The New York Herald Newspaper, March 8, 1872, Page 5

MAYOR HALL. The Proecedings Yesterday---All Serene at the Opening---All Turbulent at the Close. A BOMBSHELL EXPLODES IN COURT. The Great Plasterer, Gar- vey, Appears. Effect of the Unexpected Apparition Upon the Bninitiated, Defendant's Counsel and the Public Generally, WHAT GARVEY KNOWS ABOUT TWEED, Anérew J. Gives His Testimony About That Little Bil. Defendant's Battery, “Objection,” Again Opens and Silences the “Gar- vey” Battery for the Day. The Action To Be Resumed This Morning. NINTH DATY. Yeaterday was the ninth day of the proceedings Im the case of the People of the Empire State against Mayer Hall, the Chief Magistrate of the Empire @ity. No public trial ever held in this city has cre- ‘ted a deeper or wider felt interest than this, To ‘the casual spectator or witness of the proceedings , Mais inverest perhaps would not be manifest, unless, indeed, he noted the array of able counsel that is @mgagedi on the side of the people and tor the de- Jenee, The court room 18 not besieged each morn- mg by crowds such as are drawn together by a taorbid curiosity excited by the trial of some tragic getor on the criminal stage of actual life. The class @f society always present on such occasions are no- tieeably absent, and from no portion whatever of ‘the spectators which every day fill the cours room of the General Term of the Court of Common Pieas, where the trial, taken from the General Sessions, 4s being*held, can any other expression, or act, or Jook be araypn than that which reficcts an earnest ané intelligent interest in the proceedings: Im fur- ther proof that the trial is not of the sensational Mtripe, and that the Mayor 1s not such a hero as he mught himself imagine, the court room has not been once graced by the presence of one of the fair nex. ‘The earlier proceedings yesterday were more than ‘sually dull up to the hour of recess, and when the Court reassembled after the brief adjournment there were fewer persons present than at any other stage of the trial. But the counsel for the prosecu- {ten bad a surprise in reserve, which, no doubt, ‘hey deemed would be the OOUP DE GRACE to the defence, or, at all events, drive them from Sheir Imes of intrenchments in the way of objec- Gens, and compel them to meet the prosecution on {as merits in the open field. . ‘The unexpected call tor and sudden appearance of 3 AXDREW J. GARVEY, the great Swiss traveller, and erstwhile plasterer @f the new County Court House, was indeed a bomb- mkell which the combined legal acumen and re- weerces of counsel for the defence were not pre- pared fon. Bat when “Andrew” was called it was thought to be a joke, or as near something of the sort as it was possible for the junior counsel (Peck- Ram) to attempt in the face of the Court and in the presence of his superiors in the prosecution. But ‘when Peckham called a second time, and, not wait- ing for the cabalistic “third and last,” Andrew 3, @id indeed appear, not as an apparition, bas only, reduced a little in corpulency, %% was seen that the solemn Peckham ‘was serious, and was as guiltless of a joke on that @ccasion as he ever, was in nis life. Of course Andrew on the stand was the cynosure of all eyes, ‘while his own were directed to the frescoed ceiling abeve bis head, which he himseif had placed there, and, oh, titude of republics had been the cause of exile and his present position. Andrew is not the Andrew of old. He has grown ‘thin, and has more of the ‘snow of winter” or of the Swiss mountains, on bis head than when he exedaddied. He was very nervous, and wheo gaswering the questions put tohim spoke like a man out of breath, However, he through a verv severe catechising ordeal. as counsel fer the defence, utter they got over their frst sur- prise, again opened their vattery of arguments, silencing completely the GARVEY BATTERY : @f the prosecution till the hour of adjournment. ‘When the Court was assembled a hope of shorten- Ing the trial was mnted by & suggestion of Mr. that objections should be passed on by witiout discussion until the final sum- mang up, but Judge Daly was unwilling to rule on any question without thoroughly understanding it, 60 as to have, by any misunderstanding on his part, ‘@ fatal exception. Quite a discussion arose as to how this dificult; shouid be obviated, Mr. ‘fremain being quite will. img to leave the defence any legal rights. Mr. Stoughton finally announced that they would not @iacuss any exception unless the Court desired ar eae added an elghtn to Mr. Burrill’s seven 1 Neither Mr, Tremain nor Judge Daly was quite Willing to accept Mr. Stoughton’s suggestion, Ohief Justice Daly classed Mr. Burrill’s objections in two Classes—first, that the warrant was not good aa secondary evidence to show the original claim, and, second, that 1c was not good as primary evi- ence, as not tending to snow that the claim should Not have been aliowed—in other words, to the effect Gf itas evidence, The Court overruled the objections, and admitted ‘the warrant in evidence, ‘The warrant has already been printed in fall. ‘The examination of the witness WILLLAM COPELAND ‘Was then proceeded with. The prosecution offered in evidence the entries on pages 363 and 364 In the Audit Book N kK NO. 9, Burrill objected that tne prosecution could only put in evidence the entries in regard to this particular warrant. Mr. ge ga fl well; we ony offer those par- ticular entries in evidence, Mr. Burrili—One moment. The evidence being thus restricted, we object further that Mr. Lynes Raving testified that the entry was simply a copy of ‘the warrant, it is not proper evidence. The war- rant itself covered the ground, so far as it can be covered, The Court—The evidence was, ‘the warrant gives all the information that the Audit Book does,”” Mr. Tremain—He stated that the number in the ‘was taken from the claim. The number in ik, as Your Honor will perceive, is altogether @igerent {rom the number of the warrant. He never made ihe number in the book until he had she voncner before him. Tne Vourt—That is sufficient to make it admis- Mr. Burrill and Mr. Tremain then each read co- pious extracts from the stenographer’s notes, after ‘which Mr. Burrill i that this evidence was NOt admissible, stace the book Was not unaer the vontrol of the defendant and never had been, The Court ruled against the objection. Finally, both parties agreed to take evidence for the present and merely note objections, reserving the argument upon them until the witness bad con- cluded his testimony. Mr. Peckham then read the entry as follows:—in the column under the heao Audit No., are the figures 90, and the line reads *40 whom,” A. J. Garvey, for labor and materials for the new Court House, December 16, 1869, amount 662 42; number of warrant, 2,507. Peckham offered to let the jury themselves see the entry. Mr. Burrill objectea je vOok being shown them, but consenved that the entry itself should be tho: copied off and handed to them. he Court rule” tnat the book itself could not be witness then continued. Q At the close of your examination you stated shat you had examined some of the vouchers of Mr. that were on file in tbe Vomptrolier’s State how many you examined und what it Of €Xammmation you gave them. . Mr. Burrili—is this offered as secondary evidence ‘Of the contents of these lost papers? . PecKham—Yes, sir, a> would be impossible to state the Kx-Recorder Smith—I raise an objection to this evidence. The madictment is for a sheuine offence. The Court—I understood that by matual agree- ment all Objections were to be reserved. ‘Bx-Keoorues Smich—Well, 4 walyp tho meter, by “EW YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1872.-TRIPLE SHEET. Se savive of my spsncianes, Dat It 19 a conrse 1 can- Se suerows of vouchers of Garvey I exam- of she Board of Audit, to- ith the order Scan, Campy to draw certificate of the Board of the ‘or, Comptroller and of ‘visors, A , Connolly and thetr handwriting A. Hall’s a Connolly's oie they write @ peculiar hand that ‘wish, County Audttor’s stamp on the sir; I cannot say the #E it the wareast A fy ywore filed, " a ane ey Wi im every case I examiued, hss Q. Was the name of on any other part of the papers except at the bottom of the audit cel y A. Yes, sir; in some cases the covered by the indictment by evidence showing the Nature and contents of other vouchers: The Court—i thought all these objections were to be reserved. Mr. Peckham—lI think a rale once accepted ought tobeenforced, The prosecution seem inclined to Jet us go on until some question arises likely 10 Open the objection and argue itall over again.” ol an The Oourt—I think it would be Detter to let the evidence go on and then discuss 1t as a whole when its be&ring and nature are clear, rather than raise objections on each separate piece Of evidence as it 48 Presented, question was suspended for a while, and Mr. Po Was th Dt filled up? A. Yes, sir, with ‘aa the recel] q » the proper mguasured y ‘Was there a single instance in all the vouchers of Mr. Garvey tbat you examined where the voucher Gid not contain all tpe papers you have seferred to and identifea? A. No; the papers were ail the same way—those that I saw. \ Was there any circumstance that caused you to make any partici examination of these vouchers? Mr, Burrill objected to the question. The Court—He has stated the fact, amd the accu- Tacy of his inspection is wholly immaterial on his airect examinauon. It would become @ proper question on the re-direct examination, if apy doubt of the fact were raised by the defence, What was the conaition of the blank affidavit ? is Was the question which had given rise to a previous objection and was argued at some length ‘until the recess, ‘The examination of this point was briefly con- tinued after tue recess without eliciting any matter or interest, ‘Tue trst grand sensation of the trial was then Hoopes . Peckham calling, ia his stentorian “ANDREW J. GARVEY. Is A. J. Garvey in court?” There was @ murmur of expectation and mystif- cation among the audience, which increased when there was no immediate response. Alter about naif a minute, however, “ANDY! Dimself appeared upon the scene, looking much tninner and older than when he and his wagon were last familiar sights to New Yorkers, All eyes Were directed towards bim, and from the moment he Sppeared on the stand till the adjournment, the people into the court room until it could hold No more, and the corridors and ich 80 often resounded to Andy’ Andy xept his eyes directed to the ceiling, as it he was pointing attention to his frescoes as a claim upon the gratitude of his countrymen—as Mantius when arraigned in the forum ed to the capital he had saved. The application, how- ever, did not apply, and Andrew had to tell all ho Knew about Tweed and the Board of Audit. HIS EXAMINATION. Q. Where do you reside? A. No, 7 East Forty- seventh street; have resided there since October, 1870; was forty-three years of age in December last; @m a builder, plasterer and decorator; have carried on that business here in this city since 1 was twenty- one years old, Q Are you acquainted with the defendant? A, Yes, sir; have been on speaking terms with him about six years, “DO YOU ENOW MR. TWEED?! @ Do you know Mr, Tweed? A. Yes, sir; have known him for twenty years. And Mr. Connolly tA. Yes, sir, for ten years. Had e business Claums against the city in 1870? A. Yes, sir. Q in that "yout signature on this warrant? A. res, sir. Q. Did you receive the money? A. Yes, sir, and deposited it the same in the bank, What bank? 4. The Broadway Bank; the amount deposited was larger than that Q. You the copay was larger than that? A. Yes, sir; I had other warrants cashed on that day, amounting in all, including this deposit, to $166,961 26, Mr, Burrill objected that the witness ougnt -_ to answer except in regard to the present warrant. The objection was sustained by the ruling of the art. Q Where aia you first receive this warrant? a. In the room directly under this—the chamber of the Board of Supervisors. Q Had you previously to that presented an ac- count inst the county? A. Yes, sir. Q Isthat a copy ofthe account? A, Yes, sir; it is & very fair copy of it. Q. In whose handwriting was the account? A In mine. whose handwritiag was the calculation in In that of Mr, Watson In ink of the interest? A. or Mr. Lynes, probably. ‘Tne following is @ copy of the bill referred to:— The county of New York to A. J. Gi 58 connie, we ‘or! ‘and jarvey, fect ero New louse :— For plaster work, red days’ work, at For lal 2,918 days’ work, at §3.. For scaffold builders and ri; 2,660 00: day For ‘of scaffold, material and ratisne For 1,276 ornamental wor! at 8D. For material for plasteringsand, lime, 16 dust, &e For use of scaffolding, ropes, tles, nails, &c. Interest (im red 10k)....0+.4 02 seeeeceee oe Q. 1s this also (presenting apaper, of which the foregoing 18 a copy) in your handwriting—this ex- hibit® A. Yes, sir, including the red ink. Q To whom dia you pregent that account? A. I Lab that account, with some otuer bills, to E. A, ‘oodward, Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervi- Q. How long have you known Woodward? A, About seven years. Q How long had he been Clerk of the Board of Supervisors? A. All the time I knew him and longer; I presented the bill to nim in the room of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Q. How many bills did you present to him at that time? A, Three ovhers—four tn all. Q. How long afterwards dia you receive the ac- count? A. About two weeks; it might have been a little longer than that. . Q@ Atthe me you received the warrant was it attached to other papers? <A. Yes, sir; there were three other papers—the certificate of the Audit Board and Mr. Connolly’s order for the warrant. ‘Witness identified blank forms produced as being similar in character to those he had seen filled up and attached to the warrant, Q. Were any other papers signed atthe ume you received the warrant—from whom did you receive the warrant? A. From Woodward. Q Did you give a receipt for this bill? A, Yes, Q. Is that the form of the receipt? A. Yes, sir; the blank 1s the same. Q You gave a receipt in that form, signed it and gave it back in return forthe warrant? A, Yes, Q, Thes® papers, were they all pinned together ? A. Yes, sir—I believe so; the warrant was pinned -on and the others might have been muctlaged on or attuched in some way; I left the balance of the papers with Woodward. Is this account an honest and just account ? Objected to by Mr. Burrill. hd Mr. Tremain said he proposed to show that the whole of the account, with the exception of perhaps thirty-five per cent of it, was fictitious and frauda- lent, having no foundation in justice, honesty or truth, The defence hesitated a few moments, and the Prosecution impauiently exclaimed, ‘‘Is there any objection?” ‘ ir. Burrill—On, yes, ‘Mr. Stoughton said one would suppose that a rson who had read this indictment and was ‘amiliar with criminal law or the purpose for which criminal prosecutions were instituted could not be serious in offering evidence of this character. He would not say that the effort to make it, however, was unexpected after the extraordinary opening they had been indulged wit! What was this sup- posed offence, as charged by tne indictment and defined by law? The indictment was framed under section 38 of the Revised Statutes, which read that every wilful neglect of dui in cases where it had been enjoined iy law upoa any ublic officer and where no special vision for its punishment had been made should accounted @ misdemeanor. The indictment was procured under the supposition that there was @ certain duty enjoined upon the defendant by the act of May 4, 1870. On page 878, section 4, volume 1 of the session laws of that year, it was provided tl all claims incurred prévious to the of this act shall be audited by tne Mayor, &c.’ His Honor would observe that the duty which it was supposed came within the provision of section 38 1m} upon the Mayor, 1n connection with two other off- cers, the duty of auditing these claims. All these claims having probably veen passed and allowed by the Board of Supervisors, 1t could be under. stood how it happened that tn layor and his associates considered that their doties were substantially ministerial Ali claims so passed by the Board of Supervisors became fixed claims, that Board being the only competent tribunal that had power to say what claims were liabilities. Butthe Mayor's duty was Judicial, and sor the exercise of that he was as irresponsible to the law a8 tis Honor was for the exercise of nis duties on the Bench, ‘The nature of she duty thus Imppoped, shen, Waa spVICiAl, and, Jo the absence of frand or dent—sitting im that Honor sitting on the ch, and subject on the be poole except in cases Of or ‘Tne indictment 10, ly and corruptly” be excluded, as wey added nothing to the offence, and Were not averments, but conclusions. ‘There was no allegation that the ciaim was unjust oe or that the Mayor had reason to sup Tefused to audit certain accounts. ‘There was 10 allegation oi fraud or complicity with any human being, or that the claim was nota just liability of the county. se had already that ace the presumption ¢ Mr. Stoughton exactly the argument now, it woui in generally reviewing the case. Nothing was better settled than that no judicial action of any Officer would come within the statute unless fraud or malice were alleged. Suppose this indictment, ‘had been preferred by Mr. Garvey humselt, that the Board nad refused to hear ins claim. That would have been competent proof under this indictment peomiens: always that under this fourth section the layor could be charged with an offence under sec- tion 38 of the statutes, and this question be would argue later. Bven in that case His Honor would have satd that the Board were acting judi and had fall discretion to upon what they Would or would not act. It wo be mo. to allow testimony like that now If ths claim were frente. uently allowed uni yet no stain was reflected upon them or upon the Court. It would be necessary, m2 case of ud being alleged against the Mayor, to show that the Mayor had, knowing the claim to be fraudulent, audited and passed it, The Court—Allow meto say that in 6th Mor- Gaunt tt 1s laid down that at the common law any — oficer is indictable for misbehavior in Mr, Stoughton said there must have been some doubt about it, or the statute to which the indict- ment would not have been passed, It bemg now late Mr. Stoughton postponed the remainder of the argument on his objection unt to-day, and the Court adjourned till eleven A, M. Mr. Garvey was surrounded with a group of quondam iriends and acquaintances, but seemed somewhat nervous and agitated, and could not be enticed into an indiscreet conversauon, To all questions he returned polite, but monosyllabic an- swers, and quietly withdrew from the scene which his presence had so greatly enlivened. THE COURTS. Interesting Proceedings in the United States, New York and Brooklyn Courts, Farther Adjournment in the Jumel Estate Case— Alleged Forgery of Bonds—A Patent Suit— Violation of the Internal Revenue Law— Business in the Court of Oyer and Ter- miner—A False Note—Decisions— Business in the General Sessions. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. The Collision Between the Steamers Pluto and St. John on the North River—How the Government Collectors are Paid. WASHINGTON, D, C., March 7, 1872. No, 131. Steamboat St. Jonn vs. Hasbrouck— Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Southern Dis trict of New York.—This was a case of collision be- tween the barge Ulster County, owned by the ap- lees, and the St. Jobn, the property of the New jersey. Steamboat Company, on the Hudson River, in November, 1864. ‘The fe was in tow of the propeller Pluto, and the answer alleged that the ropeller was Chargeable with the coilision, as she ia” not e & competent crew nor a compe- tent pilot; was out of the proper track of boats gi up the fiver, the course of tne pro id mot heea the signal of the St. John peller; and did notstop or back when the danger of a colli- sion pecame apparent, ‘The District Court found the St. John at fault for not having & proper look- out and for attempting to pass to the eastward, or side, of the propeller and her tow instead of passing to the right. The decree was Psp for the hibeliants. It ts ts here insisted ol steamer was justified. of the Pluto, made below, is als C. Jones for appellant, U.’ Donohue tor appellees. ~ The question in this case was whether or not Bal- lard, as Collector for the district of Cuyahoga, Ohio, ‘was entitied to retain for his own use, without pay- ing it into the Treasury, moneys received by him ‘trom the owners of steamers and trom engineers and pilots, under the act of 1852, by virtue o! the act of June, 1864, The Collecior insisted that by this law he was to have a fixed salary of $1,000, and in addition thereto the fees collected, provided the te compensation of salary and fees shoul not exceed $2,500; and that he was therefore entitled to retain the sums de- manded by the Department, as his compensation did not exceed the limits named. The Court so found, and the judgment was for the defendant. Tne government here urges that the special fees de- manded by the Department, collected under the act of 1852, were by that act to be accounted for to the United States, and that they are not, therefore, in- cluded among the fees which the Collector may re- tain, A. G. Riddle for Ballard, B. H. Bristow tor the government, No, 128. Davenport vs. Lamb et al.—Appeal from the Circuit Court for the District of Oregon.—This is a controversy concerning the title to block G in the city of Portland. A partition suit was instl- wted by Lamp et al, in which Davenport was a de- fendant, ne being the owner of the property, as claimed, by a direct line of conveyances irom the owners of the Portland Land Claim, and he was the only defendant who answered. Upon the trial the decision was in favor of the plaintif—s, except as to asmall res of the property which was ad- judged to Davenport. It 1s here insisted that the Court erred in taking Jurisdiction to try the adverse claims of Davenport in a suit of partition, and that he should nave been adjudged to be entitled to the whole of the property. W. W. Chapman for appel- lant; George H. Williams for appellees. UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COUAT. The Petit Jurors Discharged Until M Next. Before Judge Benedict. Yesterday Judge Benedict took his place upon the bench at the usual hour. There being no criminal case ready for trial the petit jurors were discharged until Monday next. THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. If Mr. Palen, one of tne jurors empanelled to try the case of George Washington Bowen vs. Nelson Chase, and who was sick when the cause was last jay the jury box tinued; out if then Mr. Palen should remain indisposed. Juage Benedict wik, in ail probability, roceed with the clearing oi the criminal calendar. in the event of the Jumel case going on Judge Ben- edict cannot hold his Court in the Federal Building; for there is no accommodation for him in that edifice, which 18 very badly suited for judiciait pur- a, There are but two coart rooms for the judges, Judge Blatchford uses one of tuese, and any Judge sitting in Uircuit occupies the other, as Judge Shipman has done during the tial of the Bowen and Chase case; so that Judge Woodrutf, who i hearing causes without a jury, is obliged to dispose of them in his chambers—a not very com- fortable apartment, in the rear of tne building. Distitiery Bonds—An Alleged Forgery. A case, showing the following circumstances, was disposed of before Judge Benedict:—David Eilan had been a distiller in this city, He gave a bond as security that the business of his establishment ‘would be conducted properly and according to law. ‘The name upon the bond was that of Jacob Fischel. The collector of the district in which the disttilery was situate alloged that certain irrogulari- tes as to distillation had been committed by Eilan, and proceeded against Fischel to recover the amount of thebond. Fischel declares that, though iis name ts upon the paper, he never signed it, and that the signature purporting to be nis is atorgery. Itisiurther stated that the per- son who forged Mr. Fischel’s name cannot now be found, ‘rhe decision of the Judge is in favor of Fiscnel. A Patent Suit. Judge Woodruff was occupied during the greater portion of the day in hearing a continuation of the argument in the patent suit of Cyrenus H., Wheeler vs. fhe Chipper Reaper and Mower Machine Com- UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS’ COURT. Charge of Selling Washed Revenue Stamps. Before Commissioner Shields, The United States vs. F. A. Goodall.—The defend- ant, as already reported in the A#RALD, had been charged with selling, or offering for sale, washed Tevenne stamps to Morris 8, Sullivan, an officer of the Secret Service Department, through whom the Preeent agousation has been made, Goodall alleges that the observer of the forward lookdut haa noth- ing to do with the collision, that the Pluto could not have been discovered by such a lookout sooner than she was, and that the mancuvring of the The point of the negligence jo ingisted upon here, No, 129, United States vs, Ballard.—Error to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Ohto.— that he got the stamps from a person who cannot be found at present, and as the production ot this per- son 18 deemed of importance for the defence the Commissioner allowed an adjournment for that pur- ‘pose if it 18 posaible vo effect it, © COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER Arraignment and Flens for Indictments for Murder and Manslaughter. Before Judge Ingraham. ‘This Court met at eleven A. M. yesterday. The only business transacted was receiving the pleas of various parties indicted for murder and man- slaughter, Most of the pleas were made tl iy Shee Tesuaciive counsel, Wm. F. Howe and W. F, Kintzing, Jeremiah ‘va oharged with the murder of Roger Betts, by stabbing, on the 19th of November last, plead not poly, John Costello, indicted for manslanghter in the piles aneee of John Glass on a sane ca uary, the Injuries resulting 1 ving been inficted at the dining saloon, No. 100 Nassau-sireet, plead not polity. Daniel M, Marrow, indicted for manslaughter in the alleged killing of Charles Mass on the 9th of last January, also plead not guilty. Patrick Malone, against whom a similar indict. ment was found for the alleged killing of Thomas O'Connor on October 9, 1871, made & similar plea, Jonn Morrison and Robert Perkinsun, ) in- dicted for manslaughter, in the alleged homicide of Er ” oe aveene on December 17, 1871, entered a Soka Peck, charged with manslaughter, through * the killing of Victor Clemens on mber 13, 1871, Was the last party arraigned. He entered the same piea of not guilty. After the above arraignments and pleas the Court adjourned to next Monday. SUPREME COURT—TRUL TERM—PART |. Verdict of Damage» Against Wreckers. Before Judge Barrett. John H. Doty vs, John H. Baxter.—In this case, which was an action for damages for non-fulfilling & contract in raising a sunken vessel, the lars of which have been pubiisned im’ the HERALD, & verdict was yesierday awarded giving the plaintifts $575 $3 aamages, ks ob ac SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS. About the Custody of n Child. Before Judge Ingraham. Inre Frederick Miller.—Between the parents of the relator, who is six years old, & sult for aivorce 1s pending, the father bringing the suit. Upon their separation the father retained custody of the re- Jatorand the mother of thei other child, a daugh- ter, Application was made on behalf of the mother for tue custody of the boy, on the ground of a@lieged unfitness of the father, by reason of his vio- lent temper, to have the care of a child of such tender years, ‘The Court refused to interfere tn the caxe, a8 such Interference might prejudice the pro- ceedings in the divorce sult, Decisions. Chomberlain vs, Ostrander.—Motion denied. Comstock vs, Martin.—Motion granted. Refer- ence ordered to Murray Hofman, Sloan vs, Martin.—same, Franklin Manutacturmg Company vs, Holman,— Monon grantea. Todd vs. Fortane—Same, In the Matter of the Receivershi Green Savings Kank.—Referred to A. 8. Ely vs. Parker,—Motion granted. SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERIR. Decisions. By Judge Sedgwick. Metzler vs. Fritz.~Mouon granted on payment of $15 costs, In tue matter of the application of Catharine Car- son.—Order granted, Hagan vs. Ryan.—Same. Kimball vs, Wiliiams,—Same, . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM. Alleged Mercantile Frauds. Before Juage Robinson. Stout vs. Wilsun and Leith.—Counsel applied for an order of arrest against the defendants upon afl. davits setting forth that the plaintiff was a mer- chant in Barclay street and Leith applied to him to Sel goods upon a promissory note of defendgn! Wilson, for the sum of $2,306, representing tha’ the note was a legitimate business note of the firm of Brelthaupt & Wilson and given to -bim for value; that he sold the goods ‘upon this representation, The affidavit further stated that Wilson had given Leith promissory notes to the amount of $5,000 to $10,000, to raise money by the purchase of goods, and then selling them at less than cost price; that Wilson was at 25 Thomas street, where the goods were stored, and saw the plaintitrs property there, which consisted of canned goods: that, also, the notes were protested at ma- jurity, and that Wilson is now insolvent. The charge was one of fraud and conspiracy. An order ‘Was granted, of Bowling Bradley. ‘ Decisions. By Judge Robinson. Van Viiet vs. McCunn.—Detfenuant adjudged in contempt and ordered to pay $100 fine and $146 84 costs and expenses, Anna M. Burrell vs. William A. Burrell.—Report of referee confirmed and divorce ted to the Plainuf, with the cust of the children, Wamboid vs. Peters. e memorandum. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—PART 2. Aseault and Battery Case Turned Out of the Common Pleas. Before Jadge Van Brunt, Last term an imquest was taken before Judge Loew, when the jury rendered a verdict for plaintift for $3,000 for injuries sustamed by him in Jones’ Wood in June, 1870, at the hands of the defendant, a lager beer saloon keeper. The inquest was sub- sequently opened, and the case came on for trial before Wg bee Brunt yesterday, when His Honor said that from his experience of assault and bat- tery cases he did not intend to try @ case of that descripsion in this or any other Court, and that it was in the discretion of the Court of Common Pleas vo send al such cases to the Marine Court under the statute, MARINE COURT—CHAMBERS. Decisions. by zocge Joachimsen. Boyden vs, Metropolitan Fire Extinguisher Com- pany.—Demurrer overruled, with teave, &c. Wise va. Kearney and Scott vs. Morasso,—Motions ‘to vacate, Attachments granted, Simonds Manufacturing Company vs. Gregory.— Motion to open default granted on terms. Wolbach vs. Moritz.—Motion granted. Goodhart vs. Manz.—Motion to open default granted on terms, Drake vs. Balle.—Judgment for plaintiff for 443 96. sear vs, Lynn.—Judgment for plainum for 1 French vs. Mendelsohn.—Judgment for plamtfr for $565 51. Schwarf vs. Goldstein.—Motion to vacate attach- ment denied. cay vs. Simonson.—Judgment for plaintiff for Miles vs. Mittnacht.—Judgment for plaintiff on demurrer, with leave, &c. Storpe vs. Coon.—Motionjto open default granted on terms. Doré vs, Atwell.—Judgment tor plaintiff for $61. Hirschfeid vs, McElroy, Lowenthal vs. Rosemann nd Rooney vs. Michels.—Motions granted, COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. Before Recorder Hackett. A MOTION BY MR. HOWE QUESTIONING THE LEGALITY OF THE TWO BRANCHES OF THE GENERAL SES- SIONS—"“MOTHER ROACH,” AN ALLEGED PICK- POCKET, ON TRIAL. The first case presentea for consideration by ‘ne jury yesterday in this Court, by Assistant Dis- trict Attorney Stewart, was a charge of larceny from the person against Mary Ann Leonard, allas Mother Roach. Before the trial proceeded Mr. Howe rose ana sald that he did not wish to impede, but to further, the admimistration of justice by Interposing an Objection to the case proceed. ing before that Court as at present organized, Jor the reason that the present term of the Court of General Sessions for this county was being held before Hon. Charles P, Daly, one of the Justices of the Court of Common Pleas, on the trial of a ver; high official. His Honor (the Recorder) was possi- bly aware that a bill was now betore the Legisla- wre for the purpose of sanctioning two branches of this Vourt being in session at cne time: and, there- fore it was doubtful as to the power of this Court to hol two branches or there would not nave been the Lydia Lyons was the complaiuant against Mary Ann Leonard, and stated that, on the 7th of Febru- sry, she took ‘a Broadway stage at the Staten Island ferry, and when she reached Prince street found that her pocketbook, containing $45 was stolen. The prisoner sat near her, and no other person could have takenit but her. An hour after her pocket was picked Miss Lyons returned to the Bat- tery and found Mother Roach there and had her ar- rested, but no money was found upon her. Before the jury left the court room there were eleven for conviction and one for acquittal, and jater in the afternoon they had not agreed. The Recorder dis- charged them from the further consideration of the case, and directed the Clerk to summon 100 jurors for Monday to try the case, ATTEMPTED BURGLARY IN A CRIMINAL LAWYER'S Ee 4 HOUsI Charles Woods, John Wiison and James Duffy, youths, were placed at the bar charged with attempting to break into the residence of a well known criminal lawyer, on the 7th of February, District Attorney Garvin stated to His Honor that the complainant, overfowing with the milk of human kindness, pleaded for mercy in their behalf. The Recorder said that the youthful criminals showed great audacity in concetving the purpose of committing @ crime upon the premises of a great criminal lawyer; yet His Honor, being ‘assured’ that it was their nirst offence and that they were respect- ably connected, suspended judgment. AN ACQUITTAL, Frederick Schmeckpepper was tried upon a charge Of receiving jour boxes of candies which 5 THE REAL ESTATE MARKET. Feeling Among Dealers Be specting Its Future. were stolen two Harrison and the store Abraham Jackson, vith ee eUey Knowledge, That essential fact not eatab- shea the jury rendered @ verdict of not guilty. Thomas ‘Nolan, @ youth, indicted for ting Bien at gu esa paar gro pot a Jayeeny from the pA eS sent vo the Brats Prigon for five years, ORG! BURGLARIES. Renry Cowen (a boy), who attempted to lari- ously enter the’ premisen oth M Clare, in wast Forty-ninth street, on the 6th of Feoruary, pleaded spl 8 and was sent to the Penwentiary for six George Bramer offered a similar the indict- ment charging that on the 23d of January he, with & confederate, broke into the store of Friedman & Lantezing, 14 Warren street, and stole $1,350 worth, eof knives, He was sent to the State Prison for two *Pennis Brady, charged with bet a Ing concerned in robbing Albert ‘Bornonsky of waten auc diamond pia in @ liquor saioon, corner of East Broadway aud we A ines eae Rial cesta le umstances the Se, sent Brady to the Penitentiary for three James Wuew who, in conjunction with two con- feaerates, e into the premises of Theodore Lin- Dington, No, 216 Front street, on the night of the 24 of February, and stole $90 worth ol cigars, ity © an attempt at burglary. Two Effect of Past Operations on Fifth Ave nue and Madison Avenue Property. THE LOGIC -OF FIGURES. Who Constitute the Heavy Buyers and How They Operate. years and eix months in the State Prison was the *ejonn Wi indicted, in whove SOLID MEN TO THE FRONT. sion two boxes pny Bry cigars were found, was sent to the Penitentiary for six months, hex James Walker, who was charged with forg! Projected Improvement on the Corner of ang & check tor $24 in order vo procure medicine for a sick Renotans Destro ‘Autores ine cen sanpended judgment, 4 ii Broadway and Dey Street, BROOKLYN COURTS, Pear OI Napoleon and New York Real Estate. Particulars of the Sale of Park antl Boulevard Lots To-Day. SUPREME COURT—SPECIAL TEAR The Agricultural College Land Case. Before Judge Gilbert. Wiltam Woodward vs. Ezra Cornell.—This case ‘Was reported in the HERALD a few days since. It is an action to recover $116,000, alleged to be due plaintiff in connection with locating Agricultural Coll Jands in the West, which had heen given to the State of New Yor by an act of Congress, then transierred to the @ornell University and subse- quently purchased by the defendant Cornell, who, &8 claimed, employed plajntiff to assist him in lo- cating the lands. The trial of the case was set down for Orange county, but on Monday last counsel for detence moved to have the place of trial changed to Tomp- kins County, on the ground that the greater number of witnesses lived there. Yesterday Judge Gilvert repsored a decision denying the motion, with $10 Mhe article in yesterday’s HERALD respecting & new movement in real estate created quite an exe citement in real estate circles, and was a principal subject of discussion among the crowd collected at the sale of the Boulevard and Park lots, as well as in brokers’ offices generally. The weight of opinion was with the correctness of the conclusions there set forth, and many a reader contributed nis quete of individual knowledge to sustain our judgment. Others contended that while a period of renewed ac- uvity, beyond question, was close at hand, in whicn former seasons of excitement and heavy operations would be repeated, yet that the market was in an incohate state as regarded this result, and had not yet recovered the nee ied spring and buoyancy to justify full confidence, In other words, the effect of the recent stagnation is still upon the market, and checks the speculative ardor which would otherwise stimulate free Investments, This 18 certainly true to a great extent, judging from the record of public dealings; but there are Rumerous transactions dally occurring in private, in which the heaviest operators are engaged as pria- cipals, which furnish the needed assurance to justify our anticipations. FIFTH AVENUE PROPERTY. ‘The single cuse of tne sale of the lot on the corner of Fifth avenue and Eighty-fitth street on Tuesday to W. P. Douglas, for $47,500, atfords an opportunity to illustrate this. Mr. Douglas has since been offered an advance of $5,000 upon his purchase, The 106 Decisions. Ranson McEwen et al, vs, William Wright, Jr— Motion to change place of trial denied. Ten dollars costs to abide event, Anvonio G, DeGorgorza vs, Knickerbocker Life {nsurance Company.—Cireuit case settled, John Rinn vs. Thomas Riley.—Mouion to vacate order to file security for costs denied, without costs. Maria L. J. Smith vs. Rebecca C. Davison et al,— Motion to set aside sale denied, with $10 costs, Owen Mosier vs. Godfred Grossman et al.—Motion Vo change venue granted; $10 costs, to abide event. Edward Doyle vs, William ©. Anderson.—Demur- Ter sustained; jadgment for plaintif, with costs. Emma B. Bruce et al. vs, Marietta M. Fuller et al.—Complaint dismissed; $150 allowance. CITY couRT. A Court Room Wanted, Before Judge Neilson. Since the reorganization of the vity Court, in- creasing the number of judges to three, increasing the jurisdiction of the Court, &c., business has m- creased so raptdly that the Court has been divided into two parts, held in separate rooms. ‘The second part has been held in the County Court room when that Court was not in session. Frequency ‘adj 7 joi ning this, op Futh avenue, solid in November, when Judge Moore has been _ holding | 1809, Tor $17,000, and $45,000 has only recently been County Court his room has been wanted | refused. This rapid appreciation ty but the natural by Judge McOue to hold the second part of the City Court in; consequently the business of the latter tribunal has been delayed. This was the case yes- terda, morning. Judge Moore was engaged in the County Court, and there was a large calendar of the City Court to be disposed of by Ju McCue. Judge Nellson was garaged in the First Part in the suit of the widow Jane Madden against tne Staten Island Ferry Company. ns Judge Neilson called the calendar for the day and found that there was a large number of cases ready for trial. All parties, including Judge McCue, were in attendance and ready to proceed, but there ‘was no court room to be had, ana Judge Neilson, therefore, announced that the cases must stand over until Monday next. Perhaps the Judge, while result of the competition auiong buyers that has prevailed in the incerval to get hold of this kind of property, @ competition that has been quietly carried on, 80 that when @ public sale takes piace the advance upon former prices is starting. Among the heaviest buyers of this kind o1 property jor years has been Gritlitn Rowe, who 1s said to own or control almost the entire Filth avenue front from Filty-ninth to Ninetieth street. The influence of these investments is also visibie in the rapid ap- preciation of MADISON AVENUE PROPERTY and property adjacent thereto, extending all the way from Forty-second to lovth street and bounded by Fourth and Filth avenues. Phe improvement of this district has been almoat marvellous within the making the announcement, perpetrated a joke when | last couple of years. Whole biocks of houses have he said that It had been suggested by a member of | been erected On tue gross streets, while on the line he bar they should endeavor to obtain posses- | of Madison avenue’ the improvements are of the sion of Long Island Club House (the headquar- | most ssately character. For lots on tne corner of ters Of the democratic club on Clinton street) to hold court in, The Court added, however, that oe gentlemen seemed to doudt the propriety of joing 80 | Madison avenue ana Seventy-lourth street, which sould respectively three years agv at $14,000 and $13,000, they are now asking $40,000. The inier- ence 1s that the same mea who by their operations gave the impevus to the Fifth avenue and neighbor- ing property have now transterred their operauous to tne Boulevard, The appreciation east of Park having reached u limit beyond whicn there 18 not much profit to be tvoked Jor without improve. ment, they have directed their attenuon to the west side as offering a iresh feld jor successtut speculation. By speculation here we do not mean speculation in the sense of the Stock Exchange, based upon fictitious Values, bat speculative invest- ment looking to @ future rapid appreciation. BROOKLYN COURT CALENDARS. SUPREME COURT—CiRcUIT.—Nos. 49, 97, 98, 99, 100, ul, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 109 to 117, in- Crry Court.--No calendar for to-day, in view of the fact that the- Westfield case will occupy the balance of tne week, and, as there 18 no room for Judge McCue to hoid Part 2 in, the following 1s Mon- day’s calenaar:—Nos. 31, 35, 47, 51, 52, 64, 55, 56, 58, 67, 73, 74, 89, 94, 96, 98, G9, 100, 1 102, 106, 108, | Amon; 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 122, 123,"125, THe HEAVIEST REAL ESTATE OPERATORS, 127, 128, 129. Whose presence in the market 18 the certain sndica- tion of genuine acuvity, are John H. rower, Amos R, Eno, L. J. Phillips (Mr. Phillips 1s sald to be a beavy buyer on the west side). George H. 4 Benjamin Cohen (both Mr. Peck and Mr. Conen bought freeiy at recent west side sales); Grimth Rowe we have already mentioued, whose greas specialty is Filth avenue property; W. P. Douglas, Adon Smith, John DV, Lewis, 3%. M. Peyser, Sylves ter Brush and J, Blumenthal. These are ouly a jew, however, of the number who give real estate the preference in thelr investments, and are exciusive ot the numerous operators in west side property who were more or less associated with tne ring.’”? ‘The future of the investments made on that account present & somewhat puzzling problem to real estate men, but while the improvements projected by its members, and apon which they based their purchases, go on without interruption, itcan remain @ problem without detriment to the 1nterests of other real estate owners. We have also omitted the name of a once distinguished investor JUSTICE AND THE JUDGES. The Judiciary Committee in Session—Investi- gation of the Charges Against Judge Bar- nard—Windi: Up of the Case Against Judge Cardozo. ‘The investigations that are carried on in parlors H andG of the Fifth Avenue Hotel by the Judiciary Committee are becoming decidedly monotonous, as nething so far has been brought to nght of any startling nature against the judges who have been arraigned before this learned body. It was given outon Wednesday evening that the case against Judge Barnard woula be commenced at noon yes- terday, and at that hour the accused and his | jn New York real estate, counsel, Rufus Andrews, presented them- THE &X-EMPEROR NAPOLEON IIT, selves before the committee and announced | Who i has been often stated, owns or owned con. siderable property in this city. The ex-Emperor on one occasion assured the correspondent of the HERALD that such was not the case, but in view of the distress of mind he was then suffering {rom it is quite possible he may have torgotten the piece relarred to belo INCIDENT OF A LATE TRANSACTION. It will doubtless be recollected by the readers ob the HeraLp that Dr. Evans, an American dentist, became a warm personal friend of the ex-Emperor, then in tne zeniti of his power. So close and con- fidential became the intimacy that the Emperor their readiness to take into consideration the seve- ral charges that had been preferred. It appears there are about half a dozen charges against Judge Barnard, the first of which accuses him of having formed a corrupt assoclauon with Fi sk, Gould, Sherman and Fields and others, for the purpose of gaining possession of the Albany and Susquehanna Railroad; and that with this object in view the Judge had granted § injunctions upon mo- | entrusted Dr. Evans With the onerous task of in- tions of Sherman and Fields, who had | vesting large sums in oe pe ae Aton been empowered to act in tne mat- | the real estate purchased ia this city for the Empe- re Me rials tive committee. ‘This | TOF Was @ plece of property situaved on the north. kt tM A BEA : 'S | west corner of Dey strect and Broadway, the Broad- wav front extending about fiity-five feet, with a depth in Dey street of 150 feet. This estate cost the Emperor $480,000, the purchase being effected in Dr. Evans’ name. Of late the Western Union Telegraph Com) has been hard pushed for room in its present head- quarters, and several atvempis have been made by the Management to obtain another and @ more ex- Pansive location. 1p order to be ag Close as possible to the new Post Office a bid was made some time ago for the Astor House, The offer was not ac- cepted. Finally the company resoived to purchase the Broadway and Dey street property ol the ex- Emperor. The handsome sum of $840,000 was paid to him, througb Dr. Evans, for this property, thus diverting into Louls Napoleon’s private purse the very satisfactory margin Of $360,000, Un the Ist of May the building at present on the property will be torn down to make way for the Rew headquarters, The promised structure will probably be one of the most splendid, as is will be one of the most complete, butldings on Uns Conte nent. 1t will be tne great telegraphic heart of the country, where the electric current will puisate might and day (rom and to the extreme en's of the earth, The announcement by the company of its intention has caused a brisk demand for office room 4p the vicinity, THE SALE OF PARK AND BOULEVARD LOTS baste belonging to the estate of Washington . Smith, deceased, under a decree tn partition of the Supreme Court, attracted a large attendance to the salesroom, comprising y of the prominent real estate men of this city, who watched the progress of the sale with much inver- est, The terms were somewbat varied irom the usual course, the sale being made from a marked map upon which was set down opposite to each lot the amount of cash that would be req Vid % 3 red. In appears to be the most important charge, and Messrs. Sherman, Stirimg, David Dudley Field and Dudley Field were suvpwnaed as witnesses. Another of tie charges is that Judge Barnard has made use of abusive language from the Bench to members of the Bar and others. At noon yesterday everything was in readiness to proceed with the examination of the charges, but unfortunately none of the witnesses appeared, and consequently business remained in statu quo until their arrival. Judge Barnard and his counsel, Rufus Andrews, promenaded around, naturally @ littie chated at the delay. un queshoning the Judge as to his opinion of tne charges brought against nim, ‘he said he was ver- fectly satisfied with the whole maiter, and thonght tnat the cunduct of the judiciary should always be subject to the most searching examination if there ‘was the slightest proof of any corruption, and added that it was the bounden duty of any citizen who had any proofs of corruption against a member of the judiciary to appege and make afidavit to the same. id It was nearly three o’clock before a witness arrived; but at Jast Mr. Dudiey Field put in an appearance, and the committce immediately went to Work upon the Albany and Susquehanna charge. Mr. Rutus Andrews was the only counsel for Juage ard present, as his associate, Mr. Fancher, is on the sick ist, The committee kept hard at work upon Mr. Dudley Field anti! five o'clock P. M., when they adjourned the further imvestigation of the chargea against Judge Barnard until ten a. M. this mornyng. ‘The result of their labors yesterday appear to have been rather unsatisfactory, as Mr. Dudley Fiela completely upset this charge, proving tha the firm he represented nad authority to act counsel by an agreement witn the Executive Uo: mittee of the-bourd of directors of the railroad ana po same E; cl independent of the price of Gomimittee. beveral witnesses tn Rae | Eiinoined rot the sale both figures are given. tive Committee. peveral witnesses have been sul- | Sabjoined re} enna to, apbeat today on the, Judge Warnard | | Tue Beri Sige abba the male tHe voce, I bentr and secuee Coenen A. Lane, Henry | Si veon the Boulevard and Tenth avenue, 26x102. 2, which sold for $5,800; $4,500 cash, Following this: the Tenth avenue lots’ were put up. Tae one on the corner of Seventy-seventh street, 25.634x90, being the southwest corner, brought $6,650; $4,500 cash. The committee met last evening at half-past seven to conciude the examination of witnesses in the Jadge Cardozo investigauon. Mr. C. E. Jordan, & gentleman connected with the le; profession, was first puton the stand and examined 10 some Fe Oe Oe eeetiroly; Scar ae engin as to some documentary evidence tending to | $4,000 ai Hots on seventy: seventh street, south ‘The six inning ninety feet west of Tenth avenue, each see ton 2, wold. as follows:—The first two. near. est the avenue, $4,750 each, and the otuers succes. sively for $5,100, $5,600, $6,200 and $7,360; $4,600 cash on each. ‘The Boulevard lots sold as follows:— Corner of Seventy-seventn street and the Boule rebut the evidence produced on the part of the Bar Association. Jud; y ules, ‘Mr. Sparks, Clerk of the Court of General Ses- sions, Was also present with a large batch of pall | | Dir orate, 26.4% front, 1104 on Seventye bonds and recognizances of Ope rein (ue seventh street, $15,100; cash $10,000. Lot adjotne habeas corps, aiter avin Court of Special Sess! . auced on ena! of Judge 0, Wo show Chat thing had been ‘transacted in a@ perfectly py bees manner, The Judiciary pee er ad oe hovged Picer vefore eleven P.M. oy has now terminated and the tigation OF the Crt their abiention to-day to Ing, same front, mean vepth 100.6, $13,400. Lot ad» joining, mean cone 93 feet, $12,856. Lot adjoins ing; mean depth 87.5, $12,100, cash pay- ment required on each of these was $8,500. ‘The buyers were Jonn B. Dyer, J. O, Wright, W. W. Backus, J. Blumenthal and J. R. Smith. ‘The other transactions at the Exchange were un- important jis testimony Was piro-