The New York Herald Newspaper, December 19, 1871, Page 8

8 NEW YORK HERALD, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 187.—TRIPOR Biker. ree THE COURTS. fmpertant Declsions in tho United States Supreme Court. The Great Sugar Caso Again—A Spicy Fawily Ustigation—Business in Oyer ond Terminer— Judtodal Assignments in the Superior Court fee the Coming Year—Tho St Cloud ‘Hotel in Court—Sentences in the General Sessions—Decisions. WNTED STATES SUPREME COURT. The Statute of ‘Limitations—Importo/at te y fusarance Companies—Centestiv.g ter the ‘The Supreme and Stute Oewrts Agree As To the Legitimacy avd Tuite of the Heir of - Jenale Do Lux, ef Néw York. Wasnin@ron, D. C., Dec. 18, 1871. No, 16. Semmes vs, The City Fire Insurance C7m- pany of Hariford.—Error to the Circuit Court for Oonnectiout.—This was an action on 4 policy of 1n- @urance tssued upon the plaintia’s property in Mis- giestppl, and the defence was that the action ‘was oarrea vy a provision of the policy ecause not commenced within twelve montis Wom the date of the loss, The Vourt — that the contract was suspended during the ut revived from and after the prociamation of 13, 1866, ana that being trom that cate in full and the suit pot having becn brought within time prescribed by the contract in the policy, ough there Was no obstacle in the the pro- ‘of the poucy wag abar und the judgment for the company. This Court held that the lim- being by coi hed = ago bring ui Pend it impossible for the plain: ring jon ‘whinin the year ‘supulaved, the Court cannot now ix anotuer date fur periormance, The action could mot be commenced within one year from the * @ate of the joss by reason of the existence of the war, and the year having expired the patties are mow leit tc tne law. The statute of liniitations of Connecticut provides a limitation of six years in puch actions, and Ii the suit is brought within that jod tla mamtainabie. On tis ground and with. < reviewing the principle of the decision below, ‘the judgment ts reve! anda new tral ordered. air. Justice Miller delivered the opinion, The effect of tois decision is to discriminate be- een limitations fixed vy statule and imitations jxed by contract, in tne application o1 the rulo of Pending disabilities imposed by the war, tue Jormer subject to the rule and leaving later as thouga it bad not existed and the rights tmvoived to ve determined by the local statutes, No. 37. Aonadnock et al. vs, The United States.— Appeal ‘rom the Disirict Court of Massachusetts,— Fhis was a distribution on a prize, and the decree below was that the captured ship, the Syren, fell to the United States on the capture of Charleston, here she was lying in port, but that the steamer Gladiolus, baving rendered valuavle salvage ser- yloes in saving ihe Syren from destruction by fre get to ber by the enemy when she was Bbandoned, was entitied to one-third of the is of the prize as salvage. No ic vessel Of ihe United States was adjudged to enutied to any share in the distribution. The cersand crew of we Monadnock and others it the case here, where the decree below is ‘@Mivmed, the Court holding that in the absenve of statutory provision {or cases of the joint capture the army and navy the captures in such cases tnure exclusively to the United States. This is the Suling in Engiaid, it 1s said, where such captures @re beid not to be within the prize acts, and where ae provided tor by statutes passed especially for purpose. Air, Justice Swayne delivered tne opinion. Bo, 2%. Conjelle et al, vs, Ferrie and Curtts, Administrators—Appeal from the Southern Dis- arict of New York.—The appellants are the admin- istrators of one Jennie De Lux,. a woman of French extraction, who died intestate in the oity of Sew Yorx some years ago, leaving a large personal Satate. Ferrie was the son of the deceased, and @ full hearing he was appointed administrator the Surrogate of New York. The ap- is, alleging Ferrie’s illegitimacy, took tne up t the higher court of the State and nally to the Court of Appeals, wnere the decision of the Surrogate was affirmed, This action, lnvoly- the same question, was then brought and the of the State courts was pleaded in Bar to the proceeding. ‘Lhe Court overruled the gad directed the defendants to answer; but on the hearing on the merits the decision of ine courts was affirmed. The cause was then here, where the aecree 1s alfirined withoutan examination of the merits, the Court bolding that the Gecision of the State Court was conclusive of tne and that the plea in bar should have been ‘ained velow and the bill there dismissed. This ecision 1s based upon the theory that the Judgment efs court of concurreut jurisdiction directly upon af OF a8 Cvidence Conclu- vetween the same parties on the same matter tly in question in another court, Mr. Justice Pavadeaveres ‘te Opinion. The Chief Justice, nav- img been of counsel for Ferrie, did not participate in the wecision of the case, Bo. 14 Hall and Bwisiana et, ai vs, Allen, 43 signee—Appeal from the Circult Court for Missouri, — ‘This appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, She Court holding that the action of the Court below was in the exorcise of 1t8 superintending or revising qeietctice, and that Lo appeal lies in such & case, Ohief Justice announced the opinion, Bo. 140. Borland vs, Boyce—Appeul, from the Circuit Court of the Southern district of New York.— Motion to dismiss denied. The order was an- @ounced by the Umief Justice. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. The Great Sugar Case Again. Before Judge Biatchiord, The United siates vs, Weld & Co,—The defend- ents, large importers of sugar, doing business In ‘thus city and Buston, are proceeded against for the Fecovery of $400,000, alleged to be due on their im- gereations of sugar and the payment of the Custom juues On Which—to the amount set forti—it ig also @lieged they evaded by bribing the Custom House @ficers. ‘The case was previously on trial for eral fies and fully reported in the HakaLp, but the disagreed the case ny Np comes on for a new SUPREME COUAT—SPECIAL TERM. 4 Cerious Suit and Cariows Complication of Counter Charges, Before Jadge Barnard, John Spicer vs. George Spicer.—This is a suit Brought by nephew against his uncle on bis own ‘ebalf ana tne uncle's wife. 1t appears that Jono Bpicer, deceased, had property in this city in his own name, aud, peing about (o die, told his wife he ‘Would make provision for her. This 1s a part of ‘me plainuf’s story, and the story goes on tosay ‘that the defendant, a brother of Joun, heard of this Wnteption of tho latter, and told him if he Jelt his BProperty \ bw wife it Would go for tne Denent of a second husband, and induced hun to wansier the ty to ium. The suit is brought to annui is conveyance, The story on the other side is that an bever had any property, but that George, who accumulated lJarge wealtl in the real estate Dasiness, transierred Dis property to nis brother Jonn, Ob account ol lis own wife being & lunatic nd coniived in the Kioomingdaie Asylam, where he has been for the past tweuty years, such trans- Ser beimg made in order to give Valid tile to pur- @hasers, it 1s also further ali that the woman ming t be John’s wife was uot Lis legal wife, is denied on the other side, she claiming that Was warried to him by the pals on a HH Gone, In opposition to this the red of mar- flages periormed by we clergyman named was roduced, bot contaiued no euch entry. The al- d wile accounts for the omission by that St Was Omitted at their special request. But t ali the complication. It is further alleged on ali of Lhe defence that Whon this women married — i she did merry Lim, that she bad a hus- d living, This statement is combated by tue ruon that wheu she married this first husband bad & wile living, and therefore that the ma! ‘was void. Aji day yesterday Was cousumed in hear- ing the evidence, ana it prouiises to occupy two or Uaree days ionger, COURT GF OVER AND TERMINER. Ao All Day’s Trial, and Acquitted. Before Jucge Ingraham. This Court met at eleven A. M, yesterday, the eourt room, as usual, veing densely crowaod. CHARGE OF RECRIVING STOLEN GooDs, ‘The trial of John Broobsky waa resumed, the charge against him beimg receiving about $1,500 of stolen g00ds from Wiliam H. Moses, @ clerk in the employ of Evans, Gardner & Co. The defonce is that he re- ceived a shaw) and thirteen yards of atlk, Which were foand iu Dis possession, Lut that be paid Moses their ful) value, (be iaiter represenung i as being am the auction business. Tne case was hotly con- tented, Assiviant Disirict Attorney Sullivan laboring sealously to con nt te srgonet sae ie stony gh Wowsog maxi, ‘and eloquent defen AL fou 5 Me alter a bret E rq el dndge, the case was l — the Jury “brougut ine Ferdict of SUPREME COURT~CHAMBESS. to York Over. Betore Judge Cardozo, Wamerding @ al. vs. N. Hill Fowler,~The (PAOLAD OF) PBCHOYCOTR Abd ilo eclepdams & lawyer snd ex-Corporation attorney. ‘yey clam thas the latter improperly obteine”, trom them ge wait was wroug? 4-19 recover 14, 1800, denen tee motion to a0 4 anerwards granted an order to show cause Why ® | Tenearing should not be bad. On tat order the” souom came up in this Seve heen en and fgnet, tas, mote, me ena ggitdered mr. Fowler wo pay 7, Decisions. @ Judge Vardoso, Mitchell v8. T winger,—Motion granted. Roach v8. pyr ois._Same, WlsOM 49, Weeks et al.—Same. In © 4 Mater Of the Petition af B. Aaronson to "4 Assessmacnt.— Same, ‘ison et at, va, Kerr. Judgment for platntia. Hogman v. eo al. jament grant Allen et al, vs; Jardini,—Mouon granted. we Insurance Company,— Voi pay Ores gn payment ‘of rns. jon Aer iett os Haymond.—injancuon should be dis- Downs v8, Diowinson et al.—Memoranda for coun- otane G Merwin us, P. @. Merwin,—Same. ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES IN THE SUPES‘OA COURT FOR 1872. The following assignment of Judges of we Superior Court ‘or 1872 was made yesterday:— —! |, Freeaman, is. Barbour, Freedman, Sedgwick, Juse—"Moncll Gurus, Bedgw ber—MoUunD, Freedman, Curtis, November—Barbour, Monell, Freedman. eilcepel Curtis, igwick. January—Barbour, June—Freedman, bruary—Monell. larci gwick. Novemver—, nD. Apriui—McoCunn, rt May—Curtis, Part First. Part Second, January —Curtis, January—Monell. February—Freedman. February—Sedgwick. March—Barbour. Maroh—McOunn, April—Monell, . Apri—Curtis, May—Se ick, May—Freed. June—Movunn. June—Barbonr, ber—Barbour, October—Monell, jovember—Curtia, Novem! mber—Freed man, December—McOunn, OHAMBERS IN VACATION, Freedman—From Monday, July 1, to Tuesday, July 16, inclasive. lonell—From Wednesday, July 19, to Thursday, Wiroour-strom Friday, August % to Satard a Mecoan Brom “at dite ast 27, ladies fcconn—! londay, A’ September 8, inclusive. Shean * Y nok—From Wi jay, September 4 to unas utes Bitaape ‘beceumaies 2, 10 Jurtie— From Frid: r Satara: October 6, inclusive.” re @ TERMS IN VACATION. ENERAL Thursday, August 1—Barbour and Monell. ' Tuesday, September &—McCunn and Seagwick. ‘SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TER¥. Decisions. By Judge Freedman, Louis Chambourt et al. vs, James Cagney.—Motion granted so far as to require plaintif to furnish list of items, John R, Caldwell vs, The Hotchkiss Brick Maohine Company.—Motion denied, with $10 costs to abide the event. Cecil B. Rouse et al. vs. The Williamsburg Fire In- suranoe Company.—Motion denied. Thomas Braser vs, Sarah Braser.—Defendant’s Motion for further alimony and counsel fee dented. Report of referee confirmed and judgment of di- vorce granted. oo Brown et al. vs, Catharine Dtetre.—Order George W. Tressper et al. vs, Same,—Same, John M. Connell vs, Same,—Same, Thomas B, Kerr et ai, vs, John Davis,—Reference granted, Rovert & Taylor et at. vs. Francis P. Luqueer et al.—See opinion. Jonn C, Carpenter vs. Terence D. Carpenter.— See decision. Francis B. Paine vs, R, Robert Oodling et al.— Motion granted upon payment of int! costs in the judgment as by the Clerk, with the exoep- tion, nowever, of any allowance included there and the referee’s fees subsequent to judgment, ai as 2 for 0) this motion. ‘ or jsaac ee ee J ur. Albert Bristol et ae’ vs, S, Frank,—Settied as amended by me, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—PART L. The St. Cloud Hotel in Court—Alleged Fraud- ulent Misrepresentations. Before Judge Joseph F. Daly and a Jury. John H. Moore vs, T. B, Rand et al.—This was an action brought by the plaintiff against Thomas B. Rand and George W. Rand under the following cir- cumstances:—About the 17th of December, 1869, the plaintiff’ and bis partner, a Mr. Holly, were proprie- tors of the St, Cloud Hotel, corner of Broadway and Forty-secona street, having purchased from Mr, Dell P. Peters, who ran the hovel for time previously, The defendants in case were at that ume residents of Boston, where they carried on the Other hotels. Various negotlats pad lace ons between Mr. Moore and the defendants in the sum- was finally entered into on the 17th of Septe the plaioud, as aefendanis allege, stating that thd hore] had made about 000 to 00,000 a Fear profit. After the dotesdents aces in Socapaned or = one ote mortage ~ month 7 a that the were e rate of $10,000 a year, an They now bring this acuion fraud and mis- representation ‘whe plaint The defendants haa the affirmative of the issues, ana tut de- nied all the material allegations of the ndants, Case still on. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TE3M. Decisions, By Judge Larremore, Crandan vs. Ldwkins.—Mouon granted, Costs to abide event, Same vs, Same.—Motion to amend complaint granted, on payment of costs, with leave to defend- ant to answer or domur if so advised, Same vs, Same.—Order settiod. Liebman vs. Stetnmetz.—Motion granted, Waller vs. Thomas.—See opinion, Koch ts, Kooh.—Divorce granted, Plaintiff to have custody of children and $50 per month as all- mony. In the Matter of the A) nor.-etion uted. pplication of Patrick Con- Butlerworth vs, Cravaford,—Judgme remit wine Coa. sy a —Judgment on It jopkina vs. ‘and,—Motion granted. Equitable Life Assurance Socivt; fi States vs, Hail.—Reference ordered.” Be Unttet by —— Loew. Blesson vs, Giass.—Motion for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, granted. COMMON PLEAS~GEWERAL TERM—DECEMBER TERM, Decisions. By Judges Daly, Robinson and Loew. Erwin vs, Coleman.—Appeal dismissed, Goulet vs. Odenhevmer.—Judgment afirmed, Levy vs, MoCagll.—Same. Stepan vs, Schully.—Same. Sarsfeld vs, Flewher.—Motion to open default denied, bryant vs. Carey.—Appeal dismissed, Biecoker vs, Faishee,--JSudgment reversed. Connolly vs, Byrnes. —Judgment afirmed. Cro Same we vs. Kennedy, Kelblsh vs, Pathenheimer.—Same, Pn] Executor, éc., vs. Lord,—Jadgment re- Ahearn et ai. 03. Daniels.—Same, Barker vs, Mott.—Same, Foley vs, Virtue.—Order settled, Jones v3, Lovran.—Judgiment reversed, Pinan Sat vine a rk, —Disimi wi “Fir Lees pose Sot Reine he vs, a fates Ext be ely Judgment afirmed, za Michaels vs, Wolfe,—Same. Shipman vs, Melsticker.—New trial ordered. ‘ a vs, The Mayor, @c,—RKeargument or- ‘Simmons vs, De Sage,—Judgment rev Polock vs, LAlienthal.—Decision reserved, Herzberg vs, Henners,—Judgment affirmed, Whitmer vs. Flecke.—Judgment reversed, Gross vs, Sootl.—Same, Clarke ve. Donovan. —Ju ent aMrmed, Pyler es, MoKenste—siagment ut mnt Howe! vs. Tay samen ee atkinson v8, peal Rohe vs, Li a oe sarees, 4, judgment reverse: Rice ve, Beude,—Judgment aMrmed. Levy vs. Beriiner,—Juagment adirmed, Kempner vs. Sink.—Same. MoGowan ve. Murray,—senn Crowe vs. Reilly.—Same. Heink vs. Ohristianson.—Reduced to $30 and efirmed Blakely vs. Wiswall,—Jadgment aMrmed, : MARINE COURT—PART 3. Decisions, By Juage Joacaimeen, Carter v4 Guman—Aguen Wt OAT, Tre by lo Verdict and judgment for pling for $250 ran and $26 allowance. tokens Beaty ve, MoGrath.—action for.wages. Trial by Conrt, Judgment for plainus $120 and costs and $26 allowance. Reeve vs, Hubvdard.—Acuon for damages by building, Trial by court. Decision reserved. Lewts vs, Yosuez,—Action for damages for false risonment and malicious prosecution. ‘Trial io Complaint dismissed, Pith costs and $25 ce. Jewell vs, Prouty,—action for salary. Trial b; jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff $549 an: costs and $25 allowance. Rvan vs, Marsh.—Action for value of an India sh: Trial by Court, Judgment oi discretion for coory ess Langley, two eases)—Motion. to. open ry vs. Lang WO 0a8eS).— judgments. ‘Reargument ordered tor 21st inst, Shapter vs, Roverts,—Action on note. Defence, mi lication, Trial by Court. Judgment for for $190 65 and costs and $25 allowance. oades v8, Philtips—Action for bulance of ac- the Court, Judgment for plaintiff tor vg, Gerson.—Action for balance of rent, the Court, Judgment for plaintiff for $329 33 an: Alvier vs, Nye—Action for work and labor. By the Court. Jadgment forthe pratt for $112 63 and costs and $25 allowance, Goetze v8, Moreu,— Action for money collected. By the Oourt. Ca aed for the plaintii! for $226 an costs and $25 al wance, Darling vs, Heid,—By the Court. Judgment for plaintiff for $83 60 and Costs and $12 allowance, Haas vs. Batzel.—Action for money. By the Court, Judgment jor plaintif tor $300 11 and costs wear ve Comma ot for plaintif for $346 62 and costs and $25 allowance, COURT CF GENERAL SESSIONS. Larcenies and Burgiaries. Before Recorder Hackett. ‘The firet case disposed of yesterday was an in- @ictment against Charies L. Wallace, @ clerk 1m ‘TiMany’s jewelry store, He was charged with steal- ing, on the 16th inst, aring and two vest chains worth $400, and pleaded guilty to an attempt at grand larceny. His Honor in alsposing of Wallace said that he was convinced from what he had learned of the respectaple antecedents of the accused that it was his first offence, aad, conse- quently, the punishment was limited to one year’s iprisonment in the Penitentiary, james Smith, joinuly indictea with two others for burglariously entering the premises of Clark & Sea- Gence to connect the ‘defendant With tho other kere ichael Cur! and Gregory Crane, chi with assaulting Charles Osgood on the 9th of fife monte at a saloon in West Twenty-ffth street, when he Jost a silver watch, Were tried and found not guilty, vhe evidence failing utierly, to show that they were implicated in the assault, Joseph Olden, who was indicted for feloniously as- sauiting Jonn Hegenisoh, on the 18th of November, by cutting him on the shoulder with a a knife, ed guilty to an assault with intent tq do bodily Barm. - Sentence was postponed till Wednesday. Herman Smith was tried and convicted of an as gault and vatiery upon @ lite girl named Mary Schreier and seni to the Penitentiary for one year. COURT CALENDARS—THIS DAY. SUPREME CounT—CHaMBERS—Held by Juage Car- 40z0.—Nos. 60; call 64, SuPEEMB CouRT—SPECIAL TeRM—Held by Judge Barnard,—Nos. 93, 154, 204, 230, 238, Burgems UovurT—Oracuit—Part 1—Held by Jadge Van Brunt.—Nos. 261, 210, 217, 395, 691, 22354, 621, 635, 657, 03, 831, 651, 601, 689, T31, "788, ‘735, 135%, '737., Part 2—Held ‘by Juage Brady.—Nos. "1474, 642," 646, 704, 378, 438, 420, £28, 483, 482)6, 490, 433," 440, 442," 24, “08. 278, Juuge MoneMooNos, 685, 1615, 167, BY, 1201, "1025, a lonell.—Nos. 3 22 josh ter, 895, 227, Sate alr, 1137, 630, 73%” ; Court OF COMMON PLEAS—TRIAL TKRM—Part 1— Held by Judge J. F. Daly.—Nos, 845, 1027, 727, 946, 947, 1801, 875, 1028, 68, 102. 614, 408, 467 34, 1136, 772, Te eee Hes ask oe ga oon MARINE COUsT—TEuL ten —Part 1—Held by Judge Alker.— Nos. #186, 1460, 6320) 1480, 7605, 6144 8157, 6728, 6851, 1170, 7468, 7484, 7494, 1608, 7307, 6112 soi 2—Hela “Jnage ‘Shea.—Nos. 7330, 7466, 7629, 7166, 7215, 7364, 730, 7509, 7646, 7650, 7551, 3. Part 3—Held by Judge Joachimsen.—Nos, 7562, 7 6836, 7033, 7498, 1913, 7914, 8336, 8337. BROOKLYN COURTS. SUPREME COURT—SPECIAL TERM. The Proposed Storage Reservoir. Before Judge Pratt. The People ex rel. Gideon S, Nichols et al. vs, the City of Brooklyn,—The plaintifs, who are owners of property} proposed ‘to be taken for a storage reser+ volr in Hempstead, and who are not satisfed with the awards of the commissioners of estimates, &c., applied for an act of 1 to review the pro- ceed! taken by thecommissioners. Judge Pratt granted the application and made tne writ returo- able on the first Monday of February. Decisions. Juliet Renwick vs, Frederick W. Renwick.—Mo- tion for allowance 1s so far granted that defendant may pay in ten days to plaintif’s attorney a sum equal to the disbursements herein to date, inciud- ing fees of reference. The balance of sald motion oy, await coming in of report. feyman Block vs. Francis Schmidt, &c.—Motion to amend granted on platatif stipulating to take no costs except for disbursements to daic, John L, Brownell, éc., vs, Star Metal ou éc.—Motion for leave to sell real estate of defend ant denied, with $10 costs, The People ex rel. Joseph Phelps vs. Patriok M. Tuily.—attachment dismissed without costs to either party. Plaintiff may have an order to ex- amine books referred to at ofMice of defendant and to further examine defendant before referee, Confirmations, &c. Judge Pratt yesterday confirmed the report of the commissioners on the opening of Sackett street, from Fourth avenue to Nevins street, and granted an order confirming the report of the commission- ers in the matter of the application of tne Smith- town and Port Jefferson Ratiroad Com} to aqqaire title to lands 1n Queens county, ir. O. H, 8. Wililams, on the application of Mr. G. V.: Brown, has been ig referee to take testl- mony in reference to the disposal of some of the African Civilization Society’s real estate, CITY COURT—CRIMINAL BRANCH. The Election Frauds—Vonviction of John Kenny, the Bill Poster, for “Kepeating”— Sentence De‘erred. Before Judge McCue. Jobn Kenny, the Brooklyn bill poster, was tried yesterday for ‘repeating’ at the lastelection. The charge was that Kenny voted in the First and Fitth districts of the Fourth ward. He was defended by Mr. P. Keady and District Attorney Morris, and Coloned Davis appeared for the people. Mr, Keauy moved for & postponement of the trial on the ground Of the absence of material witnesses, but Judge McCue denied the motion and the trial proceeded. Considerabie dificulty was experienced in empan- elling @ jury, but one was finally obtained, aud Colonel Davis opened the case for the people. The first witness was Mr. E. J. Whitlock, Prest- dent of the Board of Education, who was one of tho inspectors tn the Fifth district. He identfed ‘the poll hist, and stated that he saw the delendant and one Eugene White at the polis two or three times, but did not recollect that he saw Kenny vote. Henry D. Peck, another inspector, swore that he saw Kenny vote there and saw his vote deposited; he (Kenny) gave his residence as 10 Nassau street, nd the man who voted beore him gave the same residence. Policeman Chambers saw Kenny put two bailots on the boxes, but whether they were put in or pot Witness could not teil. George Van Mater, poli clerk im the Fifth district, stated that Kenny voted there and gavo his name as James Kenny. The defendant admitted, before a Walsh, that he Bad voted in the Firat dis- lc Joseph Reeve, & prominent republican politician, testified that Kenny voted in the First district and gave his residence as 46 Nassau street. , STERRING 4 YOUNG VOTER. Eugene B, White, a young man who was lately in the employ of Kenny & Murphy, testified that ne and the defendant voved in the it distriot of the Fourth wurd; wituess went with him to the Second and Fifth districts, and believeds thas Kenny vowed to the latter district; Kenny asked bim to vote from bis house, No. 26 Nassau street; witness spoke to bim about the trouble and he said be would get nm (White) out of it should there be any; defendant gave him the vallow to vote. “The question was asked young Whive how he came to testify before the magistrate that he voved only once on that day, ITE! me On nis exami- 1 MUST DO IT TO BAVE MYSELP; when J came there he posteu me as to what I should Veatily; he said | looked nervous, and took me over gpd We had @ drink; on pavuraay alter the ection Kenny took me over to Newark, but J did not go away then; on the next Sunday he gave me a noe to @ person in Wilkesbarre and $7 in money; I went anv my father came after me and brought me back to Brooklyn; Kenny saw me yeste god asked me if I was subpcensed on his case, and Fn he said, “Then if you come wy, you must tesuly the same 8 you did at Waish’s Court; 1 will teatify on your case, and it will be all +; he showed me @ creck for $160 before election day; when he wanted me to vote ou election day eo sal that be would protect me. A PENITENT YOONG MAM, 8066, 8328, 8332, 8333, 8334, 7823, On the cros#-exam! witness said that he knew there was an indiot tb against for “‘re- "He came there at the request of the Dis. Ea a os te Poareees ther jae onih, 8. $als hag a. He at toa juror Kenn: nt Beaten tance ct election day. DBFENCB. ‘The defence was Filth custeict by reason it astric’ Murphy. who bas since cleared o' big pame. A Dumber of Witnesses Were examined, Who swore that they Were at the polls in the Fittit district during election day and that Kenny did rot vote there. yunsel offered to show that one Pat te ont aliam Teach, an inspector in the Fifth district, evo deter uant, Kenny, was examined and denied jen watt voted a Stnio’ save the First district of the rth Wi District Attorney Morris addresaed the jury on benalt of the pi ‘and after @ iair olilarge by Judge McCue they retired to their room. They re- Mainea out about ten minutes, at the expiration of ‘which time they returned with a verdict of ‘‘gullty.”” Sentence was postponed until Wednesday. BROOKLYN COURT CALENDAR. Count—Part 1.—Nos, 106, 216, 236, i ei ete 200, 33h, 804 Pera Griminal was COURT OF APPEALS CALENDAR. rae tRe OME of das we igh a ‘The follow: e Cour peal s calen- @ar for Deceutber 19:—Nos. 407, 472, 460, 478, 470, 879, 463, 430. TOMBS POLIWE COURT. » COUNTERFEITING. Trial of Miner, the Alleged Counterfeiter. Cross-Examination of Colonel Whitley, Chief of the Sceret Service Division, The trial of Joshua D. Miner, who is indicted for having counterfelt plates and counterfeit money in bis possession, was resumed yesterday in the United states Circuit Court before Juage Benedict. The Proceedings continue to attact a considerable smount of interest. Mr. Prerrepont, Mr. Purdy and Mr. De Kay ap- peared on behalf of the government to conduct the Prosecution, and Mr. Fullerton and Mr, Benjamin K. Pheips were counsel for the defendant, Miner. CONTINUATION OF THB CROSS-BXAMINATON OF COLO- ‘NEL WHITLEY, CHISF OF THE SECRET SERVICE, Colonel Whitley was further cross-examined by Mr. Fullerton. The witness said:—1 made no entries Of my conversations with Miner; I gave the check of the trank to Beatty, who was then working for the government; he was in my empioy;1 do not know where Beatty. is—I have heard that he ia working 1n this case for Miner; Fitzpatrick 191n New Orleans ; De Lomo 4s gone to Florida, where he was summon- ed as a witness; Beatty went for the trunk in a short time, afew minutes after I got the check for it; my tmpression is that Beatty was. not present at any conversation between we and Miner up at Miner's BRS He RYH stable; on the night of the 25th of Octo- How a Young Man Didn’t Get $76 of An- | SRG BERR, WEES |, DECHADE, -.60:, . MA, other Mi Monoy—Mr. Boutwoll Locked pete ust or best sad oats raged Up on Charge of Embezzlement—Two Beir) if me Lardy Juvenile Thieves. A young man, giving his name as Henry Simon, wastaken before Judge Hogan, at the Tombs Po. Moe Court, yesterday morning, on @ charge of for- gery, preferred by EB. K. Wright, paymg teller of the National Park Bank, It seems that Simon presented himself at the paying tell¢r’s window of the above mentioned bank yesterday morning with a draft dated Nashville, December 13, 1871, and drawn by R. J. Jameson, cashier of the Firat National Bank of Nashville, Tenn., on the National Park Bank of this city, to the order of H. A. Hon- ginton, for the sum of $74 The draft bore the fol- lowing endorsements;— Pay Jno. M. Davies & Uo, or order. INO. M. DaviEs & Co, hir. Wright, the teller, carefully examined the draft and then the endorsements, and soon came to the conclusion that that of John M. Davies & Co, wasa forgery. Requesting Mr. Simon to walt a moment uatil he could step into an inner room and examme the paper more closely, he (Mr. Wright) Went out and cailed an Officer, ito whose care be confided the youth. A messenger was then despatched to No, 384 Broadway, where Mr. Thomas M. Gopseil, of the frm whose signature had been forged, wus found, and together tue partics re; to the Kgypttan monument im Centre street. Mr. Gopsell swore positively that te endorsement was a forgery, and not a very good one at that, and as Mr. Simon could not pro- cure the necessary bail—-$3,000—he was locked up to answer at the Court of General Sessions, YOUTHFUL THIEVES, Frank Kennedy, a lad seveateen years of age and who hails from the City of Churches, and George Edwards, eighteen Hoe old, @ native and rest- dent of Oincinnal Obio, stole a piece cf cloth, vatuea at $60, trom the premises of Joseph Oppenheimer & Louis Swartz, Nos, 8 and 10 White street. They made their escape with the property,and woula in ail probability to-day have been in the quiet ment of the proceeds of its gale bad not Oiicer rig, of the Fourth precinct, digcovered them last night passing through tne street with It under the arm Of one of them. ‘The oMicer took them 1n, of course, and yesterday Judge Hogan locked them up in defauit ot bail. BOUTWRLL'S FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY. H, A. HONGINTON. the saloon, fon. . Boutwell’s returns for moneys taken ‘in have, during the past month or six weeks, been considerably smaller than ms employers wougat they snould be, aud for the pur- of ‘taining whether or not he was “Knock- Ing down’? one of the waiters in the saloon was in- structed to note in a book the amount and number of each check he gave out. ‘his was carefully done, and, in the moruing, when Moses made his return of cash, it was compared with the mount ropresented by the checks given out id found to be from three to four dollars ort. For instance, on the 80th day of November Boutwell returned $10 53, and the checks given out by the waiver for $13 60. For the purpose of bemg thoroughly conviuced that Boutwell was stealing, this system of comparing his returus with the checks given out was continued from November 80 down to yesterday, and the retura falling short im every case from two to four dollars Messrs. Michell & Von Bronnor concluded that they could not very well afford to be robbed in that manner aid 80 secured Mr. Boutwell’s arrest. Judge Hogan heard the case yesterday afternoon and concluded to allow the brother to the Seoretary (so called) to choose between two alternatives—tar- nish $1,600 bail or stand committed until such time as he should be wanted at the Court of General Sea sions. Mr. Boutweil selected the latter. A POLITICAL ROW. he O’Brieu-Bradley Factions in a Deadly Eucountcr. On Saturday night Jast Patrick Nash, of 309 Tenth avenue, & strong advocate of John J. Brad- Jey, and John Murray, of 601 West Twenty-seventh street, leader of a gang of O’Brien men, met in Mat- thew Burns’ saloon, at the corner of Twenty-sixth street and Ninth avenue, when @ dispute arose mong the two factions. As they prozressed in thetr peculiar style of argument hot words ensued, whicn finally terminated in a free Oght, which wound up by Nash being fearfully beaten about the head and body. They wero finally separated, the Nash faction leaving the place threatening ‘to get square” with them. Morray’s friends laughed at them, and remainea in the saloon until a late hour celebrating their victory over hot whiskeys. Murray, Dot feeling satisfied with the drubbing he nad given Nash, lay in wait, in company with five companions, at the corner of Twenty-seventh street Snd Tentn avenue. About miduignt they were re- ‘warded for their trouble by seeing their man com- ing up Tenth avenue alone. Murray no sooner saw bim toan he suddenly pounced upon him anu deals him @ severe blow in the face with his ist, Dearly felling him to the pavement. At this unexpected sajutatiun Nash drew back, pulied his reyolver and fred in the crowd, the bail huiting Murray on the left ear, cuttiug it nearly off. Before he had time to fire the second shot the mob rushed Upoa him, knocked him upon the pavement and woud have killed him but for the timely arrival of Omoer Hart, of the Sixteenth precinct, who was Qttracted to the spot by the firing, and arrested Nash and wok his revoiver from him. Upon being conveyed belore Gaptain Killalea he was sent down stairs and locked up for the balance of the night, Yesterday morning he wae arraigned before Justice Cox at Jeiferson Market, when Mur- Fay appeared and stated he did not ‘wish to prefer any complaiat. The Justice insisted upon it, and Nash was committed for examination, BROOKLYN COMMON COUNCIL. At the regular weekly meeting of the Brooklyn Common Council yesterday, Alderman Bergen pre- siding, the veto of the Mayor on the resolution to lay Scrimshaw pavement on Rogers avenue was received, A communtcation from Coroner Whitehill asking for an ordinance requiring a pevaity to be attached to the sale of kerosene oil of lesa than 145 degrees Fahren- heit was referred to the Law Vommitiee, It was re- ported by the Law Committee that the compilation of the charter of the city was now satisiactoriiy completed, and the recommendation of the same committee that William G. Bishop be paid $1,000 tor services rendered was adopted. The vond of samuel Warren as Collector of Taxes was accepted, Charles B, Wiley, chief. clerk of the Street Commissioner, ‘was voted $250 for extra services. ‘Ihe resolution to employ five additional clerks in sbe Tax Voliec- tor’s offive antl February 1 was passed over the Mayor's veto by 16102, The Street Commissioner ‘Was ordered to take charge of the Gumping dock foot of Norva Fiitn street, ‘A JERSEY HORROR. At a place called Liberty Oorner, in Somerset county, a few days ago, a frightfal ocourrence took piace, It seems that @ fire broke out io a house Occupied by a German named William Beast, The fire alarmed the family about three o'clock in the morn There were jt onilaren in the house jes wife, ‘The poor do Dot know who applied for it, but I think searched Miner and did not find the package of $1,600 on him; I think I put my hands 1n bis pocket; Itnink Applegate helped me to search him. Q. When you found that he had not the money on him what did you do? A. I told my men to go back to the place where the arrest took place an« try and find the money; it was found and it was wet and dirty. Q. Will you be kind enough to produce that money and exhibit it to the jury? <A. I have not got it, Q You have not gow? A, No. Q. Where is it? A. [have used it, Q Used that money? A. Yes. Q And itis not to be produced here? a. Ihave the last of the money; I used the money bécause it was mine and I hada right to it; all the money I gave Cole was goud money; it was noi counterfeit; there was @ warrant issued against Miner that night; I think it was got from John 1. Davenport; I spoke to Mr. Davenport avout 1h Q. Why did you select Nettleship to make the am- davit in place of Kennock, who received the package from Shoveer? A. I can’t give any substantial reason for 1t. ‘The warrant dated 17th of October, 1871, was here produced, It was shown to witness, who said, “| Cannot say that that 18 the warrant; out it strikes me It dayne ity? Yoh heard of any arrangement, definite or in mpeg erp that warrant was issued, between Cole and Miner avout plates? a, “Yes, I told Cole I Would go to the District Attorney and make ar- Fangement to let htm go, provided he would “turn up” the man from whom he received “the stafty” if the District Attorney consented vo it; I consented to let him go on that arrangement. Q. On what condition? A. If he wontd tell me of the man from whom he received the stutt. Dia pears, you bis name? A, He did, Why did you not arrest Miner? Was tnere any dificulty in arresting him? A. No, sir; but tt re quired sufficient evidence to convict him; I did not Make & full arrangement with him that night, but he agreed that he would do wnat ne could towards te Q i) tale what? A. Towards effecting Miner's Q. Was there any dimonity apout that? A. The diticalty of getting suflicieut evidence to convict mh. : Q. Whatevidence? A. Cole said he received the money from Miner; 1 told him I wanted to catch Miner with “the atuq’’ right on him, and he pro- paibon tans he would do that—tnat he could arrange i. Q He promised to have Miner arrested witb “the stuf” upon nim: A. Yes, Q (Copy of the Aventng Telegram handed to wit- ness) Did you tell the reporter of the Zeieyram of ‘the capture of tue $20 plate? A. 2 gave the reporter some iniormation, Did you tell the reporter that an express wagon ‘was watched by your men.from the time it left a large brown stone bullding in this city until it got to the ferry, where the truck Was captured? A. 1 can’t what I did teil him, . Did you tell that to the reporter of the HERALD? A. I can’t say; I don’t remeusber. Q Will you swear that you did not give such in- formation? A.»I will no} Q And if you did give it, it was nottrue? A. Weil, } remember I promised Mioer to cover it up in the papers, and I may have given the story a litue different from what the reai iacts were. Q, Then you told an untruth? a, I would not call it an untravh, Q Ifyou wanted to cover it up, why did you give the newspapers any account at all? A. Weii, it would naturally leak out, Nearly all the men in my Ofiice saw the plates. Q,. But they would not have known where they came from if you had not toid them? A, No. ‘Then it would not have leaked out? A. They might have toid that I got the plates, @ But you gave an untrue account to the re- re’ A. I won't say that’ Q. Did you tell the reporter that these plates were captured from the express Wagon at the ferry? A. don’t remember. Q. Will you tell us what account you did give? A. 1 don’t know. Q Did you aiterwards see the account published as you gave it? A. No, sir, Did you not tel) the cashier of the Shoe and Leather Bank (Mr. Crane), immediately after ino capture of the $20 plate, in substance, that Mr. Beatty had had great troabie, incurred great ex- ge and showed gest Kin 8 i the capture of the an ‘ou tho e bank Ought to rew: un 7 4 Tae not remember that, ne Wiil you swear that you do not remember it? A. To the best of my knowledge I do not remember; Mr. Crane told me since that he had re ed Beatty; I advised Beatty not take the reward; did not ask hall of the reward from Beatty; | wrote a letter to the government for the pardon of Cole, so that he could used as @ witness on this case; before 1 went Into tue Secret Service I was in the pawnbroking business in Boston for about @ year; my license was Tevoked; there was some investigation tn reference a watch; there Was some Charge about it, but! forget what it was; I was not there at the time and 1 do not know anything about it, Q Did not the imapecior of pawn offices charge you with fraud in the transaction? A, There was some charge, but I forget what the charge was—tne Anapeotor Was constantly making charges of that ind Q. Was there nol a charge made against you of swindling a man out of his property in regard to an apotnecaty’s shop’ A. There was some charge’ of that kind, but I forget what it was; it was in refer. ence to a morigage, aud when the matter finally came before the court the Judge decided that I was on in the matter and the other party had to pay Q Were you ever indicted? A. Ido not know that 1 was; 1 bought and sold 4 good many watches; I dealt in jeweiry and diamonds; when | was a boy 1 worked in a restaurant; I cannot tell you how long I worked in the restaurant; I worked some time in Mr, Campbell's restaurant, fiteen or sixteen years ago, probably a few months, Q. Were you not discnarged from Mr. Cawpbell’s Testa it—sent @way irom his employment for stealing money irom him? A. No, sit, never; I worked In & restaurant in Cambridge, Mass,; I was in Kansas; there was no Charge brought st me there; 1 Was in the service of the Marshal there, and assisted in the capture of fugitive siaves; 1 was not charged with cruel treatment to the slaves; that was in the winter of 1859; I went out after that to Pike’s Peak; business was poor, aud I returned; was in New Orleans from 1869 to 1865; was steamboating aud buying produce; took u; sugar there and pain] large quantities of caus; went into General Buller’s service, aud was a detec- tive al New Orleans; was comuussioued as a major in the United States Army; served three months on the Opelousas Kailway; after tnat went into the reoruiting service; thel went into the service of a Party as detective in hunting up frauds; when ine war closed 1 took, by permission of Geueral Banks, @ quanuty of goous to Mobile. direct eXamination—I promised co Miner that T would not publish the facts ay they occurred tne newspapers, as 1 cousidered I should keep good faith with him; the warrant was neid over (rom the ‘17th of October to the 45th, in order that more con+ cluaive evidence could be nad against Miner—to take Lim in the act of nee the (teal; when | was going up to Miner with Bill Guroey, Gurney bad @ diamond pin in nis breast; he sald,’ “1 do not want Miner to see that pin,” when | saw Miner | tuld nim what Bill said; 1 nad not kaown Miner before that ume. ‘The Court here took a recess. OULONEL WHITLEY RECALLED, the Colunel Wuitley was recalled, ded, in reply to Mr, Fullerton, with Ratcliffe diamonds, that those diamoads had jad received irom @ TE TIMONY OF JOMIN SHORER. John Shorer, a stepson of Cole, testified to having seen Miner give Cole & package rene. his house in last October; he did not know its contents, but at: the suggestion uf Oole marked it; the mark ne Base RAN aa poe ie pci op hey" = on the paper peoduoes in dourt, stage 0} TOCee Journed to eleven orcloox this mooring. THAT BLACK FRIDAY SUIT. The Charge of Tampering with the Jury. Motion to Set Aside the Verdict—More Affidavits of the Jurore—Two of the Alleged Attempted Bribers Tell Their Story—-A Woman in the Case—Curious Combination of Conflicting Statements. Instead of being cleared up, increasing complica- tlons present themseives in the case of alleged tam- pering with the jury in the sult of J, U. Davis and others against Jim Fisk and Jay Gould and others, to recover losses said to have resulted on the memorable Black Friday from buying gold on the lavter’s orders, In the Supertor Court, Spectal Term, Judge Freedman on the bench, a motion yesterday Was made to set aside the verdiot—such verdict, aa 1s well known, being against the defendants, There wag a large gathering tn the’Court room, including,. besides most of the jurors in the case and their opposing counsel, Mr. Albert dtickney,. who appears for the plaintiffs, and Mr, David Dudley Field, representing the detendants, a number of: Prominent Wall street brokers interested in other simiar suits waiting prosecution against thesame parties, The proceedings opened witn reading am- davits by Mr. Field, who makes the motion. These affidavits, some of which are given below in fall, and the substance of thé rest, show up the curious complications of the case quite-as succinclly and pertinently as any, Darrative “possibly could, and we therefore let them {ell their own story. First in order was read the AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE B, SHARP. George B. Sharp, bemg duly sworn, deposes am foilows:— a Iwas on the jury in the above-entitled action, The retired avout tive. M. on Weineaduy, the 200 of "Novem ber, 1871. When the rst ballot was taken we stood mine for plaintiffs, two for defendants and one reserved (Mr Darla:s ‘which was afterward chauged for plaintiifs, Mr. Gibson, the foreman, who at tirst voted for defendants, Snail changed his vote and joined the otber ten for the plaintiffs, Mr. O'Brien, the twel!th juror, refused to ziclds and said, “If on can prove to me the videhosof Fisk And Gould ts wosth- T will yield,” or woras to that effect, The room was very cold. We were all uncomfortabie, aud anxious to away. Mr. Davis, in s hasty manner, said, “Dama you, believe you have been prpronehe:. a0 he rem paver afterward, “If be has been bribed in'a matter of ihe kind be eserves to be hanged, dain Lim” or words to that laid down for a ilitie while, but was obliged to move about to keep warm. ‘About (en o'clock of we went to the Court to get a copy of the minutes, Mr. O’Brien took thei, and with one oF two others sat over them for two or three bours, and, finall and balf-past one o'oluck P. M., yiel ny & WALTER GIBSON’S AFFIDAVIT. Walter Gibsou, being duly worn, says:—I was foreman the jury, Ht was about twilight when the jary went oat. On the liret ballot we took we stood one biank mou two for the defendants and vine for the plautif's, We cume in at F. M and stated we could not agree, and were sent out ‘and kept until teu o'clock the mest’ morning (Thanksgiv! Day), The night was cold and the room aot properly ‘we were obliged to exercise to keep warm, O'Brien, stood out all night, I did not agree 10 for the fs until did #0, about two the nextday. We were seat out about two o'clock, O'Brien his mind at about with him, Mr. Dav, one of the jurors, aad to either “We will bave you" or i i F f Several other jurors repeatediy said to Brien, Iieve you are bribe, ee belleve you , in your pookets,”” “You ought to have yeur clothes etripoed off you," and. such cxpressious, ‘The Indgnage was as foral— ble as it could be made, accompanied with oaths apd gestiow ons on the part of Mr, Davis AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES O'BRIEN. James O'Brien, in bis afldavit, says ecame in in the ovontng and told Yadge MeCuan, we could not agree w verdict, The jury retired again and stood out allo Fewained upon the defendants’ side during the mgh room was very cold. The members of the jury kept them- selves warm by taking exercise. There wus violent used by some members of the ie Something was about banging,” aad some 0. Jury accused me being bribed by the defendants. We went to fs morning, Several of the Jury, procured and brought foto Jur; jurors were readiog the — AERAL and Sun, The jury came in about ten o'slock and that they could uot agree, 1 said tu the Judge, ‘There ie nok auilicient evidence before me to bring in a verdiot for the: pluinti.” T understood the Judxe t “There dence.” The Judge then banded the but zt dence to us. ‘The jury thew consulted on other persons ieaving the room. read paris of the evi- dence. Hearing portions of the ‘evidence 1 concluded. to- ‘agree about ball-past one or two o'clock. Mr. Davis, one of the jury, was very violent towards me during the ing threatening gestures and using profane No ove ever spoke to me, contulted with mo or olfered to. drive me, or fn any way to influence my verdict, except the: words tn ihe jury room. DR. ALEXANDER KING'S AFFIDAVIT. Dr. Alexander King, being duly sworn, says:—I to the NEw YoRK HERALD, Sunday, December 187] count of the testimony of W. L. Davia, given betore Mr. Jus- ce MoCunp, in this case, 1 ting the Uribe him, aad I know tuat the interview with as for @ Very different purpose, as I will proceed to state, Sunday afternoon, mber being desirous whether suid Davis was and the said Davia there together, said Davie left as soon as he was discovered. Un the evening of same day I requested Mr. Chester O'Neil, who was in the same house with accompany me to the residence of the said Dai in Secoud avenue, for the purpose of ascertaining whethe wis bad ret wo to the house of said Davis, and, outside, to go im and see if Davis was tuere. lore went together to via? house and [ remained outside walle be entered. iy molive I had tn taxing these ‘sasiot mother of the sald young wai out whether. the sald Davis was occupying apartments with her. I know, one of the parties \n this ac Yon and bave no interests, at- reciy or insirectly, In the so-called gold JI H9De CHESTER O'NEILL'S AFFIDAVIT. steps was to and Sndin im which is reported {1 morning, Decsmber 10, ae ba sald Davis; my object in going to whether be was there or iad returned to the rooms 292 West ‘Twellth streot, where ho tad been that afternoon with woman meotioned in the foregoing ailidavit, and sn uasutged Name for the purpose of conceaimen read the foregoing aidavit ot King, and the samo te know three of the parties in jon and never bad the slightest idea of speaking to: not sua of the sult as during the time request of King, whose pi believe was to trace out onnestion of the sald Davis with the young woman in the affidavit of King above men- Yoned, and that was, I belirve, his guiy ve--certalply it was mine only. MR. FIZLD'S ARGUMENT, The roading of the above afMidavits being con- cluded Mr. Field pressed his motion to set aside the verdict in a speech of considerable lengih. The mato points of his argument wero, that the verdict should be set aside—first, on the ground that It was. produced by coercion by the vourt; second, there was some surt ot tampering with the jury, which prejudiced them inst the delendane: the sienographer’s notes of the evidence. marked by the plalotid’s ecccene were handed the jury against the protests o! counsel; and fourth, that the jury, or aome of them. Were coerced by violence in the jury room on the part of other jurors. OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION, Mr. STICKNEY submitted in op, tion to the mo tion the afidavits of Isaac 0. Davis and the other Plaiotids. These afidavits set forth that they aid hot have any communicavion, directly or indirectly, with the jurors; that no attempt was made with thelr knowledge or connivance to bribe any of them, tog of taytking'in the newspapers regarulie, We 0 sult, He also submitted an afidavit of bis own, denying the assertion of juror O'Brien that Judge McUunnd made use of the ex: “There is evi- dence.” Ho states rurther that none of the counsel eee a7 the stenographer’s nunutes béelug given FURTOER AFFIDAVITS, B. Sharp, one of the jurors, made an adil, tonal afiidavit that no threat was made against O’Brien ond that the 1 against him was with reference to bis ref the evidence, and that no violence was o1 to any Gy Frederick Philips made amidavit that nothing wap said pad bribes until alter the jury had taken their james Whitncy and William Veiser state in tl emidavits that = nothii said = or intimated § against «Brie, ey both, as weil as J. K. Davis, unite iu say- it nothing Was sald to O'Brien With the te CJ Ten oe judgment, and tint no one a p> in apy way toinfuence their veruict. followed ap Iie batch of aman vite i was and ing with's drawn out argament in opposition to. we taken the opposing counsel, . ae conoladed, the sadge touk te papers, (0 render an cariy