The New York Herald Newspaper, January 23, 1872, Page 8

THE CUSTOM UOUSE COMMITTEE, Leet on the Witness Stand for Seven Hours. His Own Account of What He Wanted and How He Got It. “That Letter of Grant’s” and An- other from Washburne to Come. Is a Guest Who Pays an “Hon- orary” Boarder ? The Profits of the Order Business. General z i The Custom House Committee met agiia yester- @ay morning at the Fitu Avenue Hotel, =~ After the usual budget of letiors had boen disposed @f Colonel G. K. Leet was called, and, having been ®worn, was examined at iength in regard to the de Aaiis of his general order and bonded warehouse Business, the pecuniary results of which were ag follows for the year 1871:—Expenses, not including @artage, $94,311 64; oartage, $51,305 90; re $209,936 68 The profi therefore, wore abou "358,000 & year, $12,000 ot bio was fi ied ‘ond She bonded warehouse and $46,000 from the general ir busines: ‘nis evidence was, of course, only : aot gtd + Py Peinston in regard to the means by which Colonel Leet obtained the business, Tne letter of recommendation froii Udneral Urant having been produced, was read, Itta as follows:— EXEOUTIVE MANSION, Wasnrnaron, D. C., March 9, 1889, M. B. GRINNELL:— DRAk SIR—-This will introduse to you Colonel 8, H. cay | who served under me from early in the war to the prose .| £, from the fail of Vicksburg forward as a atatt officer, js. a business man of uoquestioned integrity, His expe- ee before the war {its him for busiuess of almost fic He now proposes to resign from the army to engagi private life und L cueeriully commend him as possessing ihe qualtten necessary (o inspire contdence, Fours Colonel Leet was then examined as follows:— Q Did you threaten Mr. Grinnell or any one that ‘unless he gave you the business you would have him removed? A. No, sir; | nad no induence to get dum or any other officer removed, Q Was there any one interested with you in this business besides Mr. Bixby when you first went into it? A, No, sir. Q Was General Porter or General Babcock in- Verested im it? A. No, sir. Q Did you ever give elther of these gentic- men any money 1n consideration of vis business? A. No, sir. Q What about this mess? A. I did not belong to ‘any mess at the me I got this business, nor alter- ‘wards; 1 was living with my faitly;1 havo been married eight years; botn General Porter and Geue- al Babcock bad families also, and were living with them; they iived in the same house, at 108 G street; A lived for some time with them, not as a member ‘Of the family, but as a guost; ict me explain this Sung; s00n witer the war General Porter rented a » and had & mess, 80 that we might live more womicaliy and comfortably; that ouly lasted & W months; my family were not in Washington at that time; when | lived witu General Porter and ik I was ovly~a guest, but I insisted on pay- Part of the expenses. Then you were a sort of houorary boarder? A. suppose 80; 1 owned no part of tae furaiture ay noi responsible for the rent or expenses In an: 5 ifn eng Was not with them longer altogether a lew onthe 0R about Apri or , 1869, bryary, 197 ‘ Wl about Res crt sin a Q What did you contribute wh2n you were there? “A. About $40; cerlammly not more than $50; the rent ‘Bf the house was very low, and I paid one-third of Mt; tho rent was only about $40 a month, @ When this arrangement was made with Mr, Kero state definitely what ic wast A. 1 was to ve a certain guaranice and nall the protite over =r ae prolits were less than $10,000 I was to ve Q. How many stores wore occupied by Bixby @uring your contmaance with him? A. Two, Q. The same that you now gocupy ? A. No, sir; that arrangement continued until June, 1870; bixny Snto partnership with Mr. Stocking and Mr, Horto and engaged these stores at 371 Washingtod Btréer, Q. What share of the general order business was assigned to you then? A. We had the French line, the Williams & Guion, the Anchor line, and o«ier Nines of .transient steamers landing on the North ver; alter a while Air. Horton ‘got irightened aud ntndrew, , After a few questions in regard to the prices for storage, the witness was asked—Have you nob sometimes charged more than $1 storage? A, Yes, ‘we have charged as iigh a3 $25 for a single pack- ‘age; that was a carriage for Mr. Lorillara. Q@ vo you understand thatif the charges made ed you are too uigu the Collector can make you re- them? A. Yes, sir; the rates were orginally xed by the Chamber of Commerce and the Coilec- tor togeiber, and the raies charged are algher than ‘thus Specined; the Collector can reduce theia to that standard; that list of rates, however, 13 very iucom- plete. 9, That carriage that you ch: $25 for was not tn it, I suppose; suppose you had charged $250 for YA, In such a case, as 1 understand it, we col- tor would have power (o reduce it. Q. In your experience, have the complaints made resulted in reduced charges? A. ‘There have vbeca very few appeais; we have reduced them ourselves, ‘when we nave received reasonable comp!aints, Q@ Who makes-the caarges? A. An expert deter- mines the charge jor each package as 1s enters tne | sore. Did you ever teil Mr, Lindsay that your share of $6,000 was not equal to your mess bilis in Wash- mei A. No, sir; I never told him any thing of the Q It has been stated that your firm has been in the Habit of driving mspectors to hurry goods up to ur stores? A. Itis not true, sir; I suppose the pector could get goods chrougn quicker if ho Were paid for it; that would do us good, because | 1t wouid give us a great many more packages. Can he send goods to your store without an | order from the Custom House’ A. All goods that | Dave not a special periit come to our store; of ourse he cannot send us any goods until there is @n order from the Custoin House to discharge tue then stil! continucd im the same business, but, ett iL. t Carsy oy ag Se ae cases been frequent - NO, sir; t never heard 3 Fe have never lost a case, ess ou Make avy money out of the cartage A. No, sir; 1 do not tink itis a source of protit to us; on the contrary, 1 tink we lose money by it. Q Do youever have any unclaimed gooas tnat | zu. have to keep for a year, aithough they are not | wh in value to defray your charges? A. Yes, | air; that is not upirequently the Case, 4 Then your only source of profit is labor and storage; on wiiich of those items do you m most? A. The sworage; we Keep experience labor- ra all the time, even though we have not enough io emply them, Q. Your statement of net profits at $46,000 for the eral order business, and $12,000 for the bonded rarehouse business—Who tude that statement up? A. My bookkeeper, Lut 1 am satisfied of Jts cor- rectness. Q. What Habilities of loss are there in this bisi- meas? A. If a case suould be abstracted trom our store we would be held Mabie; it might be a pack- age of diamonds, Worth £10,000; we w for the honesty of ail the men in our ; do not insure our building, Dut Lhe goods them: selves are insured; acting a8 Warehousemen we are supposed to take good care of tue goods, and Sueresore are respousibie, hat, then, is ihe use of having these two government storekeepers? A. ‘Tie svorekeepers Teceive and enter aii goods, and they exercise a general supervision over the goods and they are ‘obliged to ve present in ibe store from suurise to | sunset. ‘Witness then gaye in detail the particulars of their charges to Mr. A. JT. Diewart, the average charge being staied at $i 44%. He coutinued:— There Is plenty of accommodation tu our stores jor she entire generai order busiuess; our stores Would, Lbave estimated, bold 40,000 packages; we lave tad Mr. A. T. Stewarv’s goods for various iengtbs of ume—some packages Only a lew days and oliers for thirieen months and a halt, Q Dol understand you'to say that you do not @ive your prouts with apy one except Mr. Stocking? A. No, sir; no one else has any incerest im tne profits, nor have | ever promised any one else any share of the profits. 0. liow old were you when you enlisted in the army? A. Tweniy-six; I came from Peuusylvania, Alleghany county; i left there when! was a year oid, but never returned; 1 entered the army in 1882; 1 ecame @ member of General Grant's stad in October, 1863, and continued there ali tarougu the war; afler ihe war closed 1 still remained with General Grant, at Army Headquarters, as Assistant Adjutant Generali; I remained there ‘Uli 1860; | was then on special duty with General Rawlings in collecuug and puting in order we Fecoras of the wur; I tendered my resignation February, 1670, to take eifect six inoniis hene ty thea gave me six months’ leave; | went out on Ist of August auucipating my resiguauion ved the year’s pay allowed by ing officers; to July, 1879, 4 received $2,200, and afier, $4,760; juat included ail emolu- ments OJ every kind except fuel aud quariers; my commutation Was in suumer $60 a mouth, and in winter $16 OF $80, according to the price of tel. When did you first meet Mr. Lindsay? A. In Washington, in 1806; 1 believe ve was then trying to Introduce some sort of firearm; 1 don’. remember Who igwodpred uu to me; 1 don't bain Mi ke the | headquarters; I don’t know when he juainted with General Porter and about ;. 1 know that oy and Babcock were acquainted with him at me, Q@ What business had outs our mind ou came to New York? A. ness; f of that irom Colouel Morr: the secretary of Mr. Johnson; he described it to me as being a very good business, Q When did you first hear of the cartage busi- A. About the same time; the idea of the labor contract entered my mind in 1869, when I had failed to et anything else from Mr, Grinneil. Q Just state the order in which your applications were made. A. I made the spyncetcn for the jabor coutract to the Secretary cf tie Treasury; I jad no associate at first, but subsequently entered ato an arrangement with Mr. Willtam Haw, Jr.; he ut in a contract at first ter $75,000, but alierwards e@ withdrew it, and put in another contract for 90,000; he withdrew the first contract without my Knowledge; we did not get the contract. Q. After that contract was gone did you apply for anything else? A. No, sir, it ag the lighterage? A. No, sjr; nothing of any t | Q You had talked with General Grant about two montng before the inauguration avout tie geueral order business? A, Yes, sir; he did not promise me that I snould have 11;.the President oltered me then the appointment of collector of imternal rev- enue inthe First District of Louisiana, but 1 desired to Jonre. the government service altogetner and de- Q. When aid you first become intimate with him? A. After | came to New York; [am sorry to say I id become intimate with him soon after 1 of the general order busiuess; after the ina | tion 1 weat to Mr. Washburn about tats matter and iaiaed What l wanted, vid you sk for a letter to Mr. Grinnell from hint? A. T did. ""*" Q Whrae 08 select mur. panel one of pi se other merchant w York; he wi Jyllectol at that time? A. hecause thé general report o} newsp! the opinion of ee a the péo| neon ‘ow, Pointed to hip 8 copy of Mir. Washburn’s letter? ari C7 it y of Mr. aud f will (urmish it to the committee; acer | atest “Washburn I weut to General ‘Grant Oflginal of Mr. requested Mr, Grinnell to Fe of days aller 16 “Q, Did you teil Mi, Grinnell that he was to be Collector? A. I mentioned it to him; be did not seem surprised; 1 went back to Washington ib a day or two, but returned in a couple of weeks; I did not get the general order business tll July, although Mr. Grinnell was appointed in March; I believe Mr. say was persoually acquaimted with Mr. Grin- nell belore the latter became Collector, Do you know how it was that Mr. Lindsay was calied to the side of the Collegor? A. No, sir; 1 have no knowledge of that fact, nor any means of knowing, % Did it not strike you as strange that Mr. Grin- nell should calls comparative stranger to his side in this way? A. We have only Mr. Lindsay’s own word for nis having been the Confidentia: adviser of Mr. Grinneu, Was not your written correspondence with Mr. Lindsay while you were in the War Department yery large? A. 1 Wrote letters to him perhaps once a Week; I received letters irom mim most every day. Q Dia not you write to him about the removal of Mr. Grinnell’ A. 1 have no recollection of such letters; I cannot say that suca letters were nob written, but ldo noc think it probable that! did write them. A Wil you deny having written them? A. I will not deny it. What portion of the general crder business did Mr, Griunell give you? A. All that which went to the store 371 Washington street; the designation by the Collector 1s of a place, no} of a persona; tie stqres are all under government supervision; Mr. Lindsay eugineered tae arrangement with Mr Bixby; he putthe matter oi from day to day, in | order, 88 he said, to get him to be moro liveral in 01 Q More Iiberal in paying you tor your influence | over your Collector? A. 1 dou’t Kaow that uw was; I never claiiaed to hold any control over the Collector, | aud Air. Grinnell suggested this thing to me; Mr. Lindsay was at the Custom House at that time, and I presume Mr, Lindsay and Mr, Grinnell nay have had some conversation together on the subject. Q Was or was not the agreement with Mr. Bixby in your handwritipg? A. 1 do not know. Q. ‘There is the paren nia your writing? A, Yes, sir; it was copied by me from @ memoraidum made by Mr. Lindsay; the paper was never put into legal form. Q@ Did you receive tho remittances of Bixby’s money from Mr, Lindsay? A, Wir. Lindsay voox tie money @ad 1 drew upon him as { wanted it; that plan ontinned for a time, how long 1. do not know. Q fiw long did you remain satisfied with tia arrangement with Bixby? A, Uuull I lett the army; 1 was satished with the receipts } got from Rhy, 89 fur as money wens: but 1 Was qotsgtise “e aa nt Qud saw him about this matter, . Q. How ts it that you have got the Washourn’s ietter? "A, Because Grinnell to return Ww t© me a coupl @ { wanted to go into business myaci . When did you break up your business with afr. Bixby? A. vine! veeasintes 1th of upended he continae 06) axiness ag ® boaded ware- Rouseuad, san a8 ta Weatll. terra er are et g When did you obtain thé niohopoly of the gen- eral order busineas? A, About tue middie of Sep- temper, 1870; when [ went tn with Mr. Horton and Mr. Stocking I putin no capitat; the flrm went by tho name of L. Horton & Co,; Mr. Horton fouud the wuretios, Q From tho time you came on here did you not Make frequent applications 10 Mr, Grinnell to ta- crease your business? A. 1 don’t Kuow ihat I made any; 1 Say sbost emphatically that I never said I { could have hun removed if he did not accede to my demand; he was removed in July, 1870. Q. During the time that you were endeavoring to get the rest of this business drom Mr, Grinnell did General Porter visit tais.cliy In connection with this business? A. I don’t Know that he ever came to tuls city Incondection with this business; General Porter came to New York several umes; J saw him at Mr. Lindsay's store once, Q. What 13 the average amoant of money out- sanding on account of cartage? A. It may be $1,500 0 $2,000. ‘fhe committee then adjourned until haif-past seved o'clock tuls evening. Evening Session. The Committee met again at half-past seven o'clock. A uumber of communications were re- celved and read—one relative to the Naylor case, THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF COLONEL LEET was coniinued:—Have no recollection of ever writ- to Mr. Lindsay, requesting him to meet-me in ‘ashingvon; i have no recollection of what the business was that General Porter and Mr. Lindsay wished to see me about; wasa@ private soldier in me army in 1862; in 1363 was appointed upon General Granv’s staf, having been pro- moted; General Porter was upon the siadt atthat time; continued on General Grant's stag until the end of the war; was very mendiy with the General in consequence of our relations; those present lime; was Gore of the same mess, with Generals Porter and Babcock, up to the year 1885; in.1809 lived in the same house with the two Gene- Fala, paying my share of the mess and tue rent; did not consider myself a member of the mess, though eating’ and living there; don’t remember replying to a question of Senator Howe today, that never Velouged to any mess in Washington or elsewhere; talked to General Grant about the gen- eral order business about two months before iis inauguration; expressed @ wish to get it; the Gen- eral then did not understand what it was; was at that time engaged in compiling a record of his military exploits in the West, digesting them into gene order; on the 19th of March, 1569, frst ot we general order business; went to Mr, Washburn for letter to ir. Grin- neli; reason that I ap) for a letter to Mr. Grinneil was because { thought he would become Collector of the port; went to Mr, Washburn belore I went to General Grant; WEXT TO SEB THE PRESIDENT after I got the letter on the same day; had no delay in fndiag nim; there was no one eise there at tue time; do not know that there was @ great pressure at tho time for office; asked bun might I to New | | | | go York, and say to Mr. Grinnell that he would be ap- potnted Collector of the port; he did not make any reply; supposed stience gives assent; dé not know that General Grant knew wnat my object was in golhg to New York; bad taiked with him avout We general order business two months revious; lad no idea that the General id not kuoW what was going about; started to New York timmediately with a letter to General Grant; found Mr. Grinnel at his house, and announced to him bts, provabie appointments spoke | to him about the general order vusiness tné same eveiting; he treated me very cordially and kindly; returned to Washington the uext day, after having accomplished all { wantet; 1 told nim 1 would like to have the business, and he said he woul: sati me; SAW Nim again on the Bist March; aid not alude to the matier at tue second meeting ; Cama to see ine Grinnell avout, but did not ailude to the Bixoy mat. ter until April 6; on that day I saw him and ile gested the BIXoy wrraugement; spoke to Mr. Lind. gay about geveral order business In Washington the negouations went on for some Ume; tola M Grinnell 1 did not want any partial ai Tangement, aa I meant to leave the army; do not yto whom Mr. Grinnell reierred in his letter vy “associates”; dO Lot think that Mr, I party tothe Bixby matter at first Bixby retative to it several times; first saw him at Mr, Lindsay’s siore in John street; | was tutroduced to hint previous to that at his house; my objectin going there was to consult about the Ogee order business; talked with fim about it, put did not allude to any private arrangement; ar- ranged the matter some ume aiter; the arrange. ment we came to went into effect immediately; ny relations With Mr. Lindsay were very intimate at the (ime; do not remember writing to him about te advantage of belug tn the St. Vowinge job; may have written to him about it suggesting such ideas; can say with confidence that Generals Porter an Babcock did not know anything avout the arrange- ment; remember writing to Lindsay about coming on to Washington to consult about some St. Domlugo investments; Genera! Porter knew about wy rela tiong with Colonel Stocking about the business on the North River; the President may have said that he regretted my appointment on account of the prominence it gave his name tn connection with mine in New York; Genera! Porter intumaied so much to me; if General Grant had he wished me to widraw Jrom the business IT probably would bave t 3 £4 doug Ko but it never was put 9 me io Wat | head. Ought | relauions have continued undisturbed up to the | y | Manner; I could not easily have got out of it; most o/ the partners, Including Mr. Horton and Mr, Bixby, nad no ditteulty in getting ont of che ousi- ess; the Collector substitated we in their place; 80 far as Bixby’s arrangement was concerned, it was understood that my Influence procured him his po- sition; bave never written to Mr. Lindsay anout more money to pav the expenses of the meas; at the beginuing my compensation was about eight thousand dolars a year; $6,625 was the. amount of it that came out of the Bixby x e! ment; the balance came from my saary: cer of the army; when Mr. Horton left Colonet Stocking and myself made a new firm; [ took him into partnersp oecause he was a friend of mine; never expres wish against Mr. Grinnell’s con- Unuance in oftice; 4f I did express a wish it Was be- cause | entertained it; I feit he bad not kept his promise with me; 1 was dissatisied with him on thls ground; I remember the time when Secretary Boutwell wrote to Mr. Murphy about restoring the business to the Jersey side; did notsay, “I nave & man who will prevent Mr, Boutwell from injuring me;” Mr. Grinnell never said to me that he would forfeit $10,000 if I would go back to Washington and relieve him of this fenerat order business; did not get the whole of the orth River business untll the removal of Mr. Grinnell and the appointment of Mr, Murphy; had no iufluence in procariug tho gerieral order bust- ness, only tae President's letter; put controlled the whole of it in eighteen months; thoughs this was pretty good; am not aware that General Porter has ever been in New York npon the general order bust- ness; he toox a kindly iaterest in my welfare: Colonel Stocking secured two bonds nen and I tne other two; gave no imducement to those enYemen to assume so heavy a responsibility ave t 4 9 ret or Jodeanty hated of 1083; Of the iidsmel wers Rtter s are | | fe other two l kuow for a (6 Hons: th feats of st. res are $20,500; my landlords are Mr. G. T. Mickens and Mr. Squires, who was questioned here the other day relative to the article which be bad writtén in the Times; Stocking and I have been in business nineteen months; haye neyer valanced the books in that time; no A riigotaents zi} ui +} ‘ane a aNieruetes | Pee aes ¢ know that ta. piers les of agreement; to bo no divisiow of profits until our con- tracta for rents of the stores have ex! . defective, Let a a, eriola: ‘om vou tyrone coon @ read an ar your eviden: ”. # lormer In i ‘a Whicadtoitigy What you are at vestigatio: Presine stating, Colonel LkgT—There bas been a certain division of ‘hy profits once a year; no reguiar division has ever been tiade; we will not do so until we seo our Wi gi8ir; a portion of onr profiis have been invested ($17,000) in the name of the firm; have stated the gross amouut of our profits; know enough about my own affairs to state them cortectly; we have about fifty-nine thousand dollars in the bank im our joint names; could find no more protitabie way Of investing the money than by de- positing it in the bank; remember saying that it did not require a large amount of capital to carry on the business; commenced the business with about $1,000; Mr, Stocking d'a not put in so much, but ne is an wen partner, at necessity is there for Colonel Wakeman attending here on your behalf? A. Yo look after our inferesta, » Why have you him here and what duties is he attending to on your behalf? A. Ehave seen him examining the evidence and speaking to the Sena- tors; have seen him pass papers to the members of the committee on my behalf; he has spoken to ail the Henators. Senator CassERLY—Do not allof them? (Lanugh- 9) Senator Prarr asked the witness to produce his books and articles of agreement to-day. Q, Do you assert that yea hever spoke of usin, inflnence on Mr. Boutwell? A. Ido, sir; Colonel Stocking t# a son-in-law of a Jndge of the United States Supreme Court; I heard Mr. A, T. Stewart's testimony before the committee; heard him say It took a week or ten days to produce gools rom onr stores; our arrange:nents are a8 good for iclivering as can be; we have taken out fifty pack- es in less than halfa day; the longest delay Ihave eard is from the complaints of carmen; to my knowledge no losses have ever occurred; have never heard of A. 'T. Stewart & Co. Tosing anything, Senator BAYaRD—Whiat constitutes & mess? You say that living and eating with two gentiemen aid not constitute a mess. A. I explamed this before; have ample securities in case of losses, ‘his conciuded the examination of the witness, and the committee adjourned until ten o’clock this morniug. IMPORTANT QUESTION OF JURISDICTION, The Legality of ‘Dna sedge: Haag Court and Disposing of Trial Cases in the Special fessions—A Test Question. Acase came up yesterday in Genoral Term Su- preme Court, before sudges Ingraham, Barnard and rdoz0, Which opens & very important question as to whether ono police Justice 1s competent to hold the Gourt of Special Sessions, and at the same time ratsing the question as to the consttiutionality of \'the act passea by the Legislature in 1870 in rogard to this Court, ~ It came up in the matter of The People of the State of New York vs. John P. Davis, which 1s brought forward as atest case, Davis was arrested upon a charge of assault and battery, waived his right to trial by jury, selected the Vourt of Special Sessions in which to be tried, was tried before Judge Dowling, who alone held the Court, convicted and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment in the Penitentiary. The record and proceedings in the case were brought before this Court for reviewal, and yesterday came up tor argument. ARGUMENT OF. COUNSEL FOR DAVIS, Mr. CHARLES W. BROOKE, On behalf of the prisoner, msisted, first, that the proceedings had against the dcfendant in and by, the Court of*Special Sessions ‘Were in violation of article 6 of the Constitution of the United States, and of sections 1 and 2 ot article 1 of the Constitution of the State of New York; second, that the act of ag 26, 1870, under which the said Court of Special Sessions was heid, is in conflict with and in violation of article 3, section 16 of the Coustitution of this Si ; third, that so much of the act of the 26th of April, 1870, as provides, ‘in case of any disability of either of the two Police Jus+ tices to hold Court, it shall be bint for the other to hold it while such disability continues,’’ is repealed by the act of April 5, 1871; fourth, that in the event of anv disability at- taching to elther one of the Justices assigned to oid said Court, tne Ban under the uurepealed rtion of the act of the 26th April, 1870, muat desig. te some other Police Pees, fill, the yacant place—the Court cannot eld by One Instice! ofth, that the evident intentton of the Legislature was that one judge should never hold the Court of Sj \ Sessions; sixth, that even though the 10n8 of the act of Soth April, 1870, referred to, Were not repealed, the proceédings do ot show Upon their face that any such disability existed at the trial of defendant as was contem- Plated by the act to empower one justice to hotd sald Court of Special Sessions. The mere allega- tion that the other justice was absent “through dis ability” 1s not enough; the proceedings must show what the disability was, as that question is one of law, a8 wel as of iact; his seventh point Was that the proceedings do not show that any disability existed at the time the judgment was pro- nounced against said defendant to prevent the two Justices assigned to hold sald Court from being pres- ent at the time such judgment was rendered; his eighth, that the weight of ihe evidence adduced in sald proceeding was clearly in favor of the prisoner, and his conviction was, therefore, erroneous—the Court should have acquitted him thereupon; and his ninth and last potnt that the sentence of the Court was not commensurate with the nature of the charge, and was in no manner justified or war- rauted vy the evidence, Under each point were cited Dumerous authorities. AKGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE, Mr. ALGERNON S. SULLIVAN, Assistant District At- torney, began with reading the record of conviction and also ihe act of April 26, 1870, defining the duties and powers ot the Court of Special Sessions, He then urged that upon this record the conclusive presumption of law was that the Mayor duly desig: hated the Justices of the Second and the Fifth Police Judicial districts to hold the Special Sessions, and that the absence of one of sald Justices ‘from said Cours was the result of such a “dise bility’? as the statute contemplated, It is sufficient that tne record adopts the ae of the statute. “Disability” 8 a fact ‘The Legislature seem purposely to have selected the most comprehensive word, 80 as w meetevery case which could detain a justice from the Cour, The slatute above recited has been modiiled by chapter 302 and Chapter 438 of the Laws of 1871. These enact that “whenever botn of the Justices now designated by law to hold the said Cour: of Special | Sessions shalt be unable to act by reason of sickness | or disability, or shail be absent from the city, It | shal! be the daty of eae &C., Lo designate the nudge | Recorder or City to act in the Place and steal of said Justices during the continuance of sail disability or absence.” Neither of theso acts contains auy repealing cause, They are supplemental to the act of 1870, above cited, | Wilch, except as thus supplemented, remains tn full force, and is the constituent Jaw as to tie organt- waiion of said Court. 1¢ has been argued that the act of 1370, obapter 383, 18 void and unconstitu- tional. Thab act ts entivied “An act to make furs ther provision for the government of New York.” Juasmucn as this act 13 said to be @ local | bil, it must be judged subject to section 16, article 3 of the Constitution, — ‘Provision | for the government of New York” is the “title” of the act, ‘Tae Constitution provides that *no local bili shalt embrace more than one subject’? It 18 Contrary to the legal principles for testing the Valldtty of acts of ie Legislature to give to words 1 the Constitution a narrow or shranken meaning. ‘The word “sabjecu? must receive @ iiberal yy 78 tation. “Provision for governing” 19 one subject, embracing details of Anance, police, administra | tion of justice, &c. This proposition estaviishes the Validity of tae law in question, He also cited numer- bite ty rps ted the close of the argument jourt took the papers, reserving iis ‘decision. hair A SIMILAR CASE. The same course was taken In the case of William Huber, argued alterward, fa was convicted by dge Dowling, at Special si sions, of petit tar- Wate heetty taeeean by tae to the Penitet e' ly the same line of umens was pursued by the opposing counsel, tho Court taking bag og m = case of Davis, ‘ne Case i8 so far important that or its decision will depend the continuance in prison, under their several sentences, Of a large number of persons, OF their discharge from durance vile. NEW YORK HERALD, TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1872—TRIPLE SHEET. official, yarring im size, buff or yellow, with printed endorsement “oilicial business.’? ¢ TESTIMONY OF HEXRY KAYLBRe Henry Kayler, acierk in the foreign matis de- Eertmens for ten years, deposed that he baa known Riley ever since he had been in the Post Of Mr. Riley’s reputation there stood very high; wit- ness knows Robert Kennedy, and was in the Post Onice at the ume of Riley's arrest; when witness THE COURTS. Interesting Proceedings in the United States, New York and Brooklyn Courts. allowed ta answer the question, A. He did. came in Keni ‘was sitting on a box elgiteen \° hd Inches from the floor, leaning back against # parti- Various other witnesses were called for ead; ennedy, and took off my ove! 3 | . ha Hew Tacs Potning Company. Deshewat? | Tar Ca eee nent As | oatthata dy de aici a, eee own table that | was working on that day—the | contradiction o im ili: B i Green Sa Bank in | Second table—and had. Just tins ehoush to plek up | prietor of Love} re Hoh te previous yoni ptey—A Case ‘dmiralty—The @ paper when the arrest was made; I hea rat he Wi ayy vaye room Post Office ‘- bellies praise ty fusion; the box that Leos eter was we to fon, | the ow. snecsening | elect Ne Ee ete on Letter Opening + State feew.trom the partion between him ap ‘as you in any room 2 have put myself in the position in which I saw . What room? 4 Tne eee, Ae ae, ment of Mr. Riley—The Injunction . nedy that morning; {rom where he sat be could not . And this was the only The only Against the Dock Commissioners— see an. thing lying on Riley’s table, but could 0° any. | rooln, bls thing breast high berore iiley fu case Kiley was | Some other witnesses were Dat their esti. More of the Yorkville Police Jus- suing down on the stool; Platt was with me when | mouy elicited no new facts, alter which hii Deoisi He I made this test, and Lord and Gildersieeve. SUMMING UP . ' ticeship — Decisions—Heavy Croga-examined—I did not seo Keunedy when I | was begun, Mr. Stoughton opening the case for the Sentences in the Court came back from hanging up wy overcoat, defence and occupying the attention of the TESTIMONY OF EDGAR KIRBY, and jury till the hour of adjournment. He tok the: of General Sessions. Edgar Kirby, a clerk in the Post Ofice, testified | usual course in reviewing # I> that he nad known defendant four years; 13 1n tue | as perfectly rellabie his own Witnesses, and as _ ny 2 pieces aapasranen hy F Fri tp ee the ao | at all creditable some oF the poe ore be rere i y minutes before his'arrest, and bad x-Judge Porter will follow Mr, Stonghtoa today’ UNITED STATES SUPREME COUAT. stepped outs before that I vas working right tg 2 it a probable the case, now prolt through pag j Ldid not see nim open any letter; t . Another Suit Touching the Question of ‘Treas | was thros to five feet {rom iin on uis loft; there | D°ary & month, will roach thegae a 8 sury Notes as Lo; Tenderse—the Word “Dallars” and {te Significance in Contracts— Sevator Morri)l Confirmed in an Estate in Weat Virgiota—The Case of the Webb and DS eT a ae eee (sie Shooting Star. ta ae WaAsnrnaTon, D. 0., Jan 23, 1972. No, 46, Treblecock vs, Wilson.—Error to the St- preme Court of Iowa.—In tnis case, which 18 an other gold contract case, the Court held substan- tially as follows:—Whereas plaintiff here claimed in tae Court below that he was ¢aritiéd to have a note held by blni, madé by the defendant in error, paid in gold or sliver eoin, under the constitution upon & proper cunstruction of the various clauses of the instrument, and the decision pelow was against such right, this Court has appellate jurisdic. tion under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary act to review the decision. The case of Rosevelt va. Meyer (1 Wall, 612) overruled. Where a note is for dollars, payable by its terms in specie, the terms (in Specie) are me! descriptive of the Kind of dollars in whieh the note is payable, there being more than one Kind of dollars current sanctioued by law, and Mean that the designatea number of doliars shall be paid in so many gold or silver dollars of the comage ‘of the United States. Tho act of February 25, 1862, in declaring that the notes of the United States shall be legal money or a legal tender for all debts only applies to debts which are paya- ble in money generally, and not to obligations a abie in commodities, Obligations ony other kind, where a contract for money is by iis terms made payable in specie or in coln, {adament, may be entered thereon or for comed dollars, Mr. Justice Fields delivered the opinion. This decision re- gema the case of Bronson ye. Rhodes (7 Wall, Mr. Justice Miller dissents for reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Bronson vs, Rhodes, Mr, Justice Brady atso dissents for reasons stated in nis opinion in Parker vs. Davis, decided last Monday. No, 75, Christmas et al. vs, Gaines et al.—Appeal from tne Circuit Court for the Southern district of Mississippl.—This bill was filed against Christmas etal., citizens of Kentucky, together with two others, citizens of Mississippi, having for tts object to es- tablish an equitable assignment of certain promis- sory notes owned by Christmas for the purpose of Was no one between us; | have seen domesiic let- i Coe, pare. by puavake Ra tyacorel aves open; ound the: mn 1 100) m to Riley gen- erally; sometimes he would al ‘hen ‘up ‘omnes times he would not, but would tell me to write upon them “open when received at this ofice,’? so that they might goin that mall, and sometimes I haye my Bie ho ore one sis to Bgl ae the all wont o je Was In & great hurry; Riley's Reputation i» Wususpected, i ‘aml esha iol tig Ried to Buley which was 2 eae aren. gg ln Of i ats St, 4 TESTIMONY OF THOMAS A, PLATT. Thomas A. Platt, a clerk in the Posi OMe fled that he worked at the same table with six yeurs; Riley’s reputation was nigh: er showed me where he bet, seon Kennedy aitthiy, about ten feet fro partitions LSabin thas place and couja not seg throtigh the window any one open a let On the table unicss he held it up nigh DO one coul tostt° ley Jor Kayler see him sliting In that position, ross-exatained—W hen I stood up and walked to- ‘Wards the window [ could sve. Redirect—There was a glass on the window; but standing up where Kennedy was you could see a man open a letter on the table, TESTIMONY OF EDWARD J. MERCER. Edward J. Mercer, clerk in the Foreign Depart- ment of the Post Ollce, testified that on the day of Ruey’s arrest he worked at the same tabie, avout fifteen feet from him, at the time of the arrest; we some times receive letters “with post mark obli- terated; we send them Lo the lead letter office; i dia not see defendant open any letier that morning prior to his arrest, Croas-examined—I could well see what Riley was doing; 1 heard Riley say there was @ mistake. TESTIMONY OF TH DEFENDANT, ‘The defendant’s counsel then proposed to exam ine Riley on big own behalf, Kiley was sworn, Mr. Purdy, Assistant District Attorney, cautions the witness that the evidence which he gives will be taken down and may be used against him on tae rial. ‘The defendant then said:—1 am fifty-two years of aye; [reside ut 110 Forsyth street; 1 have resided in New York thirty-five years; 1 am Assistant Su- Perintendent of the Foreign Department of the New York Post Oilice; [have been in the Post Ofice twenty-turee years continuously; I have been As- sistact Superintendent for two years! my duties are to see that all the foregn mails are properly got up and sent fortvard to their destina- ton, and report the same to the Superintendent; I have also to send out misscnt letters and dead let- Tu vel | aD Te. St , rs, and sce that they are rightiy disposed of; I re- indemnitying the citizens of MUssisstppi, joined bre ny great many Tmisgent Seer, tad sometunos | Judge Bedford presiding and Assistant District’ ag defendants, Who had become sureties | circulars, but not frequently; those 1 put up in an | Attorney Fellows prosecuting. of Christmas on a writ of error bond. The Court, finding the plaintify to be a citizen of Lge ll hold that the Cireult Court did not have jurisdic. tion, as the grant of power extends only to sults be- tween citizens of different States; and, iurther, that certain letters of Christmas, relied upon to show the | assignment, were not suficient to establish tt, a8 } | envelope and send back to the place where tiey originated, and charge up the postage dne thereon; I receive, frequently, unsealed letters; these seal up; sometimes I examine them; when there is any curtosity about their cards 1 take out the contents and look at them; if there 1s any suspicion I examine them; I gonsider I have that disevotionary power; tt 1s not bel n they showed only @ promise to pay out of the pro- ceeds of the notes, aud no intention to part with en me officially, but I consider | have it by cus. | ¥ their possession. » dustice Swayne delivered the | tom; I consider that by, tae custom of the ollice I opinion, haye a right vo take out the contents of an unsealed letter if No, 10. Armstrong et al. vs. Morrill—Error to the think there is anyihing sug -icious in re- the petition and report, Roberts et al. vs. Fisher et The People ex ‘rel. Jonn Leach Vs, Becker—wipe peal dismissed, ‘William Pitt, in the second"d No. leaded guilty to the third grade Decisions. Dey et al. vs. Dey et al.—Order granted. Hebert vs, Hebert, Same, Schura vs. Lozier.—Referred to Hon. Joalah | PY therlana to take proof of the matter set forth e By Judge Brady. ane men Robingon va. Chittenden et al.—Case setried.. MARINE COURT—PART 3, Np en. we if Decisioum By Judge Joa allowance, Ullner,—! dge’s minutés denied, and judgm rdict for plaiuuiff for $300 and costs id judgment entered on verdict for $30 for plaintiff and costs for defendant, cs COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. Twenty Years. _ Before Recorder Hackett, membered that the prisoner was convicted, ate Prison for the period of twenty years. Before Judge Bedford. A BURGLAR SENTENCED. alias Martin, indictea for but legreo, having on the goth of T entered the dwelling house of Edward Sei 138 Norlolk street, and stolen au ‘of Urat reply to @ question put by the You Terhorst va, Legge.—Judgment for plainua fow $218 82 and costs and $25 aHowance, Stenerlein va. Hanger.—Judgment for plaintitr: $100 and costa and $25 Kinstetner vs. Riggins, for costs and $25 allowance. Graham. vs, —Judgment Jor defendans Motion for new trial on ent ordered on. and $25 al- Towance, yeaa vs. Hoffmann.—Case submitte?. Decislow! reserv se Ferris vs. McDevitt.—Motton for new telal Willigm Marx Sentenced to Sing Sing fem Atthe opening of the Court yesterday WAltany’ Marx was placed at the bar for sentonee. It will be! isonxcent 1D the } Tho regular calendar of cases was thea taken up,; overcoat, offence. ;. Cry Judge Pit said that he served a term i the State Prison ears ago. Judge Bedford, in passing sentence, said: officer says you are a very bad character. indicted for burglary in the second degree, rd to it; Lhave sent such up to Mr. Gaylor; at | Consequence of a téchmical defect in the District Court for the District of West Virginia.—In | Bard. 10 ii TERI? tre aiid send them off; on the | Disttict Atvoruey accepted the plea of 4 this case the Court affirmed the title of Senator Mor | morning of my arrest I bad a package of Mity or | glary im the third degree, whioh ts all the lemency) mill to & tract of land in West Virginia originally | sixty letters or circulars from Charleston; I sepa- | you deserve. I shalt send you to the State. rated them to see if they were al! circulars, as we granted by the Commonweaitn of Virginia to Alpert have nothing to do with circulars; 1 lound two Gallatin, from Whom title 1s derive: Mr. Justice Clifford delivered the opinion, Mr. Justice Strong | blanks, sealed up slightly, with no address; | felt of | 83! dissented. al to beg ey irda Sernt 2 in them, No. 78, Oucker vs, Spalding—Error to the Olroutt | 82d, opens fe gee: Ne eed tents in them; 1 tore them up, and thew Oourt for the District of California.—This was aD | them away as waste paper, below the'table, as was my duty. The witvess then described the circum- stances attending his arrest. He said:—I camé to an open letter; it was all unsealed, except at one | action to recover. for the iniringement of A patent for the ase of movable teeth | bodily harm, the evidence having fact thas ‘ont the 7th of this mon for the Yerm of five veara. Henry Avmar was tried and convicted of an nit with @ dangerous weapon with ratent estalish th he fired a AN ACQUITTAL. a as it to do, ed at Michael Houlihan .as he was getting mto a street! car. He was remanded lor sentence, Cornetius Murray, barkeeper for Mrs. Bow, at 1 ; Chatham street, wa3 tried upon a ci of receiv- In" saws and saw plates, A verdict | corner; I turned tt over en bhe table'to seal 1t up, | ing @ thb of butver which was stolen trom a and judgment — were ered = for th | ben it came open and showed money in it; Ptook | belonging to Onari HRY Hawley, a rocer in pasate below (Spalding); and the case wi | the lelter and money out; [laid the money and | tonstree! ne eviuehse was afiicteat to sustel ught here, where the Court now reverse the | envelope down on tlie bok, with $hg intention of | the indictment, and the jury rendéred a vertot jedameny and err OF 4 fa poet eva the \ sealing and quent op sng making a report of {i not guilty. > urt below erred in ne me gn 4 Pa a + a oteaniniessenty wD wae imed ral tid te “ie ‘nn Pandy Bi could ot rear COURT CALENGARS—This DAY. pal same fuvention, | tbat ut joney in the box; ub borne Mr. Justice Muller delivered thé opinion, it somewhere ry Front of nies T asked Kennedy what UNIFED STATES DISTRICT COURT—IN ADMIRALTY, 6 meant; J told him not to tear the letter, that Nos, 90, 32, 26, 131, 144, 1 No. 30, The Steamer W. H. Webb vs. Barling et | 4 wanted 10 seal If up again; he did tear it; that is al.—Appeai from the Southern District of New | why I spoke so; T thought he was joking; Thad vo Bese is*, 9, 82, 84, 5134, 64, 69, 62, 726 % York.—In this case the Court aftirm a decree for ye he agri ay ret mei nag ot iat Acbange “a Latleent eae omekcee whe on mag te read the letters I was goiig 10 } ore Was ser 1 TERM—Liesd ae paps re Wor alteues’ Re antD Bhon: anyihing Wrong ‘teont it; I was going to take that, eg res, Barnard and Cardozo.—Nos. 240, towing the ship from Portsmoutn, N. to New | With other letters, up to Gaylor; I was not going to | 243, 244, 247, 251, 252, 255, 254, 36, York, but with a modification that it be reduced to | Seal that money; I have known “decoy” letiers SurPREMB = CoulT—CIRCU! ne Poise 4 P, , 487, 937, sent through tue Post Oflice; 1 nave seen other clerks open letiers that had uot been prepaid, and the Post OfMice stamp was obliterated; that was a © $18,000 damages and $250 costs. Mr, Justice Strong delivered the opinion, No, 28, Curtis V. Whiting—Error to the Supreme astom. Court of Wisconsin.—This was a controversy cun- ‘The defendant was cross-examined at some 45, 150. SUPREME CoURT—CuUAMBERS—Held by Jadge Judge Van brunt.—Nos, 614, 1013, 1039, . 1041, 1051, 71934, 1069, 1063, 1061 3¢, 1065, 1067, 1069, 1075, 1077. ‘Heid by Brady.—Case on. SurgRion CouRT—TRiaL TeRu—Part 1—Nela ” Part 2—! rtain i length, but the examination did not produce any | Judge Freedman.—Nos. 685, 979, 806, 1,298, \golgresbi TE AMGABLORS Aso? olin baa ccd Variation in the statements te fad mado, 1,077, 960, 1,817, 1,356, 843, 1,285, 1,361, 1,209, Iel ad been sold at : wt tna and tne question | Mr. Purdy, at the close of the examination, re--| 1,821. Bart 2—lield vy Judge’ Monef.—Nos, 1, seawithia ee Cee te tat aeons eamentae mested that te defendant shoula sign his deposi- 1a S88, 310, 2,072, 1,078, 000, 1,000, 23 1,180, application fora Sheriff's deed. ‘Ihe Court below | “Counsel for defendant objected to this, on the | COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—TRIAL Tema—Part sustained the law, and this Court affirms the judg- and that the other witnesses uad not been re- | Held by Judge Larremore.—Nos. 1,143, 540, ment, Mr, Justicé Miller delivered the opinion. | Streit to do 30. em Te | Hee dake 10083, Sue, Gal, 1,038, 846, 847,” No. 190, Bank of West Tennessee vs, Citizens’ The Commissioner sustained the objection, and | 1,063, 1,048, 1, 077. Bank of Louisiana—Error to the Supreme Court of | the bearing of the case was further postponed to MAnine Covnr—TRaL TERM—Part 1—Held Louisiana,—Dismtssea for want of jurisdiction. Mr, oe 908 Tees, utes ee on eR — ¥ Justice Swa/ne delivered we opinion, i SUPREME ¢2URT—CHAMBERS, Tises, 7,868-” Part 3—itotd by Satee doacnimman = No. 71. ihe State of New York vs, The Central — Nos, '8,467, 8,542, 8,622, 8,628, 8,620, 8,030, 8,631, 6,682¢ Dock Commis- Ratiroad of Now Jersey—Error to the Supreme | Tbe Injunction A Court of New York.—Dismissed for want of jurisdic. vcr de sonerss | tion. cans Justice Chase delivered the opinion. od Before Judge Barrett. is ae ‘The argument in this case, being the third aay UNITED STATES DISTRICT: COURT—IN BANKRUPTCY, of its continuance, was resumed yesterd Mr, Richard O'Gorman made thé | te FEST Tl ‘The New York Printing Commany. Tost arg. Charge: COURTS. aa oe BROOKES: _ UNTED STATES DISTRICT couar. 4 With Passing Counterfeit Meuneye Before Judge Benedict. The bankruptcy case of Edward H, Tracey, Exec- utor of James B. Taylor, against the New York Printing Company, came up before Judge Blatch- ment on behalf of the Dock Commissioners. So thoroughly exhaustive had been the arguments of the two counse: preceding him that there remained The cages of John Becker and John Will! Indicted on the charge of having passed coun! but little for him to add. His remarks, for this reason, would not be so abstrusely legal as his predecessors’ ‘in elaboration of nicely pre- pared points, He was astonished that the lawyers on the other side who professed to be so clamorous for retorm were not willing to allow tne Dock Com- missioners to accomplish witnout hindrance the ford yesterday on motion for tne plaintif to show cause why the injunction restraining the Sherif from selling the property of, the detendant should not be dissolved. The argumeut on tho motion was adjourned to Wednesday. The Bowiiug Green Savings Bavk in Banke ruptcy. A petition has Just been filed by Aaron May for the purpose of having the Bowling Green Bank de- clared bankrupt. Mr. May, im his petition, states that between the months of November, 1863, and October, 1871, he deposited in the bank money to se ais had yet beep attompied. They insisted on teir nuisances, their oyster barge, hay depository, brick tow and dumping ground ore 4 as they are, Ww im of Jem i the the amount of $9,136 75, which the bank received, | Aneyreminded nun of vem Mece® yon Rages pos: agreeing to pay the same on demand. Petitioner | sessed most intelligible views upon the subject of demanded payment of the same, which was refused | peace and quiet, but he obstinately retused to move on the round on unless he was paid. So these gentiemen as ov- that the bank was insolvent and had suspended about the 20th of November, 1871. There 1s a further allegation in the petition that the bank suffered 118 property to ve taken on legal process by one Shepherd Knapp, appointed as receiver vy the Superior Court in the city of New York, in pro- Geedings commenced there against the bank by reason of its insolvency; that that property is now in the possession of ‘Mr. Knapp, a8 sach receiver, ‘and that then the bank was insolvent and acting in violation of the Bankruptcy act. Upon this auinately refuse to remove their nulsances unless paid. He said that any one might attempt to pu: a of brick in front of the residence of A. T. wart and insist on keeping it there unless paid for taking itaway. He enlarged upon the benefits the city would receive from the contemplated im- provements, and said that this nuisance had al- ready driven away @ goud deal of foreign shippin; to anotner State, He was sorry this injunction granted, as he was sorry other injunctions were to tho case. White he admired his rhetoric and beau- tiful imagery, he failed to discover that it bad any application to the questions of law before the Court, 19 ved that Mr. U'Gorman should fail to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT—IN ADMIRALTY, In the case of W. W. Evans vs. The barge known as the Wilkesbarre Coal and Iron Company the libe) e sacredness Of private property except was dismissed, with costs, In the case of Pickert v8. Smith a motion to open Py aeet ane Lg vorate Malis on gb @ default was depiedl, avenue; that (Mr. Fine) had always supposed that the law protected bottrthe high and the low, and that the private property of some of UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS’ COURT, — the Bmailest citizens should receive the same pro- Alleged Embezzlement of Letters In the Post OfficeThe Case of J. J. Kiley. tection as that of the most wealthy; that watle he quirements of the greatest reformatory work ag regarded the city that | sum Of $5,000 to awall ‘The Widow Landerw Suit Again: bills of the Ninvh Nattonal Bank of New Yt t down for trial for yesterday. In view of sence of the Diswict Attorney, however, the were adjourned uutil Wednesday. — Admitted to Ball. John Whitford, who was indicted on the charge stilling Whiskey without complying with the A Pai aduiitted to bail 1a UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS’ COURT. Charge of Illegally Selling Liquor. Before Commiésioner Winslow. D. Wacker was before the Commissioner day on the charge of retatling liquor at the of Smith and Sackett streets, South Exot, with- out ing the special ax Tequired by Hi was the charge. mitted to ball to await an examination SUPREME COUAT—SPECIAL TET 2. Dectsionne By Judge Pratt, Solar Chemical Works vs. Jonn McKesson et al.. CITY COURT—TAIAL TERM. Island Ratlrond Company. Before Judge Neilson. ‘Margaret Landers, Administratriz, 8. The Island Ratiroad Company.—The trial of this which tbrought Joss of plat Ps was equaily anxious with Mr. O'Gorman to see our | wmso! raw ea recover $5,000 damages for band, who was one of the vit Westfield disaster, was a Water front improved, yet the proud chy of New nclu It was aavout Before Commissioner Betts. York could not add oue jot or tittle to hér greatness eae fy ieited on sre trial of the action brought The United States vs. J. J. Riley.—The further | or her giory by depriving any citizen of his rights | Mra Madden, which was twice tried and resulte: ie . e' ol ne Ae was charged with having embezzted a letter in the Post oritiea.cited by the counsel ou the other side, and ites, ‘at ten orcivok, when counsel will , Umice, was resumed yesterday vefore Commissioner Betts, The court room was crowded, and consider. able interest appeared to be manifested in the pro- ceedings. Mr. A. BH. Purdy, Assistant District Attorney, conducted the prosecution, aud General Rillyer attended as counsel for the defendant, My, Riley, EVIDENCE FOR THR DEFENCE—TESTIMONY OF WIL- LIAM W. STONE. Willlam W. Stone sworn—I reside in Warren street, Brooklyn; I am @ clerk in the New York Post OMice, in charge of atl letters misdirected or badiy directed and to be returned to writers in Do- claimed tbat none of tuem were applicable to the cases at Bar. Mr, Abraham R. Lawrence briefly followed. Aa he recoliected the story of Jem. Baggs, this gentie- man was paid a shilling and moved on. That was ail they wanted. They wanted to be paid, and thon they would move away, “You got the best of me on the Jem Baggs argu- ment,” remarked Mr, O'Gorman to him, alter+ wards. fhe argument concluded, ali the lawyers passed up their papers, the Judge reserving nis decision. SUPREME COURT—TRIAL TERM—PART 2. The Yorkville Police Justiceship. Before Judge Brady. 3 defendant mai vere Feara; his reputation vi goody t have sent him icv. | Morray vs. Coulier,—On the reassembling of the See net eens KT ag at canyon tera that were forcign and required prepayinent of Court yesterday, a iarge crowd still vhronging the | qe Judge nted the application, as al were misdirected; those requiring prapayment F | court room, some more witnesses in rebuttal Were | stated, and the accused was released, sént.to him in # sealed envelope; it is Riley's duty to send back to foreign countries lewers not pre- paid way coms wa pena vom 10 ue Wend Latter coun! yy Com OMice; I send such letters to Riley almost daily, calied for the plaintim, Reynolds Fechster, an insurance broker, testified that he had a conversation with Judge Coulter a James W. Hunter, who was arrested on charge of having shot Mary Brown, his hi keeper, at 76 Fulton street, on the 12th instant, wi admitved to bail in the sum of $6,000 by Jud; Moore yesterday morning. ) revious! mence to sum up. COUNTY CCUIT—CHAMBERS. Hunter Admitted to Bail. Before Judge Moore. Hunter was pi ken before Police Justice Walsh, when his coun: is & ed am COURT OF APPEALS CALENDAR. LBANY, N. Y., Jan. «2, 1872, Court of Appeals day caiei A The following is the der iw January 2:—Nos, 45, 40, 47, 48, 4, 65, always in a sealed envelope, which, Of course, he | short time previons to the charter election in 1869 to get at Felative to the election of Police Justices. mMirosvegnmiued =the.” 60 elo @ Did Ms, Coyiter iy this cgnversation tell yoo | aud velopes are plwaye both an order has been issued calling upon the | granted. Motion for receiver and injunction ank to show cause why it shou!d not be declared Mr. Christopher Fino, of the firm of Fine & G: costs, bankrupt. Tne order will be returnable on the 3d | Jaher, repliea. [He confessed thas what Mr. 0'G Sarah Goodwin, Admunistratrix, va John Boers! of Fepruary. man had said was highly entertaiuing, but did not | filer.—Judgment for defendant, sang touch a single question of law and had no relation | plaint, with costs, the Stateat } day last week, of a horrible outrage upon a ttle, German girl. After afew words by Mr. Spencerto induce the! Coart to mitignte the punishment, Reourder Hack- ett, In view of the enormity of the offence and so! | peculiarly aggravating circumst; with it, sentenced Marz to impr!