove alcohol still, one rum still, two empty tubs, one force pump, three large receivers and otuer tou.s and plements und a quantity of spirits belonging to a rectifying distillery, The govern:nent claims that this property was legally forieited because the parties owning it at the time did pot make niries thereof in a book called a reciifier’s book, y being rectifiers, and which they were by law compelled to Keep for the purpose of making such entries, It1s aiso claimed by the government that Messrs, Watson & Crary, the ciaimants, intended t seilor keep for the purpose of beiug soid, dix of or used by them, contrary to law, this pro- “y. AS 1 appeured some Of the jurors on tie vious trial had misuuderstood the position of the Rovernment he (counsel) Would expiain that they were not proceeding on merely tecaulcal grounds gione thougut it might seem that soe poriions of ‘the act were techuical and in some instances harsh, By the provisions of the Internai Revenue law Government is empowered to seize certaim pro- and have it couflscaied without allegin; ert, iS ‘nowing that any offence was comuniite with regard to ‘this particuiar property, the guvject of the sult, The government Charged in She previous case tial the spirits seized on the pre- mises on Christopher street referred to had not lear the tax, and that it was hed by those parties be sold or disposed of by them, and (hat there- fore, according to law, they shouid be Jorfeited. Perhaps it may not be 80 ob\ fous tat any property should be forfeited because he owners tereof did not make certain entries in a Look oi other property. ‘dhe government now Claims the forleitare Of} tils roperty because Wa son & Crary, who claun if as Owners, had not made certain entries as rectifiers in a veciiiying Rook as prescribed or directed by law. Counsel hen read the twenty-sixth section of the Revenue law of July 23, 1868, applicable to this case, and continued:—Tuese entries ‘the law requires to be made are to be made for certain pur- poses, and the first is that every rectider or person ‘Who compounds spirits and bre res it for the mar. ket 13 required to pay a rectitying tax upon it. The @muount Of the tax is proportioned to the quantity of &pirits rectified, and therefore it is necessary, to enable the government to ascertain if ‘the tax is paid on this spirits. To kaow how much spirits the rectifler recities, how much he re- velyes, aad to this end that ne should make entries in the book, it 18 most tinportant to tle government thet these requirements of the law should be most rigidly enforced, Inasmuch as the government docs fr hag oe payment of the tax upon the spirtte till has pre) spared and put into the murket Jor Sonsartigthn, And to enable the governmen; to trace {t from the place of distillation Uil the Ume when the tax of two dollars ought to be paid upon it the, Fectifier ts required by law to make entries in a book ef the oe of us received, the time he re- ceived it and from whom he received it. For @ vj0- lation of tus law a peualty 1s imposed. To make out tnis branch of the case we siull proye that certain spirits went to tie rectifying place of Watson & Crary and made on the recéifler’s book, as the law prescribes ‘end if we do that we claim a verdict at your hands, the law declaring that not oniy shall the particular 8 themselves be forfeited, but all other property ound Lon the preniises sliali likewise be seized aud fo . Burr Porter was the first witness examined by Mr. Oourtacy, United States District Attorney—On we ‘Mth February was an inapector of internal revenue 4 deputy collector of the Sixth district; om the day jammed, 14th February, by direction of Collector Batley seized the pre of Watson & Crary, recti- fying distiliers, 111, 173 and 176 Christopher street; seized the books, machinery, tools, apparatus and epirite found on the premises; on the same % immediately after the seuuure, Tewused an inventory to be taken of aii the seized. Paper handed to withess—This inventory sets forth al) the articles setved. Bovk banded to witness—This is the rectifying book which I found on the premises and took posses- of Cross-examined by Mr. Cliaton—Did not make the whole of the inventory; made a portion of it; did not fee any of the articles enumerated written down on the list or Inventory; on iny return after a short ab- sence Saw @ paper with the entries made thereon. James H. Sowder examined—In February last wasin the employ of Collector Bailey; went to the rewises in Christopher street wit Mr. Vorter on @ 14th of February; the rectifying premises were at that time seized; received instructions imme- aiately after the seizure to muke an inventory of everything on the premises; firet took a list of the articles in a siali book. Book produced—The entries here were made by him (witness); it was from the book entries that the inventory was subsequently made at Nr. Batley's office; the inventory shows the full list of goods av Watson & Crary’s on that occasion, Several of the witnesses in the whiskey case were examined, whose testimony was similar to that pre- viously given by them. Two other witnesses not previously examined were called on the part of the government, but neither their direct evidence nor that given on cros#-examination added a new feature to the case; the evideace which condemued in one case being thought, so far as the Internal Revenue law is con- cerned, suMcient for a vérdict for the government In the one on trial. The case will be resumed this morning. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUNT—IN BANKRUPTCY, Decisions, In the Matter of Samuel Lowenstein and Rosa Lowenstein (agaist whom a petition for adjudica- ton of bankruptcy was filed by Julius Katzenverg).— The Court, in reviewimg this case, says the petition ‘Was fled November 8, 1867. There are three acts of bankruptcy alleged in the petition, ‘The first Is, that the debtors, being aware that legal process was about to be issued, to be levied on the stock con- tained in their siore—Sixth avenue—ai the sult of path rd of pou ocean removed a great por- on of suid property Wo evade b 5 proseas. p eing taken ou such ‘rhe evidence doca not show that the debtors Moved any of #aid property for that purpose, or fe any Iroudulent FSS. in any iliegal manner, ‘The second act of bankruptcy alleged is that the debtors transferred said stock (0 one Eliza Lowen. atcin, with intent to defraud their creditors and to defext the operations of the Bankruptcy act. ‘This allegation !* not sustained by the evidence, The tuird allegation ts that the devtors, being mer- chants, fraudulentiy stopped and did not resume pay- ment of their commercial paper within a period of fouriven days. ‘The Court ruled that tils allegation was not ane- tained, reviewing the evidence on the allegation, and concludes:—The evidence in the case is very volu- Minous, etbractig twonty-four depositions and nu- | merous extibita. i have gone through it very care. sully, with the ald of the elaborate briefs of the coun- gel for the respective parties, and have come to the conclusion that the petition must be dismissed witn costs, In te Matter of Thompson Greenfield, a Bank- rupt—The adjudication of bankruptcy in’ thia case was made on the eth of August, 1867. In a lengthy review of the case Judge Blatchford pays that, in view of a decision by the District Court for the Northern District of New York (in re. Willmott,+2 Bankrupt Kegister, 76) 1 shali, in view of that deci- sion, and of the fact that there would be greater mischief in granwng ® discharge in this case, on a mistaken view of the statute, than in erroneously ‘withholding one, refuse @ discharge with a view to agford an opportunity @ review of the question tavoived By the Circuit Court in a proper proceeding bo be stituted under section two of the act. APRANGEMENTS OF BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF NEW YORK AND BROOKLYN. Mr. Justice Nelson has made the following order:— ’ At a etated term of the Circuit Conrt of the United tates of America for the Southern district of New York, held at the Untied States Court rooma, in the city of New York, on Friday, December 4, ta the year of our Lord isa, Present, the Honorable Samuel Nelson, Justice, For the eake of convenience in the disposal ot asiness in the Ciroult Court the clerk 1s directed to piace criminal cases and cases arising under the Fevenue laws (excluding any that may pe specially | excepted) upon @ separate calendar, to be called and disposed of by Judge Benedict unili otherwise or- | desired to get rid of it, to move agaist it, dered. In the absence of ihe presiding Justice, mo- Hous, areaments and trials without @ jury, in cases NEW YORK HERALD, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1868—TRIPLE SHEET. belonging to either of the classes, when not otherwise specially ordered, will be beard before Judge ; and may ve noticed for Saturday im term. Motions, ments end ‘trais in ali other cases, when not o! ize spe- Gially ordered, will be hound betove deliys Riasmsert. x Biatens ford will hold ourt as ogee uring January, Commencing 1e an raity ‘erm in the District Court, New York. During February, commen ing the 2d, a Jury Term im the uit Court, New York, for the of all cases except cI cases and cases arising under the revenue laws, During March, commencing the 2d, an Admiralty Term in the Disirict Couri, New York. During April, commencing the 6th, a Jury Term in es I: — iy the 4th, Admiralty uring commenc! an Term in the District Court, New York. During June, ommonsing the 1st, a Jury Term in the District Court, New Yor! If during the April and June District Court jay aS ee be practicable, Judge Blatchford will sit in the Gircutt Court, New York, for the trial of all jury cases except criminal cases and oases arising ‘under the revenue laws, When holding the Circuit Court, New York, for Pe caseg, and also at all other times, Judge Biatch- rd will, on application, hear any cases in the Circuit Court, New York, without @ jury, that are not criminal cases or cases arising under the reve- nue laws. fo Benedict will hold court as follows:— Du ng Jane , commencing the first Wednesday, a Jury ‘ , in the Circuit Court, New York, for tie trial of criminal cases and cases arising under the revenue lawa, During February, commencing the 3d, an Admi- ralty ferm in the District Court, Brooklyn. Duriog March, commencing the id, Jury Terms in the United States Courts, Brooklyn. During April, moe. the 7th, an Admiralty Term in the District Court, Brooklyn. During May, commencing the 3d, a Jury Term in the Circuit Court, New York, forthe triai of cruminal cases and cases under the reveuue laws. During June, sy ree ea 2d, Jury Terms in the United States Courts, oklyn, andan Admi- Talty Term in the District Court, kiyn. Judge Benedict will aitend at the Circuit Court, New York, every Saiurday, to hear motions, argu- ments and trials without a jury in criminal cases and cases arising under the revenue laws. The above arrange‘nent will be subject to such modification a3 way be necessary when Mr. Justice Ne son shail be sitting in the Circuit Court, either at New York or Brookiyn. ‘Dhe courts in New York those m Brooklyn at twelve Motions in the United States courts in Brooklyn will be heard on Fridays, instead of on Saturdays. SAML. BLATOHFORD, Clias. L. BENEDICI. ogee at eleven A.M. and SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS. The Erie Litigation—The Argument Ie- sumed—A Female Stockholder in the Melee. Before Judge Cardozo, Beimont etal, vs, The Erie Railway Company etal. McIntosh vs. The Erie Railway Company, Belmont et al.—At haif-past one o’clock yesterday the argument on all the Erie motions now pending was resumed before this court, the usual large array of counsel being present. Mr. Eaton, on behalf the plaintiff Belmont, rose, and, addressing the Court, sald that perhaps it would be proper for him to bring to the attention of this Court the fact that soon after the commencement of this suit an order waa made, on the petition of Mrs. Teresa Robinson, a stockholder of the Erie Railway Company, that she should be admitted as a co- plaintiff. The order directed that she should be ad- mitted and that she should have the benefit of this suit as a stockholder and plaintiff. That order had been served on counsel and was in due form. Mr. Field said he suppeeed, there was no point made that she had not notice. . d Mr. Baton replted that there was not. rot Fieid asked if she appeared now ip the case, an Mr. Eaton replied that she did, so far as his state- ment was concerned. The order admitting Mrs, Robinson as a plaintif® was then exhibited to Mr. Field. Mr. Emott next addressed the Court, and said that since the adjournment on last Saturday it had been. arranged that he should open this argument on the’ part of those who were reaisting this motion for a rehearing, probably because the view he would take Wasa preliminary view, and would be mainly con- fined to the p qnreson whether the rehearing was the oper remedy for relief for those parties, and if hey had reason to complain of the action of the Judge who made the orders on which the rehearing ‘was asked. ‘the argument of the learned counse! who opened this case on the other stde must have struck his Honor as one directed to matters not’ fuily appearing in the facts of this case. By his own col jon it was largely in a defect made by parties outside of the case, and he arraigned parties pot in- volyed m this proceeding further than their acts might have had reference to some of these parties who were absent. ‘The learned counsel could not have supposed that any one on our side would undertake to defend Mr. Drew or Mr. Work. Those gentlemen had no friends in this controversy, while, so far a8 Mr. Vanderbilt was concerned, he had ‘lends. Counsel had addressed ent to tig: art simply to hold that because Mr. Drew and Mr. Work on one side and Mr. Vanderbilt on the other had been engaged tu (he transaction 1 was fraudu- lent and oppressivt to the stockholders oi the com- pany and bis affidavit was not to be believed. It did hot, however, full to him (Mr. Kmott) to discuss this question tn opening the argument, but did to refer W it briefly. There had been @ good deai said by counsel on the other side m reference to the ac- tion of Judge who graw the order. What was implied and not what was sald, however, was a necessary part of the proceedings initiated by our friends of other side. Neither did it fall to him (Mr. Emott), he thought, to undertake the de- fence of Judge Sutherland here. If the acts aud orders of a judge were to be assailed, that, as he un derstood it, was @ smatter always heard before an pais court and not one of co-ordinate power. If the motives and omjects of # judge were to be at- tacked, he had also heard and understood that that was to be done ina place other than # court. So far as counse! had referred to the purposes of this suit vy Mr. Belmont, i was brought on the behalf of ang with the wilinguess of a large number of plaintitts, and thit the result of its prosecution might be beneiicial to all the parties besides hunseif. If he haa a good case and complained he had the right to prosecute it in a court of equity, and if he had a right to the relief he demanded, or ee of it, it Was no answer to Mr. Belmont that he had been encouraged or assisted by parties Who had bad motives or bad objects or bad purposes to maintain, The plaintif must stand or fall upon his own case. He (the speaker) was unable to agree with the proposition of Mr. Stough- ton, that if his Honor was convinced that this sult of Mr. Belmont’s, however fair in itself, were prose- ented to assist or in any way in the iuterest of Mr. Schell or anybody else, tliat there the case must be atanend. Not Knowing of any such proposition in jaw, he must, therefore, demar to that statement at the ouwet. The object of the suit was simply ihe appointment of a recetver, and the object of that receivership, according to the gentleman on the other side, Was simply to depress the market value of the stock. Now, if anything was likely to depress the stock would anything be so likeiy to do it as these euormous over issues of atock by the defend- ants themselves? Mr. Belmont was interested to the amount of $400,000 in the stock of this company, and it was diticuit to suppose that he would be disposed todepress the value of his own property, They had charged bad faith upon everybody in this case, with the exception of Mr. Belmont, and they could not clatni that he would lend himself to the operations of parties opposed to the best interests of the com- pany when he owned such a respectable interest as $400,000 in it. That amount seemed to him (Mr. 2 Emoit) and others trom the rural districts as quite ®& large interest and well worth defending and looking after, although to some of these men, accustomed to handling miittoy it might not seem Very timportant, — Besides, the re- ceiver Was not the only prayer of this complaint. The complaint alined directly at a series of transac- tions the root of which » bt the question whether there 18 the power ia this Board of Directors to issue stock in excess of the aniount to which their capital 1a limited by any authority whatever. If that po did not exist, then they were committing frauds and Wrongs, Which the slockholders had the right tu re- strain and redress. But it was against all these wrongs and transactions that this bill was med. He proposed, however, to confine himself to the question of the propriety and power of such proceedings a8 this, In indicatin he orderin which this argument should be heard his Honor directed that the whole case should be heard together; but it had heen intimated aod un- derstood vy counse! for Mr, Beimont that the rules of the court and the rules of law forbade such @ pro- ceeding, and his Honor, with his usuai franknes: said that that argument should be considered and that the parties advancing 1 should have ail the benefit of such deliberation, The point was that 20 argument for rehearing should be had and after order the rehearing, On the 16th of November the order to show cause Was granted and with it the injunction—each order, though, by iteeif. They Were served on the i7th and made returnable on the 2d. They were granted on the: bill of complaint in this case, to which his Honor's at- tention had been called, and would be calied more folly hereafter. It had not 3 appeared that the overissues of stock complained of hina been dented; on the contrary, they had been justided, and the only pees was that they were done by’ means of contrivances to issue the convertible bonds, and that these bonds were issued before the election took ace and were converted afterwards. ‘The injunc- mn granted by Judge Sutherland forbade their issu- ing any more of this stock, the removal of the books and papers, and further forbade the moneys realized from the sale of this stock from being used ex- cept for the payment of the legitimate expenses of the company. Tho Legisiatare had de- clared that the capital stock of this company should be so much, and required the compa a order to thus Indicate the amount of stock, to dle an amidavit from time to time showing the amount of its stock, With this injunction came @ notice of mo- tion for a bs od it might be said by the other side that when this injanction was granted that shonid be the extent of the relief Wiich was de- manded. The injunction was ex parte, not revurna- ble at any definite time, and compelling them, if they With the prayer for a receiver, and the Almont the tr amhesion jor @ veiver- injunction came the nouce Was a six for nowce of ts ‘ah It was not ct however, that they catertuined “any “auch ballet’ ek _ what Was extraordinary was that those itlemen Who z i professed to be sul that ceiver was annie toe ? of Mcintosh they obtained @. order, «x parte, them- selves, appoit Jay Gould as receiver of this com- pany, and that by am order as sweo| aud far more indeterminate than the which they complained here; and order made on the 18th. ceiver t buy in $20,00 Dany, spurious or tnvalid, at any price mot axcaeting ear; ‘That was a power as extraordinary as any ever been exercised by any court. On the 23d, after a contest, Judge Sutherland made an order, On the 26th of November the other side ed an order to show cause from his Honor why there should not be a rehearing of the motion on which Judge Sutherland had ulready passed, It was part of the history of the case that on their part, from the timeof granting this last order, they had A oe persistently to have this ument heard before the judge who had heard the first argument. They Dad done this with no dis- trust of the judge who was now iearing the case that he would not give them a fair and patient hear- ing and Gecide scoording w his honest conviction of what was right and just. The other side had sought with equai persisvence and more success to have it deferred until it would come up before another jadge. They had made this effort because they belfeved it to be the courteous, proper and legal course to have the motion, if it could be heard at all, heard before the same judge. None of them doubted that the present judge would hear it calmly and dispassionately, None of them had ven- tured to panes ag was done by the other side of another judge, that a judge of this court was too” much under the dominion of passion or prejudice to give a fair rehearing. In any case where @ rehearing was proper and was allowed it was for the court to say whether, on the rehearing, it would permit additional affidavits to be used. But this was not a new motion to remove the receiver appointed. It was simpiya motion to review before one judge a decision made by another. In arguing this motion it had been sa d that no limit of time was placed on the receivership, and that if Mr. Davies were immortal the railroad would be con- ducted by him forevei at there was no ground for such an argument. receiversmip was, of course, merely auxiliary to the suit. If the piaintiff obtained his reltef, that would end the receivership. If his suit failed, that would end it. Now, if this were a motion to vacate this receivership on the answers and pew alildayits which were not before Judge Sutherland, that was one thing, But before they could move in that motion the other side would have to adinit several things which now they deny. They would have to admit the jurisdiction of Judge Suth- which it 4s believed (o have overlooked, For that reason » rehearing must be by the same | Judge. Another judge cannot say, in the abseuce of an opinion, that a judge has erland to make the order and that the order was properly made on the facts then appearing. ‘heir motion had been made not ex parte, but on notice, and with all the time to introduce testimony which the Court in its judgment had thought them to be entitied to. They had followed the regular order for obtaining a receiver after solemn argument on due notice to the parties interested. Had the order been made ex parte there might have been reason for this motion, but since they had had notice and fuil time to prepare the Court should not vacate an order made after such notice, becaus¢ they had employed their time in getting up coliasive suits in outside matiers and had neglected to produce testimony within their power, He understood that the other side charged as one Treason tor this motion that on the previous argument the judge acted hastily and inconsiderately and under the pressure of great prejudice and passion. Judge Cardozo interrupt! the speaker to say that hn ney ay paneer that the defendants had made either in thetr papers or argument an. h charge. His understanding of the papers had Leen that they merely set out that, as often happens in the neces- sary haste of business in this branch of the court, the ee of some parties bad been overlooked, an: that, therefore, a rehearing should be had. Sucu a course was frequently taken on this very ground, and, indeed, Judge Sutherland had acted on this ground at least fifty times in the last two months, Of course he did not intend to interfere with counsel in the management of their arguments, Judge Emott said he had certainly understood that such a charge was made. He knew counsel had disclaimed any imputation on Judge Sutherland, and had expressed the highest respect for him, but to charge prejudice and passion seemed to him to charge matters very derogatory to a Judge. Judge Cardozo again interrupted to inquire what motion was before him. He derstood that all the motions were to come before him at once and he found five on bis calendar. None of the counsel seemed very certain what the five motions were, and it was finally conceded that the motion now on was the argument fora rehearing of the motion and reversal of Judge Sutherland's orders in the Belmont suit. Judge Emott resumed—He had read the minutes ofthe argument before Mr. Justice Sutherland and had derived some tnsiruction and some amusement from them. They had not introduced them here, as they would have entailed a very large ex- appeal Mr. Stoughton =. in case the; ad a gee @ wish in his ment that some angel Sppeared to rest Judge Suther- jand from laying his hand on Erie. Well, reverting to the original meaning of angel, a messen- ger, three had appeared in defence of Erie. First, when, after a persistent®fght throughout the day, late in the afternoon Judge Sutherland expressed his determination that there should be no further delays, an angel appeared to help them: then, at a littie later hour a second angel brought them some sixteen affidavits to consuine time, and lastly a a third, no doubt with information of their success in appointing # receiver in another proceeding, which enabied them to draw off. Then, on the 26th, -this order to show cause was obtained. it was a new practice to attack in this manner an order granted after such a full and careful argument. Ifan order might be thus attacked why could not judg- ments? An order once entered could only be reviewed withio @ spectied time and in a specified manner, by appeal; but if orders were to be reviewed in this way why not judgments? Where was the limit? Apparently they were to be left to the mere discre- tion of the judge. A reargument might, it is true, be granted in certain cases, but it could not be olan where the order had. already been executed in Whole or in part. in this case the receiver had ied his bond, he bad incurred expenses, he had been made @ party to sults. So far as the defendants and hostile orders of the court would permit bim he had entered on the discharge of his duties, A re hearing could not be had, except before the same judge, uniess where the sume judge could not be reached, Mr. Porter asked if he had any authority for his Judge Emott said not for that, but for this one. It had been argued that ail judges of shis court were but one judge. Such a Sction was never heard of when all the judges were much more one im fact than they bow were. [t came with a pecullar force trom those who had striven so persistently to make & distinction between judges that their efforts to revent a snares of this case before Judge Suther- and -had called forth remarks tn court from that Judge. This rule would be found laid down in the old chancery books, and it had been incorporated in the statute law England, A rehearing was not allowed to correct an error of law in a decision of the conrt in which It was supposed to have been made, but to call the attention of the Court to some fact overlooked an important fact. He cannot enter into bis mind, So the Court here must in this case, if he hear it at all, eitas a Court of Appeals to review Judge Sutheriand’s decision, He would recall to his opponents—oue of whom had been so frequently before the Court of Appeals and another had but lately ieftits bench—that they were required to show, to obtain a rehearing from the opinion of the Court, that some important fact bad been omitved in the consideration of the case, and on the Powe a wo confine their argument to the bearings of that fact. (Judge Emott here cited several authorities on this point and referred to the English law regulating the Practice in Chancery.) Jt was argued by the other | side that there should be a rehearing because the order was made without jurisdiction. [f it were made without jnrisdiction, them the counsel was right in saying that the company should disregard the order; but there was a wide difference between want of jurisdiction and erroneous decision on the law. Jurisdiction was given by the | parties and the subject of the action. The Court un- questionably bad jurisdiction of the parties. It had jurisdiction of the subject of the action. The subject juct of trustees, and of this the Court had jurtediction, This jurisdiction (ld not arise from the @tatute quoted by the other side, but Was anterior to it and rested op their general P| jurisdiction. Every stockholder had the right to clalin the protection of the Court against the miscon- duct of his trustees when destroying hia property, ‘There was no provision in our present system of practice to renear anything that had been once de- cided by a judge po in @ court of equity. bad been such a provision made in the Judiciary ‘act, but that provision amounted substantially to an: appeal to the Court in banc and bad been superseded by our aystem of appeala, ‘There could be no rehearing where an appeal had been taker. The order of Judge Sutherland had been appealed from by the defendants, In appeal- ing they nad ea effectually removed tt from the con. trol af the Special Term aa though they had removed it to the Court of Appeala, Though It was called one Supreme Court it two branches—ome the appel- late, the other of original juriadiction. They were entirely distinct. Judge Cagdozo said he could not so consider it, ‘The Supreme Court was one, and if Mr. Emott's doc- trine were established it would be ta thograve Injury of many suitors. Mr. eld ‘said that even on appeal Go the Court of Appeals a case Was not eptirely removed from the Supreme Court. An execution iasued after from the Supreme Court was not void, In fact, \ might effect the dismissal of the appeal. Judge Emott thought not, after security had beea Med. He should hesitate to Te even the i eat intimation of the Court and should be snclined to yield to the opinion of one who, as the author, should know most of the Code, but that Ia? had the opinion of the Court of Appeals on his #id’¢, a4 ho thonght. Mr. Kmott read at some length from @ CAs® re. ported 34 New York, 656, and claimed that thia fully supported his argument. a udge Cardozo here Leyes an ‘adjournment, which was taken to to-day at hait-past one i’. M. The Patallo EstateTho Public Administratet Sustained. In the Matter of the Bstate of Davia Patutio, De: coaset.—David Patutlo, for many years and widely } known aa the proprietor af a tavers famillariy known | plaints tn | i positively, explicitl as “Cobweb Hall,’ in Duane street, died about a year aince, intestate, leaving an estate estimated to be worth about $250,000. No person of kin, however remote, appeared as a claimant to the property, and the Public Administrator, Henry E. Davies, Jr., a> Wertiseinent ii ie daly papery aa requireh wader ir the statute, ms - vcgfhoe a Eaieee, juently one Hugh Ferrigan put in aciaim against the esiate as a creditor and fied his bill be- fore the Surrogate, who placed the case upon bis litl- calendar and prepased for its adjudication, ‘The Public Adimimistrator then obtained trom this court @ writ of alternative mandamus requiring the curl to relinquish all proceedings agaist or adjudication in the mutter of the estate, or show cause why he should not do so. Yeate! the case came before this court on the return of t writ, the Surrogate recurning to the court that the claim was being hi the course of the business of his court, and had been properly and jegally brought within his jurisdiction. It was further ed that this return was sufficient, in set- tung forth that the case was so before him as a jadicial official, wered to hear and decide the questions atissue. He could not present the nature of the claim at this time before the court, for the reason that it was Dus partially heard and undeveloped, as was ia the nfatter of the basis of the claimants’ ind Court, after hearing argument, held that the return was tnsullicient, as it aiforded the Court no proofs a8 to the legal or substantial nature of the Claim. Peremptory mandamus issued accordingly. SUPERIOR COURT—THIAL TERM. Action for Damages for Personal Injury— Negligence. Before Judge McCunn. Matilda Lamoke, by Guardian, vs, Wm, P. Dins- more, President, éc.—Plaintif is @ little child of seven or eight years of age and sued to recover damages for injuries sustained through the alleged negligence of the defendant's servant. The defend- ant is Adams’ Express Company. In July, 1866, the platntiff was on the sidewalk near her parents’ residence, in this city, and one of the defendant's wagons, driven by @ person in the em- ploy of the company, was passing. The wagon W4s heavily laden with boxes of merchandise piled up to a@ considerable height, and en turning a corner sharply the vehicle came in contact with a telegraph pole. The concussion shook one of the boxes off the top of the load and tt fell to the side- waik, severely injuring and permanently aisiguring the child’s face. The statute in this State provides that where a party has in the slightest degree contributed to the negligence which causes an injury, no matter how gross and.culpable the lect of the other party may have been, no cause of action will lie for naga as against the second party ou behalf of the rst, ‘This case was tried in this court, before Judge Jones, in 1807, and the defendamis moved for a dis- missal of the complaint on the ground of contribu- tive negligence of the plaintit, Judge Jones granted the motion, holding that there was contributive neg- ligence on the part of the plaintii? in the fact of a cluid of such tender years being in the street with- out a guardian. ‘The judgment was appealed from, ana yesterday the case came up for retrial under the order of the court above reversing the judgment ordered by Judge Jones, and the jury returned a verdict jor plaintif’ in the sum of $750, SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. The Manhattan Gaslight Company in Court— Injunction—Obatruction ef Navigation. The Manhaitian Gaslight Company vs. James Bar- ker.—This is a motion on the part of the plaintiffs to regtrain the defendant, the owner of a distillery in Eighteenth and Nineteenth streets, near the North river, from discharging hia refuse mash into the common sewer, the waters ‘of which carry said plaintiims is entirely consonant with sound principles of equity; moreover the theory that if the eonetaes equity of the bill the injuuc- tion must be Gissolvedsis based upon the principe that the answer must be taken as true; but we mast not carry this doctrine 80 far a8 to ay that, as a mat- ter of course, if the answer denies the ee of tue biil the injunction must be dissoived. If the Court | can see guficicnt reasous for maintaiaing the m junction, and that it entertains doubts about the | truth of the allegations contained in the answer, and | thdt irreparable injnry witli be done if not granted, then aud in that case, notwithstanding the denials in the answer, it ia its dis cretion maintain the junction. But such is not the case bere, ‘he doubts entertained in the mind of the Court are doubts formed about the truth of the complaint and adldavits upon whict this injunction is founded. It cannot be inferred from the mere fact of proximity that the owner of land adjoimng @ public highway or fronting on & river, which is a public highway, has sowe interest therein, i of his proxionty. This is an error the Court in the case of was set at rest, however, b, ould va. The Hudson’ road Coe (2 Sel- ene oD den, 641) Now, I have shown that land are strictly (legally) 1 ways on water (21 Com., 325; 11 Barb. 429). And no doctrine is more firmly settled than that for a public nuisance the government alone can prose- cute; and that those who do not suffer by a violation of jaw otherwise than as members of tue commu- nity cannot maintain any remedial action. To sustain me in this view Icould cite many autho- Titles. One or two, however, will be suflicient:— Clerk vs, Sayhook, 21 Com., 826; Smith vs. Boston, 7 Cush, 255; Sutherlaifd vs. Johnson, 30 Maine, 463. if public nulsance work "a private injury to @ person that person may have @ remedy by private action for damages, and, in a proper case, may have an injunction, A hoigome odor issuing from @ public nuisance, such as issues from the p aintiils’ gasworks, will have this effect, if it pervades the surrounding atmos- phere, enters the adjacent dwellings, and either en- + dangers the heaith or disturbs the comforts of those dwelling therein, A noise upon the public higiway in like manner penetrates the dwellings and dis- turbs the inmates, I think these are the only in- stances in which a natsance iu the public highway can work a particular jnjury to @ private individual merely in virtue of its proximity, The only other cases in which a private Injury may resuit from a nuisance in highways are those where the actual pemege is thereby inierfered with. If, for instance, by means of an obstruction in the public highway @ man is arrested in his progress over it and put to expense, tis 18 a special daage, and an action will lie, This was tic rule held by Chief Justice Shaw, in Siith vs. Boston (7 Cash.); but the case I have supposed, and that in seventh Cush. and the hke cases, it will be seen, are ali Cases of special damage, and arise in the common rygat of passage which Bee. to every citizen; and the right of action in such cases is ‘no less perfect be- cause the plaintiif resides or his property 18 @ great distance Irom tie locus in quo, nor is it more imperiect because he happens to own an adjoin- ing lot. The gravamen of the action, ita whole es- sence Is that he had a right of passage and was hindered from using it, and suifered special damage. It is clear, therefore, that in case of a nuisance by the ob-tructing of a public highway @ private per- son can have no action but fur actual tajury received. In this case the proof would not at tis stage of Lhe proceedings warrant me iu holding that the plaints: can make out even @ prima facie case of personal jojury or damage. Until very recentiy no oue doubied the doctiing, and in this court and in all the districts of our Supreme Court in this Stave, except- ing the first, it is so stili—that no private action can be matutatned by an mdividual fora public offence, or a4 wrong against the State, Public nuisances are subject to indictment; and in atd of the courts of law equity at the suit of the government will step in; but that the contrary doctrine has been sauc- tioned in high places it might be treated with levity, But even as it stands now in our First Judictal dis- trict 1 believe the adjudications are evenly balanced for and against\the rule. 1t must fuilow, therefore, from ail that Lhave said, that upon the plaintins own showing they cannot, as a matter of law, main- tain this injunction, But in addition to the law be- ing agati their right to maintain this injunction fr Oy] _— a — in stove that death resulted on Saturday. The entld had been left alone for @ few minutes; hong accident, mere ‘Tax TRrran SonvuTzeN Conrs.—This society of Serman sharpshooters, Captain Meary Deiker com- | manding, held their second annnal ball at the New York Casino of Mr. C. Reinhardt, on East Houston street, last night. It was a very handsome affair, and the large number of beautiful ladies gave brightness to (he entertainment, The corps itself i$ large, and tue carcle of their friends being much larger, the attea- dance was quite numerous. ALLEGED Fara Mistake or a Drvuaarst,—Dr, Harrts, of the: Board of Health, yesterday notified Coroner Schirmer to hold an inquest over the body ofthe infant child of Airs. Neil, at 179 Blizabett. strect, It 1s alleged that the cause of death was an overdose of laudanum and castor oi! given in mis- take by @ druggist in Prince street. Dr. Cushman Will make @ post-mortem examination and an in- quest will be Held to-day vy the Coroner, RowbERY aT TirFANY’Ss STORE,—Detective Elder, of the Central office, yesterday afternoon noticed a notorious character named Sarsfeld enter Tifany & Co.'s jewelry store. in Broadway. The oMecer also entered the store and watciied his man, whom he detected in the act of secreting several silver butter knives up his coat sieeve, The oticer attempted to arrest the thief, wien the latter ran out of the store and attempted to make lis escape, but was finally captured and locked up for trial. . FALLING OF AN EMUANKMENT—TWo MEN IN suRED.—About half-past nine o'clock yeater- day morning @ clay embankment, at the corner of First avenue ani ‘Thirty-first street, suddenly caved tn, burying two labor- era, named James Farley, wed forty-five years, living at No, 303 aveuue A, and John Fagan, aged fifty-five years, of No, 331 East Thirty-s street, The men were dug out &4 800N a4 possible, when it Waa found that they had sustatned serious injuries about the legs and body. They were taken to Bellevue Hospital by the Twenty-first precinct police. THE SOCIETY FOR THB PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.—This society since its organizativn has accomplished much good through the well directed zeal of its oMicers, and particdflarly its president, Mr. Bergh. Ina report of a case of cruelty to ani- mals which came up before tie Court of Special Sessions last week @ hamorous allusion was made to Mr. Bergh’s action In the case, to wiich he makes the foliowing reply:— To Tur Eprroe or THe HERALD Yon, Dec. 13, 1868. Yonr reporter for the Special Sessions yestertay, in men. tioning the Costello pony whipping case," erroneously states that I requested the representatives Of the press to abifsh the case and not overiook ny exertions fu tie mi iy request was and is that, for the rake of example, all cases may be reported; but { deny having made any such Yulgar application for personal notoriety a he f:tlmates, So long as the cause of mercy to the lower animals proapers the sole purpose of my etforts is accomplished, aud 1 have no ‘other ambition under heaven to gratify. HENRY BERGH. Avction SALE OF Boogs.—At the book trade salesroom, Clinton Hall, last evening was com- menced the sale of a number of books and docu- ments relating chiefly to localities in America, The attendance at the sale was very small, the bidding very tame and the prices realized generally tusigni- ficant. “The Report of che Comuiniitee on tie Con- duct of the War,” in three volumes, brought fifty cenis per volume, A number of oid catn- logues aud almanacs brought from ene cent to five and ten cents each, Collections of old music, oratorios, selectious for the piano, organ, violin aad flute, averaging 100 to 200 pages in eact: volume, realised about twenty-five ceuts a volume. Reports of the Confederate Congress, two volumes, sold for thirty dollars; tie report of General Lee to the Confederate Congress, twenty dollars. These latter and a few oiher Coniedcrate publications were the only ones which commanded anything !ike fair prices. ‘wo apparently inne used violins sold for mash into the Hudson or North river, and, asthe plaintif™ allege, it there sinks to the bottom of the navigable stream,"and is thereby « nuisance, and is injurious to navigation and specially injurious to them, the plaintiffs in this suit. ‘They also allege that the Corporation leased to them the right to collect wharfage on the front of the river, where the sewer empties into the stream. The defendant denies explicitly and circumstan- tially each and every allegation in the complaint; and alleges that, instead of the refuse of his dis- tillery sinking and lessening the depth of water, it floats away with the current; and that it is the débris of plaintiffs’ large gasworks and the coaltar therefrom that are doating into the slip and are less- ening its depth, if it is lessened, and that it is not caused by any act of the defendant, The defendant further aileges that the wetter] own all the property around him (the defendant), and that ure also desirous of owning the prop- erty upon which his distillery 1s built, and. that this effort on their part is not so much the interest they have in keeping the river deep as it is an effort to get the defendant to sell his B igri to them; and - this suit is vexatious and is di to weary and annoy defendant, #0 as to make him part with bis pro; upon which his distillery is placed to them. This is a brief statement of the case. Judge McCunn—First, the piaintiffs assert that cer- tain injuries will result from the use by deiendant of the sewer, as alleged by them. Second, that it in- volves certain public bg od or offences against the public, by reason of their injured in certain rivileges they have received from our municipal tion, and ape @ right fo maintain an action in equity, in ir own names, to restrain the defendant from such usurpations, and to prevent and remedy such public wrongs—to wit, the maintain- ing of a public nuisance. The Corporation has not teased to them anything but the ht to collect wharfage at their docks, fronting on river, and the river being @ public highway, and others being as much interested in the use of the same aa plain. tiffs are, notwithstanding the proximity of plaintiits’ p riy to the nuisance complained of, yet if this action can be maintained innumerable others could, thereby leading to absolute confusion. The fus pub: licum or user of our great rivers or highways is in the people; and they, and they alone, are the trustees to guard and protect them. This is the English doc- trine, as well as ours (1 Hume’s Eng., 217), But the title to highways in America is not tn- volved in the mist of yr: and we have but little occasion to resort to the English books for a guide in this respect. Every State in this Union has adopted statutes expressly ou this subject, and the acts of our own Legislature are especially clear and explicit on this score, 80 that Uf an individual en- croaches on the great rivers or highways of the nation ample remedy can at once ve applied tn the name of the people and by the competent law officer elected Made gt tor that purpose, and it is not left to the whims and caprices or the will of individuals or special corporations who may imagine themselves grieved to apply a remedy. The relief prayed for Wy this action must proceed upon the grounds that the act imputed to the defendan: is a public nuisance, or the usurpation of @ franchise detrimental to all the people of the State—to wit, the | filling up of a highway, as plaintids complain. lt is true it may not affect every citizen equally alixe, but in judginent of law, assuming that no special injury 18 shown, they have the saine right to complain. Now it wiil not be maintamed for one moment that an action will lie by an individual citizen for such @n offence. Sach a course would confound ali distinctions between public and pri- vate righta, and would lead to great confusion. This was the doctrine held ia the case of Davies va. Tha, Mayor (4 Kernan, 506), Tt is {he undoubted rnie of law that highways (and navigable rivera are great highways) belong to the sovereign poWer, and are a part of its royalties or pubiic rights ; they belong to it absolutely, and there is no right In the adjacent owners of the soli. (Hoff- man, ‘Treaties, p. 438.) The portion of the river | which plaintiifs compiain that defendant ts filling up therefore belongs to the people. It is theirs asa 1 ay public highway, absolutely under their con- rol and for their use, and they alone, and not the plaintiffs, can seek or maintain a remedy to prevent | ius being injured. | Again, an injunction should never be granted pending the action (pendent life) on tight grounds or in doubtful cases, The universal rwe is, where the right is not clear and transparent and the danger great, or tho appretiended mischief irreparabie, 1% should not be granted until the rights of the partien are fully ase ined by atrial in open court, with Witnesses, and every op; unity allowed the parties against whom the remedy is sought to be enforced to convince the mind of the Court that the remedy should not be granted. ‘tug waa held tn this court:to be the rule in the case of Redfield vs. Middleton (7 Bos, 649). 1 au aware that this rule | has been varied sometimes, where for instance a de- fendant ta about to it or do injury to real pro- perty, and where his clatin thereto ts doubtful, and where the injunction would only be of a transitory injury, and where compensation could be easily awarded; but that is not the case iu this instance. Here the defendant's large business i entirely stopped, the machinery engaged tn his distillery idle, and becoming seriously impaired the jopger ttremaing in that condition, Under these circumstances, and in the exercise of sound discretion, [ must adopt the greatest caution before | allow these pi 1% to maintain thelr tnjunction, because, as I b. sald vefore, (be granting and contiauing of an injunction Toust always rest iu the sound discretion of the Court. (Wolerison va, Anderson, 2 Jobn., ch..204.) ‘The well established rule—that if the answer denies explicitly and pomavely the grounds on which te equity claim in the bill rests, the injunction to stay mast be dissolved— must not be deparied from, and I can seo nothing whatever in this case to form the slightest exception to that rule, The answer of the defendant is directly responsive to the very gravamen of the complawtand in the strongest manner denies ite allegations in toto, He denies that the mash from nis distal in the slightest degree lessons tho depth of water at the place complained of, or at any otier piace, And swears positively that the plaintias themselves, from their vast establishment for making gas, fill up with coal tar and other debris’ the wharf or dock which 1s the subject matter in dispute, Now, the answer in ali respects Js strictly responsive to the bill, because aud ciroustanuially denies the rule is well settled that na in the answer all ita allegations; anc we are bound to take all the alle; eatene. On this motion and a dings it seems to me from te e@ frou an inspection of the prenrises, wiit of Unis devendank © have & fipal judgment against Weve | we have the facts running counter to their views, and that in the most decisive terms, The defendant in his answer positively dentes every allegation in the complaint, and in addition his answer he shows by himself and six other witnesses that he is not the cause of lessening the depth of water in the river. On the contrary, he shows that the plaintiffs themselves are lessenin, the depth of the water, if it is lessened at all. An these aflidavits on the part of the defendant are only met by the complaint of the plaintif's and two witnesses, neither of who are as clear im their statements as the witnesses for the defence; so tha: upon the facts as presented to me, | am constrain to deny this motion. COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. Before Recorder Hackett. BURGLARIES AND GRAND LARCENIES. ‘The Grand Jury brought in a batch of indictments this morning, after which the Clerk arraigned the prisoners, some of whom pleaded guilty. ‘Thomas Sullivan, who was indicted for burglary in the first degree, pleaded guilty to an attempt at burg- lary in the third degree, He was charged with breaking into the house of Napoleon Le Kau, No. 260 Greene street, on the 18th of November, and at- tempting to steal $100 worth of wearing apparel. Patrick Ferry, who, on the 12th of November, broke into the store of Robert Gray, No. 391 Ninth avenue, and stole a knife worth. cents, pleaded guilty to ap attempt at burglary the ‘Bisa de- cree. Jullus Roth pleaded guilty to an indictment charg- ing him with sesllng Gapl dollars’ worvh of wear- ing apparel from Bernard Fishel, No. 61 Ciinton street, on the 12th of November. Henry Dunn and.John Donohue pleaded guilty to an attempt at grand ii , the cl being that on the 13th of November they stole u case of boots, Sao at forty dollars, the property of William jayes, Peter Ward, who was jointly indicted with Martin George, made a similar plea, the indictment all that on the 2ist of last month they stole a hogs of molasses, valued at filty dollars, the property of Philip H. Tuske. Wiliam Williams, who stole @ horse and wagon, valued at $360,0n the 34 of November, owned by Michael Dourney, pleaded guilty to an attempt at diarceny. ‘The property was traced to Newark, N.J., and it is sapposed that the horse died from the effects of over-driving. Each of these prisoners was sent by the Recorder to the State Prison for two years aud six months. Elizabeth Brown, who was indicted for stealing a piece of cassimere vaiued at thirty-two dollars, the property of Joseph Danzig, pleaded guilty to petty pe She was seat to the Penitentiary for six months. Mary Campbell pleaded guilty to petty larceny, the charge being that on the 17th of Novewber, she stole half a chest of tea, valued at fifty dollars, tne pro- ty of A. A. Low & Co. She was sentenced to the enitentiary for four montas. ity Judge Bedford occupied a seat on the bench during the proceedings. COUAT CALENOAR—THIS DAY. SuPREME CoURT—SPECIAL TERM.—Noa, 203, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 106, 167, 168, SuragMe Court—Ciacuit.—Part 2.—Nos, 1584, 1038, 1418, 1662, 1602, 1736, 1356, 1028, 16234, 812, 216),, 1624, 1688, 666, 1772, 1780, 1782, 1784, 1758, ba SuPReMB COURT—CHAMBERS,—Nos. 242, 251, 271. SuPeRioR COURT—TRIAL TERM.—Part 1.—Nos, 264, 427, 453, 522, 99, 407, 123, 235, 271, 278, 255, 363, 163, 155. Part 2—Noa. 578, 505, 961, 620, 1196, 252, 3 45K, 324, 304, 312, 434, 458, 456, 590. Court oF COMMON PLEAS—TRIAL TenM—Part 1.— Nos, 1422, 1252, 831, 1323, 1445, 104, 1085, 1855, 1474, 1475, 1479, 1480, 1481, 1453, 1455. Part 2,—Nos, 431, 1543, 1409, 566, 1875, $86, 1488, 1460, 1490, 1497, ldus, 1499, 1500, 1501, 1604, MARINE COURT—TRIAL TRRM.—-Nos. 887, 1022, 864, 932, 934, 935, 946, 1028, 1039, 1043, 1044, '1046,' 1047, bs Hoots 1056, 1057, 1062, 1064, 106s, 1085, 1064, 1063, 10" 0. CITY INTELLIGENCE, Tas WraTise YSsTERDAY.—The following record will show the changes tn the temperature for th past twenty-four hours, as indicated by the ¢ mometer at Hudnut’s pharmacy, Broadway, corn of Anup street, HeRalp Buliding: Average temperature... Average temperature Sunday DESTITUTE SOLDIRKS AND 1Lors.—Mr, De Cor- dova will deliver a humorous lecture, entitted “Courtship and Marriage,” to-night at Cooper In- stitute for the benefit of destituse soldiers and sailors. Tuw Wrova Nouwsex.—tin the account of the arrest of burgiars in Vesey street, published yester- day, one of the accused partics stated that he re- thirteen dollars and ten dollars respectively. Cuurcn Fatrs.—The church fairs which were opened last week, and which were to have wound up their aifairs on Saturday, have done such a very good business all along that they have determinea to keep open for one week more—“positively the last weck,” as the theatrical managers , The fair in St. Stephen's (Catholic) church, in ‘Twenty- eighth street, has been so far very succcasful, and, it is said, has $300 every night on the credit page of Hs ledger. ‘There are 80 many attractions ag the fair for those who are willing to take a chance for any- thing or nothing that it would be folly to attempt to enumerate them. The St. Francis Xavier church fair will not close doors until Tharsday night, when tts lady managers suppose there will have been realized @ sum sum- cient to keep the woif away from hundreds of doors during the winter, ‘There 1s also a fair in in Yorkville, at the St. Lawrence church, where the Rev. Father Mar- shall ig doing all in his power to attract the charita- Die. The rooms in which it ts held are farnished with tables laden with all sorts of good things, which can be had for the mere asking & few stamps. Every aid given the fairs will add to the comfort of some poor and needy one, 80 the charitable should not forget ‘Tne New ENGLaND Sociery.—The sixty-second annual election of officers of the New England Seci- ety of the city of New York was held last evening at Delmonico’s and resulted in the election of the fol- lowing gentiemen:—Joseph H. Choate, president, Elliot ©. Cowdin, vice president; Isaac H. Bailey, second vice president; Messrs. Samuel Stebbins, Willlam Borden, Frank E. Howe and Charles 8. Beebe, counsellors; Messrs, William H. Lee, Charles $. Smith, William T, Blodgett, William H. Fogg, Josiah M. Fiske, Daniel Hl. Appleton, George Cabot Ward and Charles A. Dana, assistant counsellors; L. B. Wyman, secre- tary, and L, P, Hubbard, treasurer. The secretary's report showed that the society nad invested in stocks and rea! estate $27,316 65, the market value of which ‘was $20,716; that there remained in his haud trom moneys collected during the past year, aiter detray- ing ali indebtedness, $1,716 05. During the past year 284 persons have been assisted by the society atan expense of $2,277 78. Upon motion of General Kerry- man, Major General 0. U. Howard was unanimous!y elected an honorary member of the sovucty, The Committee on Invitations reporte that the follow- ing named Me auest had accepted invitations to be resent at the annual dinner to be held at Delmon- co'son the 22d inst;—Admiral Farragut, Rev. Dr. Bellows, Dr. John Hurd and the presidents of St. Patrick's, St. George’s and St. Andrew’s societies. After afew remarks from the president elect the society adjourned. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. BURGLARS IN WaRREN StResr.—Captain Thorne, of the Fourth ward, and detective Hubeit arrested on Sunday evening three young men named Walter Harris, William Devere and Charies Barclay, who they found secreted in a room at 26 Chesnut street, aud in possession of five pieces of farmer's satin, 9 coats aud a lot of cloth binding, all valued at pi,4ls, which had just been stolen from the wholesale store of Jacob Levy, at 85 Warren street. The burglars gained an entrance to luce store by breaxing vit the padlock aud hoop aecurimg the front door, and they made their escape unnoticed by the pollew on duty at the time, The prisoners were vester.lay morning brought before Justice Sandiey, wio pre sided temporarily at the fombs Police Court, ant they were all remanded for trial In default of $1,000 bail each. Barclay is a native of New York, aed enty-live, @ cutter by occupation and resides in ard street. ere is twenty-two years of axe, a plumber and resides ac No. 146 Chrystic while Harris gave his residence a8 No. 26 Caest street, his age a8 twenty-two aad jativit York. All three dewied their gullt, despite of their having been found im possession of the property. ALLEGED Fororn IN CusTopy.—Detective Field of the Fifth ward, was called on a few days ago to ron down a forger and worthless check operator, who had succeeded in swindling several firms. He obtained $96 worth of farniture from James VY, Schenck, at No, 203 Canal street, on a check for ths sum on the Citizens’ bank, signed Thomas Cosgrove, Jr., and Mesars, Cramer’ & Keid, of pier 4y Norui river, were also victimized to the extent of § forged check on the National bax detaro T, Beckwith, | T young man named Williaw i. is employed by Mr. J. I. Beckwit 90 DY a . signed t that a ® fath 252 Greenwich street. had pu cout Valued at thirty-live dollars irom Pauilp I. Ce No and tentered a K ty-five dollars on the Ortentai Kank, signed W. 4, aod the money, Ed- 1 adswortn, ‘The coat was deliv balance of twenty dollars paid Bdsail b fall was arrested on Sunday night, and ‘a ar raigned before Justice Shaudiey, at the Tornbs, he was fully identified by the victiow aready named. A complaint Was taken in (he last named case, aud the prisoner was held for trial in defanit of $1,000 bai. Kdsall bas only recently been married, and is es teemed a very successful and daring operator in the way Of bogus and forged checks. sided at No. 92 Oliver street. On investigating the matter tt was ascertained that the statement was false, and the party was wolly unknowa in that locality. Dear oF 4 Daunxano.—Corgner Flynn held an inquest yesterday at Bellevue Hospital over the re- mains of John Walker, of 556 Second avenue, a native of Scotiand and aixty-three years of age, who had been admitted saffering from an attack of do- Miriam tremens, death ensuing on Sunday. A ver- dict of “Death from intemperance’ was rendered by the jury. Tan Monnis Sraxet SUICIDR.—An inquest was held yesterday by Coroner Flynn at the Liberty street police station, Injths case of Jacob Hu®er, the German who committed suicide on Saturday by shooting himself through the heart because his betrothed, Agatha Zimmerman, refused 16 marry him, ag be was on @spree. A verdict in accordauce with the facts was rendered, CutLD BURNED TO DRATHL—AN Inquest was held yesterday by Coroner Schirmer at 696 Second avenue, over the body of Anua Taylor, aged four years, who was #o terribly burned on Friday on the arms, abdo- sen, iyce wud bead by her gigtugs caycuiad dye frouy | morning the casket, wiit a! | one of the expert sn “HEAVY BORER Diam Jowelry Valued at $6,200 Stolen. Now that the marder epidemic has to @ certain de- gree subsided, the burgiary fever has come about with its usual precision, During tho past ik the police have had their hands fall in attempting to allay the progress of the disease, but #o far their efforts hi been altogether fruitless, ‘1 virulent caso pevpenes on Saturday nig! residence of Mr. D. Torrance, No. 7 West Thirty- eighth street, It appears that Mr, Torrance wout (o bed like any other man on the night in question, no forgetting, like certain extraordinary men, to have all the doors locked and the windows tightly close. Ainong other valuables in the house was containing diamond jeweiry valued at was kept ina bureau just at the head of tie which Mr. Torrance slept, On rising on its pre . 18 auppos a * was nowhere to bo found, and ak alwaya 2 of at a the ouda Made QQUd Libs CHOAE ready to tas man’s pro Pr stemiug tie die