The New York Herald Newspaper, June 12, 1872, Page 4

4 THE KILLING OF CILVERT. A Lad of Sixteen Slays a Keeper of the House of Refuge While Being Brutally Beaten by Him. A MODERN CHAMBER OF TORTURES. eee The “Grand Inquisitor” Jones and His Ropes, Thumbscrews, Pulleys and Lashes for the Wretched Lads Under His Oare. San Sb Haas “I Did Not Copy from the Span- ish Inquisition.” Boys Hung by the Thumbs Until They Faint — Whipping, Bloody Lash- ings and Bitter Tears Their Daily Amusements. “Pope” Jones Cross-Examined and Ilis Victims in the Witness Box. ‘The trial for manslaughter of the young lad Jus- tus Dunn, charged with the killing, in the House of | Refuge on the 17th of March last, of Samuel Calvert, a keeper who had been accustomed for many years to treat the boys in his charge very brutally, was yesterday continued before His Honor Judge Bed- ford in the Court of General Sessions. The court room was crowded with interested spectators of | both sexes, who seemed to consider every bit of evidence adduced as of great importance. Several clergymen were also present. The prisoner is a soft-looking, bulky-faced lad, of fair skin and without any traces whatever in his features of malice or bloodthirstiness. He looks iike acabin boy of a packet ship, doomed to hard work and hardship and misery. Superintendent Israel Jones, of the House of Refuge, was also in court, smiling benevolently on every one, as ifhe ‘were about to be sent on a missionary enterprise among the heathen. He is a square-shouldered, round-headed and cold-eyed man, who talks inthe | ‘witness box like a story book, and what is worse he likes to hear himeef talk, and fancies that every one is pointing at him and whispering to each other, “Look! Thatis the great, plous and moral Jones, who is so Kind to the boys in the House of Refnge."’ Mr. William F. Howe appeared, in white flannel trousers and coat and a diamond pin, for the pris- | oner, and Mr, O. Stewart appeared for the people, | being the Assistant District Attorney. Several | times during the progress of the testimony the counsel for defence and the District Attorney had their little jokes together. His Honor Judge Bed- ford, during the trial, ruled quietly but with de- termination on all technical, points with decorum and impartiality. Israel C. Jones, the Superintendent of the House | of Refuge, was recalled and cross-examined further by Mr. Howe. He said:—The boys work in teams of ten to twelve, eight hours in summer and seven | in winter; the maximum task at “lasting” (making shoes) is forty pairs of shoes each day. JONES AND HIS CIRCUMSTANCES. Q. If they fell short of forty pairs a day were they punished? A. That depended upon circumstances ; not necessarily by any means. Mr. Howe was about to ask the witness the Nature of the punishment and by whom it was in- Nicted, when Assistant District Attorney Stewart objected to the question as irrelevant. His Honor permitted the question, a8 counsel on cross-exami- | nation had a wide latitude. THE GENTLE MERCY OF JONES. ‘The witness replied by saying that if a boy did not perform the task allotted to him his excuse | would ne heard, which, if reasonable, exempted him from punishment; if repeated delinquencies were recorded against him his grade would be changed; if all these means were exhausted cor- Pporeal punisnment would be resorted to; there is* not an institution known at the House of Refuge as “the whipping closet.” | JONES AND HIS LAS. The inatrument used in whipping the boys is a small strap, which is fastened to the end of a atick | from fourteen to sixteen inches long and as large | as a finger ; the strap is split into about four strings, from six to cight inches long, about the size of an ordinary leather shoe string. A CAT OF FOUR TAILS. Q. Instead of its being a cat o’ nine tails it is a cat of four tails? A. We donot call it a cat; we call it a strap; it is not always used on the bare backs of the boys, but it is in very extreme cases; in the | majority of cases it isapplied over the boys’ cloth- | ing; there were never, to my knowledge, nine thongs on those instruments. STRIPPING THE BOYS. Ido not see all the flogging administered; I never counted the number of lashes given, but I know forty were never administered at one time; the Assistant Superintendent, Mr. Branch, and Captain Eldridge, administer the punishment; in my opinion from fifteen to eighteen is the highest number in- flicted at one time. BLOOD FLOWS FREELY. Ihave never seen boys whipped until the blood has | trickled down their backs, but I have seen dis | coloration; it is impossible to strike a boy upon the skin, or perhaps, over the clothing, without making a mark; I do not remember @ single instance of boys bleeding from the nose when struck by keepers, but I have known keepers to strike boys with the fat hand on the side of the face; never knew that it was a com- mon saying among the boys, “You will get the | Stars and Stripes,” and never heard the term until I saw it in that report. (The witness referred to the report of the Legislative Commission, which the counsel held in his hand.) It fs only after known wilfulness and repeated offences that boys are punished for tearing uppers and destroying their work; I have had boys come to me and complain | that they were struck by the instructors employed | by the contractors in the institution, and have dis- | missed the instructor at once. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. | I never knew the instractors to teach the boys to | steal leather from their “bosses,” and be rewarded | for 80 doing with bread and butter and cake. A BARBAROUS BUTCHER. TI never heard of a Catholic boy being sent from Astoria, who was severely beaten because he re- | fused to read a Protestant Bible, and who, in con- | sequence of the beating, had to be taken home, | where he soon died, and the whole village turned | out a8 a funeral procession to follow the remains of the little fellow to the grave; there was a boy | named John Callahan in the House of Refuge, and I | know Michael Ward and Thomas Welsh: I know of | Ward being tied up by the thumbs. (The witness | described this mode of punishment.) with a rattan, ont not so severely as to be apie to Count the welts by the biood. man named Valentine Feldman, who was em- “ployed in the House of Refuge from 1859 to 1867:—I do not remember of any boy being hung up with his toes three inches from the ground, “OH, SHAME," Q. Did you know of this case: A. A boy was punished for not completing his task, and not doing t well. He was reported for this to Assistant Superintendent Hatieck; he (Halleck) carried him down to the oilice by his collar, and punished him for fifteen minutes with @ cane, 80 that the blood ran down the boy's back ; then the Assistant Super- intendent brought him ‘back into the shop to his place, aud there struck him on the side of the head, telling lim if he did not do his work right he would give him more yet. FOR GOD'S SAKE, Then the boy cried out, “For God's sake! Tam | not able to do it; after that he brought the boy back to his ahop’and treated him as he did on the sion; the boy could not speak a word | after that; then the assistant carried him down to | tho oMice and caned him for the third time; after | this caning the boy could not come up stalrs, 80 | they took him to the hospital, where he died in four | days. Q. Do you remember that case? A. No, sir, WHAT ARE YOU READING? The Judge asked Mr. Howe what he was reading from, He replied that it was from the testimony given by Valentine Feldman before the State Com- mission. District Attorney Stewart said that tne Commis- mony was set aside. He (Mr. Stewart) objected to the line of examination pursued by the counsel in arraigning the Board of Managers of the House of Refuge, which was composed of the best citizens of New York, and suggested that the Grand and not the Petit Jury was the proper tribunal before which to institute such an investigation. THAT WAS TOO THIN. Mr. Howe responded by saying most explicitly that those estimable gentlemen were not being ar- raigned, but he (the counsel) was simply institut- ing an inquiry into the mode of treatment to which the boys were subjected and bring it to their knowl- edge and to that of the public through this trial. AN HONEST JUDGE SPEAKS. Judge Bedford said :—! District Attorney—As I | said yesterday, [deem this one of the most im- | portant case: y brought into a court of justice. do not know what tie theory of the defence 1s, but [think there is ng better place than this court | room, with the Distri¢t Attorney on one side and | the counsel on tue other, to thoroughly investigate | everything—the general treatment and the way in | | which things are conducted on the island. If | this. boy be guilty let him be proved so, and let him be punished; but if the treatment be aa is alleged by the counsel, then it is for the jury to say whether he was justiled or not. [have the | | right in my discretion to give the broadest latitude | to the prosecution and to the defence, so that the | community may get at the exact truth as to the | way in which this institution {8 conducted. | (To the District Attorney) —I think you have misunderstood | ny rulin®s in saying that Lam arraigning such men as Chief Justice Daly and other eminent citizens. | | AN APOLOGY FROM STEWART. | District Attorney Stewart—I did not say Your Honor was arraigning them. Mr, Howe resumed the examination of Superin- tendent Jones, who said that King James’ version of the Protestunt Bible was used in the Institution; | Father Duranquet was permitted to speak to the pel with the understanding that he hing about faith or doctrine; “DOWN WITH THE PAPISTS,’” | I never permitted a priest to publicly celebrate mass there; I never knew of @ boy being punished | because he wowd not sing in the chapel; Jewish | boys work there on Saturdays, and they and the | Catholic boys attend and listen to the ministrations | of Dr. Pierce, the chaplain, who is a Methodist; I | have seen the boys have Catholic prayer books, and | Inever knew of Catholic catechisms being taken from any of them. The Assistant District Attorney then had Mr. Jones give an account of the formation of the Board of Managers of the House of Refuge, the mode of rewarding boys for diligence in work and the sys- tem of religious training practiced in the institu- tion, ‘ JONES IN HIS PULPIT, At this stage of the proceedings Superintendent Jones, or Pope" Jones, as he is called, threw one leg over another, cast ‘an olly look atthe jury, a pious look at Judge Bedford, and for an hour ‘or more no Court ever listened to such a magnificent specimen of cant and pious humbug as was heard from this same Jones, Instead of giving his evi- dence this man of the thumbscrews and pullyes was actually lecturing the sues and jury on their moral deficiencies. Now and then, with an oly unction, threw his eyes, like a martyr, to the ceiling, as he described the paradaisical benefits of the House of Refuge. Everything in that institution was beanti- ful and good. The punishments were few and far between, and each boy was rewarded according to his grade by the godlike and merciful Jones. A CONFESSION OF FAITH. Mr. Howe—By the way, Mr. Jones, do you know anything about this confession of faith, which every Catholic boy inthe House of Refuge has to listen to—] mean this in the book before me (showing a | small book)—I mean this book, which Is called, | “Form of Devotion for the House of Refuge *”" Superintendent Jones—Oh, yes, that book is the one used ih the House of Refuge; Ido not know that it is of any particular religious sect. The refulgent Howe—Do you know that it is a Methodist clergyman that reads it to the boys in the Refuge * Mr. Jones (hesitatingly)—I know it is a Christian clergyman ; he inculcates Bible truths. Mr. Howe—Why, how 1s it then, that if all boys are alike in this institution that you read a Lord’s prayer which has for its ending a form so radically different from that taught by Roman Catholics to their children. I quote ‘For Thi is the king- dom, the power and glory forever and ever. Amen.’ You never heard a boy, a Roman Catho- lic boy, say his Lord’s prayer in that manner, did ‘ouy if Mr. Jones—I do not know anything about that; AT THEIR DEVOTIONS Mr. Howe then took up his copy of the Prayer Book, on the title page of which were the words, “Printed for the House of Refuge by Carlton & Lana- han, 1871." The counsel referred to the act of con- fession mentioned in the book, and asked Mr. Junes to read it. Mr. Jones demurred to reading, but Judge Bedford said that the witness might read it. Jones took the book, and in a voice exactly like that of a minister of the Methodist faith, read the confes- sion out aloud. During the reading Mr. Howe held his head bowed down with pious rapture, to the reat amusement of the jury. An assistant of the sistant District Attorney stated that the confes- sion was literaliy transcribed from the Roman ritual, which is not the fact. WHO STABBED CALVERT ? The next witness was Dr. John Colby, who testi- fled that he had been connected with the House of Retuge as a house physician for three years, and had been connected indirectly with the House of Refuge for seven.years; had attended Samuel Col- vert, on March 17; saw him at forty minutes past seven P. M.; he was lying on the bed in his room in astate of exhaustion; when I examined him he had two stab wounds in the right leg, just above the knee, and several others of a minor character. He described the stab wounds, which were severe enough to sever veins and main artery of the lee, Calvert died from loss of blood at hali-past ten THE RESULT OF WRONGS. James Brennan, a good-looking lad of eighteen years of age, Was next examined. When asked where he resided he stated that he was in the Tombs; bave been in the House of Refuge; was there on the 17th of March; had been there four months; was in the shoe shop; knew Mr. Calvert, and was around the building; heard some kind ot mping on the tier; ran around, and heard Mr. Calvert calling ‘Brennan, Brennan ;” saw Calvert Kicking something in front of cell 23; saw Dunn just then; Calvert said, “Come up stairs— Dunn has t a knife; went up stairs and took a knife from Dunn; don’t know what kind of | knife it was; gave it up rignt away; it was not very long or very sharp, I don’t think; I said to Dunn, “Go into your cell and I will make it all right,” and he went in; I did not know that Calvert was stabbed; Mr. Brush, an officer in the prison, came up and commenced punching Dunn in his face, | You will run exaltiat people }/? Dunn said | and said, to Brueh, “Calvert kicked me. Thomas Byrnes, a villanous-looking lad,j next | testified in an incoherent way as to the stabbing, but did not throw any light on the subject, and con- tradicted himself several times in @ manner that caused severe remark. Mr. Howe asked the witness if he had not been promised a discharge from the House of Kefuge as soon as the trial was ended. A “NICE” WITNESS, Witness—Yea, sir; Mr. Jones promised me a dis- charge (sensation in Court) as soon as I had testl- fied in this case; the witness had been sent to the Refuge twice, for theft and for oreaty. and for first time of all to the Sak prie 6 Dunn had called him a nickname, “Balky,”’ and Calvert heard it as he came along the tier and cried out, “I'll give you “Ba liky” SPARRING BY THR LAWYERS. Judge Bedford—It is in evidence that Calvert kicked the boy before Dunn struck at him, M District Attorney. HOW THE DEED WAS DONE. In the tailor’s shop there is an iron column five inches in diameter; around the top of that was placed a small cord, and another small cord was run through it and dropped down; the boys’ thumbs were put into the ends and drawn up until the arms were extended, but their feet were not moved. THE INFERNAL TORTURE. By Judge Bedford—How long were they kept in that position? A. They were from three, perhaps, to eight minutes, To Mr. Howe—I tried the effect upon myself; I did not copy this mode of punishment from the | Spanish Inquisition; it was an idea that struck | me to deal with that particular class of boys; no | i e before or since were ever dealt with in that ay. THR NUMBER THAT WERE HUNG? i I think seven, not to exceed eight, boys were pan- ished in this Way; I was present during the punish- ment of one of the boys part of the time; 1 went out of the room, | Ry Judge Bedford—Yon do not know of your own | knowledge whether they were raised from the | Med that he had been punished cause he ran away from the Refuge. the counsel for the prisoner and Mr. Stewart. sioners in their report state that Feldman’s testi- | | \ | | Stopped.) Witness was in the first rank of merit. He wore a badge. Judge Bedford, at this stage of the proceedings, adjourned the case unt! this morning, and sald :— “Gentlemen of the jury. be very careful and do not talk about this case with any person or persons.” Mr. Howe read some choice extracts from testl- mony given before the State Commissioners of Prison Labor, appointed by the Legislatwre in 1871. The Commission consisted of M, ¢ Myers, EK. 0. Wines and Thomas Fencer. The report numbers nearly three hundred pages, and we give a few of the extracts which were read, in an incomplete form, by Mr. Howe. They.speak for themselves ‘Thomas P, Crowne was sworn and examine What is your occupation ? A. I'am a shoemaker. Q. Were you ever employed in the House of Ref- uge’ A. I was employed there as instractor from October, 1866, to September, 1868, Q. How many boys were there in your team and what were their agea? A. From eighteen to twen- ty-two boys, of from thirteen to seventeen years of age. Q. What amount of labor was exacted of them daily? A. The boya ander me, all, as a regular task, lasted forty pairs a day, though some did not do quite 30 much; at second lasting a boy some- times lasted trom one hundred and twenty to three hundred pairs a day; at tacking on soles the task was ninety pairs a day Q. What amount of labor will an outside work- man do, employed on the same grade of shoea? A. Fifty-five or sixty pairs at lasting; at second last- ing the day's work is about the same; but this tn- cludes tacking on the soles, also, which ts done by another set of hands in the House of Refuge. Q. How much wonld a man earn by his day's work of lasting fifty-five pairs of shoes of the same grade as are made in the House of Refuge? A. He would get seven cents a pair, which would make fifty-five pairs cost $3 35, Q. Did the boys all last forty pairs a day. A. Forty pairs was the standard; new boys could not do as much as that. Q. When they became proficient were they re- quired to do forty paira? A. They were, and were punished if they fell short. Q. How long did it take them to become profi- clent? A. I should say about three months; but forty pairs. were exacted of them before they had been there half that time, Q. You have spoken of the tasks required of boys in Your team—was an equal amount required gen- erally of the boys in the Refuge? A. It was. Q. How were the boys punished, and by whom? A. They were punished by the Superintendent and epers, sometimes at the request of the instruo- tors; Ihave seen a keeper strike a boy, on the complaint of an instructor, so hard that It produced bleeding from the nose: I have seen boys, while their nose was bleeding, sent to the hydrant to wash; sometimes they were gone ten or fifteen minutes, in which case they were required to make up for the time lost, or be punished again; the Superin- tendent or hi stant used to come around daily at about ten o'clock to receive complaints; if he thonght a boy ought to be whipped he sent him down to the whipping closet; when the boys came back Thave often seen red stripes on their back through the holes in their shirts, and it was a com- mon saying among the boys, “You'll get the Stars and Stripes; [think this whipping was very bad for the boys; and it was one reason for my leaving the a that I did not like to see the boys 30 treated. c by ee this exercise of discipline by the keepers ? Ss. A. Q. Have you ever known instructors employed by the contractors to strike the boys? A. [have seen them do it, although it is forbidden; I have also seen them, when a keeper was around and they did not dare to strike, tread on the boys’ bare toes (they wearing no shoes in summer), so as to cause them to squirm all around, Q. What was the general character of the con- tractor’s instructors? [rom the manner in which they are obliged to act, in order to advance their employer's interest, they are compelled to be very selfish; [have been told by one of the con- tractor’s agents that I did not report my boys and get them whipped half often enough, thus not getting enough work out of them; I know that, as a general thing, the foremen are told to get all they can out of the boys; as regarda the moral character of the contractor's instructors, [ have known some of them to_ teach a small boy, employed as a runner or errand boy, the first thing when he came there, to steal the leather from another instructor, rewarding him with bread and butter ora ptece of cake; the effect of this on the boys’ reformation is very bad. Q. What was the motive for this, since all the matertal belonged equally to the contractor? A, Fach instructor receives a certain amount of stock to work up—e. g., sixty pairs of out-soles, Valentine Feldman was sworn and examined :— . What is your occupation? A. I am practical shoemaker. Q. have you ever worked in the House of Refuge ! A. Thave, from 1859 to 1867. Q. In what capacity? A. As a free laborer, in both the first and second divisions. Q. What amount of work was required of the boys? A. At lasting, forty pairs. . How many pairs of shoes of the same kind and quality are required of a free laborer outside ? A. Forty-five pairs, if the work was regulated the nt) as itis on the Island, would be a fair day’s work. Q. Have yon seen, while on the Island, any of the boys purloining the stock belonging to other teams ? A. Thave not, Q. Could it occur without your knowledge? A. es because I have nothing to do with the ays, 3 Have you ever seen any of the boys abused by the contractors’ employés? A. Often and often, They do not call it abusing a boy to give him a kick, or a blow on the head. Q. Was the reformation of the boys the principal aim of the officers in the shops ¥ Ido not think it was. The way the boys are abused and the mode of their punishment show this, I think. Q. Please describe the way in which they are punished? A. [have seen boys punished for not completing their tasks, so that the blood ran down into their boots. Q. Where was this punishment inficted, and by whom? A. It was inflicted in the shops ‘by the Assistant Superintendent. Q. Who was the Assistant Superintendent while you were employed there? A. Part of the time Mr. Jones, the present Superintendent, and part of the time Mr. Halleck, Q. How was the punishment inflicted? A. They were punished in one of two ways; in a small office connected with the shop there was a box; the boy's pants were taken off, the boy laid across the box and whipped with a cane, so that you could count the welts by the blood; f was an eye-witness to this; the other way was to take the boy to the stairs, take down his pants and whip him there in the same manner. Q. How lately have you known this to be done ? A. It was an everyday occurrence while I was there, down as late as 1867. Q. Have you ever known any of the boys to be disabled in any way through their treatment by the contractors’ employés, or by any of the officials of the institution? A. I have. y have known a boy to be punished there, in 1864 or 1805, I think, so that he died in consequence in about four days. Q. What was this boy punished for? “A. For not completing his task and not doing it well. He was reported for this to the Assistant Superintendent, Mr. Halleck. He carried him down to the office by his collar, and there punished him for about fifteen minutes with his cane, so that the blood ran | down the boy’s back; then the Assistant Superin- | tendent brought him back into the shop to his | place, and there struck him on the side of the head, | telling him that if he did not do his work right, he would give him more yet; then the boy cried our, “For God’s sake! T am not able to do it; 80 he took him by his neck and carried him to the office, where he caned him again; after that he brought the poy back to his place in the shop, and treated him then as he didon the other occasion: the boy could not speak a word after that; then the Assistant carried him down to the office and caned him for the third time; after this caning the boy could not come up stairs, 80 they took him to the hospital, where he died in about four days; after his death a correspondent wrote a letter to the New York Tribune, stating the facts and askihg for an investigation, which took place ; the punishment of Mr. Halleck was his depo- sition from his office as Assistant Superintendent and installation as teacher of the school; the eye- witnesses of the occurrence were not examined, but the whole matter was settied in the office of the institution. COURT OF APPEALS. Decisions. ALBANY, N. Y., June 11, 1872, The following decisions in the Court of Appeals have been handed down:— Judgments affirmed, with costs—Kissam_ vs. Dierks, Lindsay vs. Starbuck, Van Ingen vs. Way, Webb vs. Odell, Darenon vs. Yates, Jaycox vs. Cam- eron, Shaw vs. Home Life Insurance Company. Juigments reversed, new trials granted, costs to abide event—Romerty vs. East River National Bank, Kelly vs. Scott (two cases). Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff on | demurrer as ordered by the Court at Special Term, (Here there was some slight sparring between | with costs, unless the defendant within twenty days after notice of fling of the remittitur in the Thomas Kane next testified that Calvert brutally | Court below file and serve an answer, duly verified, assaulted Dunn before the prisoner*struck at him. Mr. Howe then opened for the defence, and made 4 brilliant argument in favor of religious toleration in public institutions, and denunciatory of the thumbserew and pulley torture inflicted under the supervision of Pope Jones. At the conclusion of the opening Mr, Howe calied John Callahan, who testi- severely, having been hung up by the thumbs until he fainced, be- ‘- “THE PRIEST BR DAMNE The next witness was Dennis 0 looking lad of tit quick delivery. He teatitie hospital and asked for a pi Catholic; the Methodist cl nnell, a bright- t, being educated as a plain came and prayed over him; witness said lid not want those sort of prayers, and that he wanted to see a priest; the chaplain got up aud sald he did not know anything about that. Mr by witness, when very sick, for a priest, and he answered, “Priest be damned,” and aiterwards he was punished twice. ground?” A, Not of my own knowledge. | “LASHED LIKE A DOG.” THR ‘“'CaT’’ AGAIN. | Once he got twenty lashes on the bare back, By Mr. Howe—You saw the boys putupby this | and it hurt him. Another time he goi Amal whip cord? A. Yes, sir. | ten lashes, and it did not hurt bim so, for mak am you would leave the room when they | Krush punished him, and Calvert sald “How did ere “spliced” apt A. Yes, sir; | stepped out of on like your candy *” meaning the lashes witness the room once oF twico: Thave secu bovs beaten | had got. (Sensation in Court, which Judge Bedford and pay costs from time of the demurrer—Hall vs. ‘The Omaha National Bank. 8 Judgment of the Supreme Court reversed, and | the assessment made by the .Commissioners, and all proceedings under it reversed and vacated—The People ex rel. Williams vs. Harris and others, commissioners, &c. Judgment reversed and judgment for the plaintitt on demurer with costs, unless the defendants, within twenty days after notice of filing of the | remittitur in Court below, answer the complaint and , with an honest face and a | that he was sick in the | my the costs of the action from the time of putting in the demurrer—The Merchants’ Exchange Na- tional Bank of the City of New York va. The Com- | mercial Warehouse Company. Judgment atirmed, with costs in the Court below and without costa to either party in this Court— John Norris vs. the New York Central and Hudson | River Railroad Companies. Morrison, an officer of the prison, was asked | Order granting new trial aMrmed and jndgment absolute for the plaintt, with costs, pursuant to stipulation—The tna Insurance Company vs. Wheeler, Order granting new trial rever: on the report of the referee aiirn Gatchess va, Daniels, Court of Appeals Calendar. Tne following ta the Court of Appeals’ day calen- = for Jume L2:—Nos, 327, 365, 483, 399, 368, AL, and judgment |. with coste— THE COURTS. Interesting Proceedings in the New York and Brooklyn Courts. ae Discounting Bills of Lading—Important Deci- sion—The Marxsen Smuggling Case—United States Circuit Court Grand Jury—The Father Mathew Mandamus—Verdict Against a City Railroad Company—A Lottery Ticket Suit Closed—Insur- ance Case—Decisions—Business of the Marine Court and General Sessions, Part 2. UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT. Discounting Bills of Lading. Before Judge Woodrutf. Judge Woodruff has given adecision in the case of the National Exchange Bank of Milwaukee against David Dows, et al.,in which the plaintitr sought to recover from the defendants the amounts of drafts discounted by plaintiff on bills of lading of wheat, which wheat ultimately came into the hanas of defendants, the atlowances made by plaintiff not having in the meantime been repaid. The Judge holds that the claim of the plaintit? to the Dossession of the wheat, a4 cotlateral, followed the wheat, as a lien on it, wherever it went, and that the fact of the defendants having obtained posses- sion of the wheat from a third party (a common carrier) gave no legal title to the wheat, If, as in this case, the third party did not own the goods and had no legal right to sell them. The motion for a new trial was therefore denied. The Marxson Smuggling Case. The motion for an arrest of judgment in the case of Charles Marxsen, who has been convicted of smuggling watches and jewelry In false-bottomed trunks, made on the ground tiat as the crime was committed in the Eastern District the accused could not be legally tried and convicted in this the Southern District of New York, has been denied by Judge Woodruff. The New United States Grand Jury. Before Judge Shipman, The gentlemen drawn to serve on the new United States Grand Jury appeared again in the United States Cirenit Court, before Judge Shipman, yester- day morning, to be sworn in, organized and charged. The following are their names:. Timothy Bristol, shoes, 39 Murray street; Francis J. Branta, coal, 140 Waverley place; Simon J. Bark- ley, flour, 125 West street; Robert G, Brown, real estate, 953 Third avenue; William J. H, Ballard, merchant, 558 Broadway; Charles H. Dabney, banker, 53 Exchange place; Jacob FE. Duryee, lum- ber, 548 Washington street; Henry B. ft, mer- chant, 182 Pearl street; Robert L. Ferris, merchant, 58 Pearl street; Lindley M. Ferris, Jr., merchant, 62 South street; George W. Griffin, coffee, 382 Hud- son street; David H. Haight, importer, 13 Waverley place ; Edward 8. Hall, merchant, 31 West Thirty- ninth street; Harrison Hall, President, 185 Chat- ham street; Julian Hallgarten, banker, 28 Exchange piace; Benjamin F. Ingraham, clothing. 70 Bowery; 'rederick W. Jones, merchant, 12 Pine street; David J. King, broker, No. 1 New street; Philip B. Law, merchant, 115 South street; Charles Morgan, banker, 39 William street; Herman Rossenger, tm- porter, 13 Maiden lane; Wheaten H. Race, glass, 150 Chambers street; Charles K. Scarlet, butcher, 270 Washington Market; Thomas L. Scovell, banker, Henrv H. Stout, banker, 85 Front George W. Townsend, broker, 615 Broad- way ; John Ten Brook, broker, 20 Broad street, and Henry G. Tanner, banker, 11 Wall street. Frederick W. Jones was sworn in as foreman. The Court then charged the Log very briefly upon the usual statutory papers, and after asking the District Attorney to bring before them such matters as he had drawn indictments on, they were dis- charged to enter upon their deliberations, SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS. The Father Mathew Mandamus Again. Before Judge Barrett. Thomas Corrigan, whom the Father Mathew Society No. 1 expelled some time ago, and were forced to reinstate by the Court, has received a second coup from his confréres, who seem deter- mined to put him out of the pale of their benefits. Breen & Spellisy, his former counsel, have mean- time obtained an order to show cause why he should not be again reinstated. The argument will take place at Chambers of the Supreme Court on Monday next. Decisions. By Judge Barrett. In She Matter of the Application of W. Weiner et al. for leave to sell, &c.—Memorandum for counsel. Walker vs. Wilbur et al.—Motion dented, with $10 cost Stevenson et al. vs. Harmens.—Motion denied. White vs. White.—Memorandum for counsel. Austin vs. The Mayor, &c.—Motion granted. Farrell vs. Siel et al.—Order modified. Turke vs. O’Brien.—Motion granted, but without prejudice. Brown vs. Walter.—No such relief as that asked can be granted, If the judgment has been paid let the plaintiff satisfy it of record. Robert Gillen vs. Hugh McAllen, Jr.—Motion granted, Lounsbury vs. and order granted. Fraser et al. vs. Young et al.—Order granted as amended. Hurlburt et al. vs. Montauk Steam Navigation Company.—Memorandum for counsel. In the Matter of the Petition of the Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Bartholomew's Church.—Memorandum for counsel. Horatio N. Devoe vs. David Barnes.—Motion de- nied, without prejudice to a renewal. James McMahon vs. Philip Schafer.—Motion granted and judgment signed. Brusing va. Banta et al.—Report confirmed and order granted. Dietz vs. Sorlpe.—Motion granted to complete purchase. SUPERIOR COURT—TRIAL TERM—PART 2. Verdict Against a City Railroad Com- pany. Before Judge McCunn. James Maher vs. The Central Park and North and East River Railroad Company.—In August, 1870, the plaintiff and another boy were about to get on the back platform of one of the defendants’ cars to go to Central Park, when—this was the story on the — side—the driver told them to get on the ont pire and the car starting before the | plaintiff got on threw him down, and a forward wheel of the car passed over his right foot, crush- ing it and compelling its amputation, it was brought by the boy's father for $10,000 damages. ‘The driver denied the statement of the boys, and said they attempted to jump on the car without ask- ing him to stop it. The jury apparently gave more wait to the story for the prosecution, and brought in a verdict for $5,800 damages, SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions, By Judge Freedman. Riley vs. Brown et al.—Order dismissing motion without costs. Boyd et al. vs. Dowling.—Order denying motion. Hyslop et al. vs. Hoppock et al.—Reference granted. Daly vs. Daly.—Order dismissing motion, with $10 costs. Lounsbury.—Report confirmed COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. A Novel Insurance Case—How a Shop was Filled with Goods. Before Judge Loew. Avery interesting insurance case has been on trial for the past week in the Court of Common Pleas, Morris Jacobs sued the Merchants’ In- surance Company of this city for a loss and damage by fire to the amount of $2,600 on mer- chandise and $250 on store fixtures. Two other in- surance companies of this city, the Greenwich and Corn Exchange, are defendants in similar cases for the same fire. The plaintiff asserted that he was absent at a wedding with his whole family, includ- ing a baby, on February 20, 1870, when the fire occurred. The firemen put out the flames in about three minutes, and the patrol force gathered up the goods knocked down by streams of water. The testimony was very conflicting. The defend- | ants proved that the plaintiff kept two stores in | ireenwich street at the same time; that the burned store did not poy expenses, and that no books of account were kept at either store. A pretended book of account and inventory was made up Janu- | ary 16, 1870, whereas the defendants proved by the records in the Fire Marshal's office that the plaintiy swore after the fire that the inventory was taken about January 1, 1870. The defendants introduced many unimpeachable witnesses from the Fire, Po- lice and Patrol Departments, who testified that the fire was accompanied with a very dense | black smoke, resembling the burning of kero- sene oil; that large tin oll cans and loose straw were found in the store after the fire; that oil | was plainly smelled at the breaking out of the | fire, and that plaintid offered bribes to defend- ants’ witnesses not to testify against him, as | » it was going hard with aim. Coats were found on | the premises with the lapels cut off and pantaloons with the legs cut off below the knee. All these pieces were arranged on the shelves so as to repre- sent whole garments, Two large trunks full of these cut goods were secured by the defendants and produced in court, causing much amusement. Prominent clothing merchants testified that the rments as presented were meant for deception. fe vas also shown that this was the first case in Blok the Merchants’ tnsurance Jompany had been NEW YORK HERALD, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1872.—TRIPLE SHEET. re aT before a court and jury, although they have been ft business ower twenty-two years. The jury brought in a sealed verdict for $682 18 on gel of insurance, with interest, of $3,135, which was considered a victory for the defence, Application will, however, be made to the Court to Set aside the verdict, on the ground that the feat conceded shows that a fraud was com N. A. Chedsey and Frank Byrne for plaintiit and George W. Parsons for defendant. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM. Money Loaned to Buy Lottery Tickets. Before Judge Larremore. Charles D, Fredericks va. Oliver D. Taylor.—This will be remembered as an action to recover $1,725 46, loaned to defendant, the money, 38 alleged, being loaned for the Purpose of buying lot- tery tickets. Motion was made to strike out the answer, onthe ground of its not being verified. This motion was opposed on the ground that dealing in lottery tiokets was in violation of tae statute, and that a defendant could not be call ‘ criminate himself py verifying his ce Judge held that, under the act of March 23, 1854, in relation to pleadings in courts of record, the term “denial” was intended to cover something more than mere negation; that it should inelude new matter set up by way of avoidance; that such new matter waa @ denial of the cause of action, and clearly within the intent of the act referred to. In his opinion the allegations do not constitute a counter claim 80 a8 to require the answer bein; sworn to, In the matter of the application of Withelmina Weber et al., infants, for leave to mortgage real ea- tate.—Report confirmed and special guardian an- thorized to contract, Same vs. Selman.—The receipt, though in full, may possibly be explained on the trial so a3 to show. that the payment of costs was a part of the settle- ment. Upon the papers, as presented, the motion for leave to serve supplemental answer must be granted on payment of $10 costs. Donnell vs. Birasage.—Default opened on pay- ment of costs. Case to be placed on special calen- dar for third Friday of June, 1872, Judgment to stand as security, Gosher vs, Adler.—Afidavit insufficient, Schofield vs. Buddenrich.—Motion ited. Raymond, General Guardian, &c., v8, Buddenrich (three cases).—Motions granted. Kryenburg vs. O’Brien.—Motion granted. Scoley vs. Kingsley.—Examination must proceed, MARINE COURT. The Morrisania Steamboat Company in Court. Before Judge Tracy. Berrian vs. The Morrisania Steamboat Company.— The plaintiff, a resident of Harlem, tn January last was about returning home, to Harlem, and, ac- cording to his statements, as he stepped upon the gang plank of the Nellle White, after inquiring if it was a Harlem boat and being told by the hands to “Come on,” the plank was drawn from under him, throwing him violently on his back and then into the water, injuring him seriously, so that he was laid up for a time, and ruining his clothing and some bundles he was carrying. Damages were laid at $1,000. The detence Gash bee to show that the negligence was all upon plaintiff's part, their wit- nesses testifying that the bell to draw in the plank had been rung twice, it being four minutes past time; that plaintiff came down the dock slowly, a8 if not intending to come aboard, but snddenly made a rush for the plank juat as the edge of it was leaving the dock, fell on his face upon it and rolled into the water. The jury returned a verdict in plaintitt’s favor for $225. Sult Against the Bowery Savings Bank. Before Judge Joachimsen. William G. Hourann vs. The Bowery Savings Bank.—The plaintiff, a cabinet maker, in June, 1868, commenced making deposits with the defendants, continuing down to last year, de- positing in all nearly seven hundred aollars, of which he claims to have withdrawn but a small part. On the 16th of May, 1871, desiring to with- draw $160, forthe purpose of getting married, he was told that he had not so much left to his credit, and was shown a draft with his name attached for $525. This the plaintiff claims to be a forgery, and that the entry of that amount prghetay, upon his bank book by its being abstracted from his trunk by a party with whom he roomed, The de- fence sought to prove by the employés of the bank that the sum mentioned was drawn by the plainti(t personally and that the signature to the draft or receipt was his own, other drafts of plaintiff being roduced for the purpose of comparison by the joing A verdict for the full amount claimed was rendered, to which costs ant $25 allowance were added. For plaintim, 8. G. Oo. mney; for defendant, Norwood & Coggeshall. Jones vs. Ferguson.—This action was for $200 rent, the plaintifr having had it verbally assigned to him for value by the landlord, The complaint | was dismissed on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence of a valid assignment. COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS—PART 2. Trial for Forgery—Mr. Taylor’s Troubles. Before Recorder Hackett. Alexander H. Reavy and George H. Thomas were placed on trial before Recorder Hackett yesterday morning, for forgery in the first degree, on the com- plaint of Mrs. Elizabeth Taylor. Mr. Reavy is an oe and was arrested while in the General Sessions Court on this charge, and Mr. Thomas had rooms in Mrs. Taylor’s honse, and was considered in the light of an adopted son. Mrs. Taylor is seventy-three, and her husband, Dan- fel G. Taylor, is eighty-four years of age. The com- lainant stated that she lives at and owns the ouse and lot 329 West Forty-third street; on the 7th of January Mr. Ness, a mason who did repairs on the house, called and ser her with a me- chanie’s lien on the property; she was alarmed and consulted Mr, Thomas; he said, “What is the trouble, mother?’ she said, “It is a mechanic's len ;’ he said, ‘‘You had better let me consult Mr. Reavy, an attorney; he went and brought back Mr. Reavy, who presented her with a blank to sign, saying it was necessary to put the pa- per on record that day to present the lien and t an injunction; she signed, and he said, “Doesn't it seem strange that this se is already on record?” she said, “It does seem st Sat if they can do these things by proxy :”” then he told her to get her husband to sign, and she asked him; he refused, but she urged him and he signed; after this Mr. Reavy came back with an- other blank and asked her to sign it, saying there was something wrong and that he was a notary public and would swear her, and that it was un- necessary for her husband to sign, as he observed the property was registered in her name; she | signed; some days after she began inquiring fora bel of the paper from Mr, Thomas; at last he said, “Mother, you tease me every time I come in;” she said, “I wouldp’t tease you i yoo got me the paper; when he said, “Mr. avy has lost a child ‘and can’t attend to it; one day she spoke about the paper and ‘he sald, “Why, mother, don’t you know you have deeded your property to me?’ she expressed great surprise, and he said, “Why, mother, what diffe: ence does it make whether it stands in your nat or mine—it is all a matter of pride ?” then he got her a copy of the deeds and she showed it toher nephew, saying, ‘What do you think of it, Char- ley?” but he shook his head and told her to tell her troubles to Judge Edmonds, and she did so; she hadn't heard a word about giving away her prop- erty until Thomas told her, and would as soon think of selling her soul; Mr. Thomas is a plumber and had frequently done work for her, and she asked him for his bill, but he never presented It, and once he told her it was about seven hundred dollars. THE DEFENCE. Cross-examined by Chauncey Schaffer—Q. Excuse me, madam, if I ask you disagreeable questions— Is Mr. Taylor your first husband’ A. He is my second. . Is your first husband living? A. He 1s living inheaven. (Laughter.) Q. When did he leave this country for that? A. Over forty years ago he died. Q. When you married Mr. Taylor did you know our first husband was dead’ A. (Indignantly) Know—did I know? I was a widow four years when I married him. . Pardon me, madam, for asking the question. A. It is quite pardonable, sir. The witness was then cross-examined at great length as to whether she ever told Mr.,Ness or any one else that the house was Mr. Thomas’, and that he would pay them, which she denied.’ She was also questioned as to the amount of work done on the louse by Mr. Thomas, and whether he hadn't paid out large sums for her, She admitted that Mr. Ness’ lien was an honest one, and the reason she signed the injunction paper was to get time to pay, There was some money of her’s in Judge Edmonds’ hands at the time. The case still on. COURT CALENOARS—THIS DAY. SUPREME COURT—GENERAL TRRM.—NOS. 87, 88, 90, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 188, 142, 89, SUPREME CouRT—C Nos. 1453, 1. 14144 R. C., 1701, 1913, 1915, 1917, 3287, 3399, 919, 1279, 1577, 1781, 1943, 1949, 1951, 1953, 1955, 1959,” 1963, Part 2—Nos. 660, 662, 730, 66% R. C., 646, 7901, 770, 796, 798, 806, 263\¢ R. C., 834 Re C., 343ty RL C., 270 hs, 0603s, 5 St a REME COURT—CHAMBERS—NO8. 101, 106, 131, }, 167, 158, 171, 180, 186, 198, 215, 216, 217, 220, 233, 238. Call No, 250, rPERIOR CourT—Part 1—Held by Judge Me- N,—Nos. 20, 1161, 1420, 531, 1813, 1609, 1745, 27, 1521, 1697, 1665, 807, 1143, 1133, 685, 8i9, 647, 1737 Part 2—Held by Judge Barbour.—Nos, 1826, 950, 1068, 1256, 1384, 1396, 1146, 252, 1258, 1270, 668, 1336, , 1078, 1804, 064, 844, 1324, 560, 1340, 104, S94, 1040, 858, 862, Court OF COMMON PLRBAS—GENERAL TERM.—Ad- journed to Friday, June 21. Court oF COMMON PLmas—TRIAL TERM—Part 1— Held by Judge J. F. Daly.—Nos. 1056, 1054, 1537, 508, 1057, 2080, 1 68, 1473, 1618, 15614, 626, 374, 1854, 1855, 1858, 1689, 059, 1061, 429, “oo2, 507, "1419," 1648, 1366, 685," 1306, 164T, 1887, "1543, 1545, 977, G48, 1698, 1199, 1211, 2495, 605, 97, 1395. Part 2—Held Judge C. P. Daly.—Nos. 1649, 710, 7 oad 4 178, 1372, 1288, 099, 2103, 11, 2075, Ov’ CoxMON 'PLEAS—EQuiTy TeRM—Held b ¢ t Robinson.—Nos. 26, 58, 21, 22, 23, 24, 8, 45, , 5 ‘Marine Cougr—Part 1—Held by Judge Tracy.— Nos, 9277, 9194, 8076, 8690, 8073, 8087, 9002, a ee 9117, 9687, 7726, 9428, 9059, 9064. ld by Judge 3) ing.—Nos. 9784, 8739, 9701, 9174; 0000, 00705 8789, 0178, 0155, 0075, 0176, 9109, BILL: BROOKLYN COURTS. —___ UMITED STATES DISTRICT COURT—IN BANKRUPTCY. Decision by Judge Benedict. In the matter of Robert B. Young et al.—The pe- tition states clearly an act of bankruptcy, and can- not be diamtased for any deficiency in that particu- lar. The averment respecting the residence of the alleged bankrupts 1s carelessly drawn, but yet must be taken to set forth that they reside within tnia district. The averment respecting the indebted- eas of the petitioners is also open to criticism, but Ido not think ft can be ratsed that such an aver- ment is wholly wanting. The motion to dismiss the Petition must therefore be denied. UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS’ COURT. A Liquor Dealer Arrosted. Before Commissioner Jones. D. Zimmer was charged yesterday morning with carrying on the business of a retail liquor dealer at No. 14 Myrtle avenue without paying the special tax required by law. The at ade discharged him on his own mt ‘ inst. for examination ance to appear on the tkth SUPREME COURT—tIRCUIT. A Will Case. Before Judge Pratt. Emily Carvennec brought suit against unver Vandewater et al. to set aside~the will of Freelove Vandewater, who died Septemoer 16, 1867, leaving, beside other property, @ house (in Ainslie street, near Smith, in the Eastern District. The plaintimt and the defendant Vandewater were the only chil- dren ofthe deceased. She alleges that her mother was, at the time of her death, incapable of making a will, or if she was not incapable she was sub- jected to undue influence. It appears that Mrs. Carvennec received little or nothing by the terms of the will, while her brother received the bulk of their mother’s property. The complaint was dismissed. BENJAMIN F. BUTLER. The Hero of New Orleans Overhaulea— Selzure of the Steamship Nassau a How It was Done—The General Charged with “Working a Little Route”—Action to Recover $60,000. The case of Henry J. Tilden against Benjamin PF, Butler, adjourned from the previous day, was com- menced yesterday in the United States Circult Court, Judge Shipman presiding. Some interest seemed to be attached to the proceedings, par- ticularly as the General was in attendartice, looking fresh and hearty after his Congressional duties. The complaint sets forth thatone George Hunne- well was the owner of the steamship Nassau, valued at $60,000; that on the 17th December, 1862, the defendant, Benjamin F, Butler, being then a major general of the United States army, did frandently seize the said vessel and convert her to his own use, without the consent and against the wishes of the owner; that he com- pelled Hunnewell to make ® formal transfer of the vessel for the nominal sum of $31,600 in currency, bills being then at a great discount, or seventeen per cent less than par. Plaintiff further averred that all the representations and pretences of the defendant were false, inasmuch as tne United States government did not require said steamship, nor was it taken for the use of the government, but that the defendant seized and took said vessel for his own private use, and afterwards disposed of ner for $45,000. It was further complained of that by reason of the avove action on the part of the de- fendant the plaintiff sustained damage and was deprived of great profits he could and would have made, as the vessel was subsequently chartered for the sum of $350 per day. On August 25, 1866, the said Hunnewell, for consid- eration, transferred to Henry A. Tilden, the plain- tiff, all his right, titie and interest to the said steam- ship and all cause of action against Benjamin F. Butler on account of the seizure ana conversion of the vessel. To this the defendant pleaded general issues, and also that the cause did not accrue at any time within two years before the commence- ment of the action. THE CASE OPENED. Mr. Doolittle opened the case for tne plaintiff and recited tne facts set forth in the complaint. At the time the vessel was seized she was worth $60,000, and all that was given for her by the defendant was $31,860, and, owing to the discount on currency, Hunnewell, the owner. realized only 26,028, The defendant's brother, Andrew Jackson jatler, notoriously insolvent, ~~. great in- fluence, only second to that of the General himself. He had charge of the quarantine of New Orleans, and thus had the merchants at his mercy. He also superintended the towboats, for which there was ee demand, owing to the rapidity of the current. unnewell, seeing that it was a very profitable business, purchased the Nassau. His competition was not at all acceptable to the others engaged and offers of purchase were made by the! Hunnewell refused to sell more than one-half of her, whereupon he was threatened by the defendant that if he did not sell five-eighths of her to Andrew Jackson Butler she would be seized for the use of the government. Counsel contended that there | Was just as good an understanding between General Benjamin F. Butler and his brother about the whole transaction as there was between the Siamese Twins. General Butler, after some further parley- ing, ordered the seizure of the vessel. Hunnewell submitted to the transfer at the Custom House under protest, receiving $31,360—Butler’s own check on the Citizens’ Bank, Hunnewell com- plained that the transaction was no better than a robbery. There was considerable talk about it, and’ finally Hunnewell was summoned to his presence. Said General butler, “Do you want your vessel back? I don’t want her. She draws too much water.” Hunnewell desired a little time to get the money. The defendant said he would not give hima minute, Just at that time Admiral Far- ragut came into the office, and Hunnewell, availing himself of the opportunity, slipped out and got check for the amount. When he returned the de- fendant asked him again whether he wanted the vessel, and Hunnewell replied in the affirmative and presented the money, but the General declined to give up the vessel. Counsel characterized the action of General Butler as a shrewd trick, but in this instance he was caught in his own = trap. A plan was then concocted to sell the vessel to one A. Griffiths, who was made the nominal purchaser, for it was well known that Andrew Jackson Butler was the half owner, and fyrnished the money to Grifith’s to buy the other haff. Hunnewell followed the General up soclosely that the latter was compelled to cover w his tracks, The vessel was run by A. J. Butler t Griffiths, each taking half of the proceeds, The Nas- sau was subsequently chartered for $300 a day. After running for about a year she was lost, Butler & Griffiths having earned about one hundred and eleven thousand dollars out of the government. Now, the counsel asked, why did General Butler have the vessel transferred in hisown name and pay for her with his own individual check ? He submitted that: the very means taken by General Butler to cover his tracks were those by which he was discovered. The chai inst him was that of fraud, and he would add that General Butler's cunning and shrewdness were matters of history. Judge Shipman asked under what statute the assignment from Hunnewell to Tilden was made. Ex-Judge Porter replied that he was furnish the authorities upon the subject. He did not think such a question would be raised, because according to the law of this State the transter was legal. Mr. Doolittle, in conclusion, sald the real issue to be tried was contained in the rejoinder to the effect thac each and all the alleged trespasses and acts complained of were done by virtue of authority derived from the President of the United States, whereas the complaint averred that General Butler seized the vessel for his own use. Now, if the facts were proved, (counsel) thought the jury would be glad to make the defendant disgorge Some of his ill-gotten gains. THR TESTIMONY. William H. Wiegel examined by Mr. Doolittie:—1 reside in Baltimore; in September, 1862, Twas a member of General Butler's stat at New Orleans; L was engaged with him in his office; I knew his brother, Andrew J. Butler; I remember a conversa- tion that took place in General Butler’s office be- tween him and his brother: Captain Haggarty was also present; General Butler's brother came into the office and commenced a conversation with him in reference to the steamer Nassau, bay ag the General that she was just such a vessel as he (the brother) needed to bring his sugar and cotton down, and that he must have her; there was some further conversation between them; Captain bee 5 geld left the office; I was busted with some papers | was fixing up; he said he would like to have the vessel, that he must have her, and if there was no other way to get her she muat be seized; [then got up and left the office; they re- mained in conversation about half an hour, & Why did you leave the office? A juestion objected to, Overruled. A. The reason I left was, that there were instruc- tions from the commanding officer that when General Butler's brother e on private business the aide-de-camp should leave. The cross-examination of this witness was t- poned tilt to-morrow, owing to the absence of cer- tatn documents, Mr. Doolittle then proceeded to read evidence taken by a commission, after which the case wad adjourned,