The New York Herald Newspaper, October 30, 1872, Page 4

4 THE COURTS. Fifth Day of the Trial of Mayor Hall for Misfeasance in Office. A SESSION OF LEGAL ARGUMENT. Mr. Jury on the Evidence for the Prosecu- tion, Under the Ruling of the Court. NEW YORK HERALD, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1872.-TRIPLE SHEET. have beon advised by my counsel and other legal friends— raso ‘‘triends” the former particular, A aded ae with the exception FOP evidence im this case, whi jument one way or i + Pte es ed solutely reject as fainiea there is nothing 1 this case which answer of evidence. Therefore state tbat, waving the del Wa Tight of Bos ot! ‘evidionce for ' Boncetik under the charge by the Court to the jury. THE PROSEOUTION NOT WILLING. Mr. Peckham—So far as we are concerned we do not fee! willing to submit the case without address- ing the jury. We purpose to address the jury; you can do as you please. THE CASR FOR THE DEFENCE. Mr. Buckley then addressed the Court for the de- Hall Willing to Submit the Case to the | sence, ana said that he proposed to submit to the Court certain prayers, to be delivered to His Honor in the progress of this case. himself by simplf submitting them, but he deemed He might content it appropriate to accompany the presentation by Instructions Submitted to the Court by the Prosecution and the Defence on the Points to Charge the Jury. Tweed To Be Brought Into Court To-Day. some remarks, founded on the law of the case, hav- ing no relation whatever to the facts except so far as reference to them might be necessary to apply and enforce the propositions that he intended to submit. would refer to au record of the Court—an indictment against Before he should do this, however, he indictment, which was a WILLIAM M, TWEED. Mr. Peckham said he would interpose a pretimt- nary objection, The Court ruled that it was necessary to put the document in evidence if Mr, Buckley intended to use it, The Indicted Assistant Aldermen, Isaac Bobinson and Edward Oostello—They Are Obarged with Bribery. After # short argument, in the course of which Mr. Buckley said that all he sought to show was that an allegation in the Tweed indictment, if true, proved that the allegation in the Hall indictment was not true, the document was handed to the Held, to Await Trial in $5,000 Bonds Each. A Herald Reporter Interviews Robinson, ‘ ‘Who Gives a History of the Case— Other Developments Pending. REGISTRATION PROSECUTION The Case of Francis P. Healey, Charged with False Registration—He is Con- fined in Ludlow Street Jail Pending His Examination. MORE MANDAMUSES. A Writ Granted Against the Board of Audit and Apportionment Directing the Board to Pass Upon the Claims of the Officers of the Court of Oyer and Terminer. Another Chapter in the Lord Gor- don-Erie Swindle. He Operates on a Large Scale in Edinburgh Under the Title of Lord Glencairn. INTERESTING TESTIMONY. Businoss in the Other Courts—Abandonment of the Alleged Whiskey Frauds Prosecu- tion—Naturalization—Decisions, &e. There was a very numerous body of spectators in the Court of Oyer and Terminer yesterday morning long before the usual hour. for resuming the pro- veedings in the case of The People vs. Mayor Hall. The unexpected close of the case on the previous | day in consequence of the consultation held be- tween counsel on either side, and the public curiosity excited to ascertain in what it was to re- Bult, considerably increased the interest felt in the case and the developments that were expected to ensue. It seemed to be the general impression that ® plea of guiity in the count charging neglect to audit would be offered and accepted. In this, how- ever, the assemblage was disappointed, for as soon as Judge Brady had taken his seat on the bench— Mayor Hall and counsel on either side being all in their places—the case, without the expected re_ Bults from the previous day’s consultation, was at nce proceeded with. Mr. Hall himself was the first to address the Court. He stated that it was his own and counsel’s opinion that there was mothing in the testimony for the prosecution which the law does not reject as absolutely tainted or that called for an answer. by way of evidence for ‘the defence, and that he was willing to submit the case to the jury on the prosecution's evidence, under charge of the Court. Ex-Boss Tweed will be brought up to day before Judge Brady in the Court of Oyer and Terminer, nd an early day fixed upon for his trial. In the case of the indicted Assistant Aldermen, the accused, Isaac Robinson and Edward Costello, were yesterday brought before Judge Brady, in the Court. The that it ception was taken and allowed. Court ruled that all that was evidence was was an indictment in that court. An ex- REQUESTS TO CHARGE. Mr. Buckley then read the following requests to charge, on behalf of the defendant :— First—There can be no conviction under any of the counts charging an offence at common law, becatise thore is no competent evidence of any willul or fraudulent breach or perversion of any duty imposed by law upon ‘the defendant Hall. Secmd—That none of the acts of the defendant set up in the indictment constitutes any offense at common law, because it was never PART OF THE DUTY OF A MAYOR path eS pad to audit accounts, demands or claims against a city. Third—In reference to the counts framed under the statute, there isno competent evidence of any neglect to audit the several aecounts of KEYSER, GARVRY AND DAVIDSON, or either of them. Fourth—No conviction can be had upon either of the counts founded upon the statute, unless there is evidence before the jury from which they would ee authorized to find that the ‘action of the detendant (Hall) connected ‘with the audit of the accounts above referred to was COMBINED WITH AN RVIL INTENT. Under that request, and as covering all the lawin the case referred to, counsel cite:— ‘The duties im on the Mayor as a member rd of Audit mee yaadicsal ae anera dees. 1s doubt, 'to have been wilful or corrupt. Feyuest counsel referred to People vs. Nor- ton, 7 Barbour, 477; Kendall vs. Stokes, 3 How., 98; Oun- ham vs. Bucklin, 8 Cowen, 178;7 How., United States, wa, 74; 23 'New Hampshire, 359; 1 Wharton's inal Law, section 713; Bishop on Criminal Law, ith edition, sections 205, 206, 335, 236, 287; Roscoe's Criminal Evidence, page 804; Johnson's Impeachment, volume 2, pe ‘here fs no evidence from which the jury in this case would be authorized to infer anv witful, corrupt or evil intent on the part of this defendant in any one of his acts alleged in the indictment, ‘Seventh—That the jury must discard all evidence respect- ing any acts or conversations of the defendant not dl- rectly connected with the acts charged in the indictment. Lighth—There 1s no evidence connocting the defendant Hail with any traudulent making up of such accounts or either of them, or with any or either of the arrangements testified to have existed between the witnesses Garvey, Davidson and Keyser, and either of the co-defendants, OK WATSON OR WOODWARD, Ninth—No such wilful or corrupt Intent is established by the resolution, or legally inferrible therefrom. Tenth—By the resolution there was in law no delegation or surrender ot any of the duties to be exercised by the Mavor as a member of the Board of Audit. Eleventh—It was competent fot the Mayor, under the authority vested in him by the statute, construed in con- nection witn the extsting provisions of ‘law, to determine upon the nature, extent and efficacy of the evidence which he would receive for the purpose of enabling him to certity or audit the ciaims which ht be presented oe as a member of the Board of Andit for action. acted upon and approved by the Board of Supervisors, Consisting of certifica if sident and clerk, the auditors sought the juction of proof which, in the ex- ercise of thelr discretion, they-had a consider and act upon; and unless the defendant (Hall), in recety- ing such proof and acting upon tho same as aforesaid, knew or was informed that such certification was false and that such bills had not been so approved he had a right ive mets Treighe to these certificates of ap- to at proval ‘ae saw fit, AUDITING AND CERTIFYING THE SAID BILLA. Thirteerth—That the evil intent or wilfulness by which are to be judged those acts of the detendant which are set uy in the indictment must be such asexisted and were fixed at the time such acts were done, and therefore no evidence can be considered by the jury of other acts or any declaration of defendant done or made subsequent to the consummation of defendant's acts as a member of the Comunission of Audit, disconnected with the acts speci- ied in the indictment. Fourteenth—There Is no allegation in the indictment of ANY CONSPIRACY OR CONCERT OF ACTION between the defendant and his associates in the Commis- sion of Audit, and therefore the jury cannot consider an, proposition to the eilect that the defendant is responsibi for the wrongtul acts of such associates, should the jury believe there is any evidence of any such wrongiul acta, Fifteeuth—That innocence and doing right are to be pre- sumed on pehalf of the defendant, who was a public oficer in discharge of his duties, aud that, therefore, it is the first duty of the prosecution to overthrow such ‘pre- sumption beyond all reasonable doubt. Sizternth—The burden of establishing knowledge in the Mayor of the traudulent and fictitious character of the accounts is upon the peopte, ar unless the jury are satis- fied beyond a reasonable doubt that he such knowl- edge their duty is to acquit. nteeuth—It the jury from the whole case find, as a fact, that the Mayor was not apprised of the fraudulent or false character of the claims ‘WHEY MUST ACQUIT. i Fighteenth—If the jury, upon the whole evidence, enter- tain any reasonable doubt of the charges against the de- fendant it is their duty to acquit, Ninetcenth—That inasmuch as the evidence indisputably establishes that when the claims set up in the indictment reached the Mayor for his consideration and action asa member of the Board of Audit they purported to be sanc- tioned by the Board of Supervisors as VALID COUNTY CLAIMS and to have been audited as valid county claims by the Finance Department; the defendant had evidence that the claims were county liabilities incurred prior to the passage of the Audit act and to havebeen found due, and that if detendant in good faith and without evil intent received such evidence and acted on it without evil in- tent it is the duty of the jury to acquit. Twentieth—That it the Jury believe from the testimony of Garvey, or from any part thereof, that Ne is guilty of moral turpitude or crime in any act of his as testified by him, then he stands LEGALLY IMPRACRED, and his whole testimony or any part thereof should be rejected by the jury. he ir —thine any act, conversation or declaration Court of Oyer and Terminer, in custody of Sheriff Brennan. They are charged with corrupt prac- tices in connection with the New Haven Railroad Company in lending their aid to defeat an ordi- nance of tle city government, as members of said Board of Aldermen, in favor of the railroad com- pany. Judge Brady in response to one of the accused stated that the indictment charged them with a very serious offence. The Court fixed the bail in $5,000 each, which the accused gave in open court, to awaittrial. The proceedings and the rev- elations in the case, which are of great public in terest and likely to lead to further developments” will be found fully reported below. i Judge Leonard yesterday, in Supreme Conrt, Chambers, granted a writ of mandamus to compel the Board of Audit and Apportionment to audit the claims for allowance of the attendants of the Court | of Oyer and Terminer. Testimony was taken before Judge Fancher, of the Supreme Court, yesterday, bene esse, in a case in which a Mr. Smith, of Edinburgh, Scotiand, testi- fled that the Lord Gordoa who a short time ago Sigured so prominently in our courts, in connection ‘with his alleged swindling of Erie stock from Jay Gould, had swindled himself and other Edinburgh merchants of large sums under the title of Lord Glencairn. ‘The case of Francia P. Healey, charged with false | registration, was again up yesterday, before Com- | missioner Davenport, and was adjourned tili this | morning, Healey lies in Ludiow Street Jail, in de- | fault of $5,000 bail. The prosecution in the alleged Whiskey Ring | frauds, in which Lewis Samuels and others are de- | fendants, and which has been pending before United States Commissioner Shields for some time past, was yesterday abandoned and the parties dis- | charged. The United States District Attorney ad- (mitted that there was no case against them. MAYOR HALL. —_—_—_——— Fifth Day of the Trial=The Proceedings Yesterday. The Court opened punctually at eleven o'clock; ail the counsel employed on each side were in at- tendance, and Mayor Hall occupied his usual place. ‘Nearly one hour was occupied in private consulta- tion between counsel on each side and with fre- quent conferences with Judge Brady by the respec, tive counsel. About twelve o’clock Judge Brady drew his chair Perw=ey to the bench, arranged himself to take motes, and said, “Gentlemen, are you ready to goon?” , MAYOR MALL'S ADDRESS TO THE COURT. Mayor Hall then rose and said :— of the a lendant in reference to the alleged present of silver or to the warrant for work of the witness Gar- vey on the Reservoir in 1871, is irrelevant, and must be disregarded and discarded by the jurv. Twenty-second—That, in wrerenedg I the guilt or inno. ce of the defendant upon any of the charges contained in theindictmen the jury must ex: from their con- sideration all evidence relative to the warrant for work fone on the Reservoir in 1871, and the conversation rela- we thereto in said year testified to by the witness of the ry the charges in the indictment are proper subjects for impeachmen MR. BUCKLEY'S CLOSING ADDRESS. Mr. Buckley then addressed the Court on these requests to charge. He read the thirty-eighth sec- tion of the statute published in the HERALD yester- day, making a wilful neglect of duty in a public of- ficer a misdemeanor, and stated that the penalty on conviction was @ fine and imprisonment, or either, in the discretion of the Court. After refer- ring to the various counts of the indictment he called the attention of the Court to the fact, that rior to the passing of the Board of Audit bill the ‘omptroller had absolute control over city claims. The county claims were under the control of the Board of Supervisors, and that Board had for many years been free, by special legisiation, from the me (ghd Sil, cout gsnos being brought agai m. The ‘cl 8 against the defendant included county claims on what the Board of Supervisors had proved and audited; and it was important in this connection to remember that a large number of claims were outstanding before the bill Sppointing the Board of Audit be- came alaw. All the cl ed by Mr. Hall bore the signature of the ES icers of this Board. It was admitted in the opening by Mr. Peckham that the prosecution did Rot 80) or believe that one dollar of this money had ever stained the pockets of Mr. Hall. rosecution had not in his judgment sustained the alle- ation that Mr. Hail knew anything of the ‘audulent character of these Warrants. Mr. Buckley here quoted a number of legal ithor- ities as to the character of the intention that constituted criminality. He cited from Bis! criminal law to the effect that the criminal mind was the essence of the crime, without which it could not exist. In bay ds of this doctrine he cited 7 Howard, 131 (Wilkes vs. Dinsman), an action by @ marine for illegal detention and pun- ishment by @ commanding officer, in which this pee Was maintained, and in which a defini- tion of “wiliul” is cited from an English case that it is an act done “contrary to the person's convic- tion.” In 23 New Hampshire this precise point was raised in an indictment against the Overseers ofthe Poor, Judgment was arrested in that case, because there was no evidence of criminal intent. A case in 3d Lansing, page 74, holds that where the law provided that the ofice of certain rail- road commissioners, if they wilfully neglected to perform their duties, their oMice should be- come vacant, no new appointment was authorized except 0 pot case FH ng og He then pro- cet 36 May unro’s 3 Denjo, sad the Hole be) ay ipso RARE ts resumed would bé y the other side. In hese cases there was @ refusal to do a direct phy- sical act. In the last case it was a refusal to-ad- minister an o@th, a mere ministerial act. A similar action would have been a refusal by the Mayor to sign these certificates; not for any reason, but for is meré eri Counsel, in closing, said that that would be the ‘If the Court please. since the adjournment yesterday 1 last opportunity for his addressing the Court in this case. and he wonld sav a few words as to the | like facts. The result of this trial was of the greatest importance, not only te those who held high office, like that which the defenaant held, but also to those @ kind of quasi-public office, where they were in trust of large sums of money. It was vi important this class judgment might be. So ig a8 we were constituted as we are, human nature would necessarity be fallible, and errors would be com- mitted that m: be disastrous to hamesity.. AB illustration of was found in the case of Schuy- ler and the New Haven raliroad frauds; and also in the ted case in the mother country (Eng- land), where Watson, @ director of the Bank of England, was implicated in the fraudulent issue of Exohequer bonds, which was afterwards discoy- ered to be» mist: mm confidence in the probity of Vy At the close of this address the Court took a re- cess for thirty minutes. THE PROSEOUTION'S INSTRUCTION TO CHARGE. Mr. Peckham, after the recess, rising, said:— T will submit in the bad gg following the exam fant, ‘requests on the part o the prosecution to the Court to chai mn ’e request Your Honor to cl ie evidence that the defendant of the city of New York in April 1870, and thereafter, that he accepted the off with the Comptrolier and then Presi of Supervisors, that then the defendant was bound to give 18 personal aitention to the duties thereof, and could not delegate them elther to the County Auditor or any other Person, Serond—That the functions imposed by section 4 of the tax levy of 1870 were judicial i their Saaractor: that to erform them all the perenne named must have met; hat if the defendant wilfully neglected so to meet and udit the liabilities against the county embraced in the indictment the offence charged would be complete. That the auditing under the act required a per- sonal examination of the amounts or claims presented, and required the personal judgment of the defendant upon evidence presented the auditors, and if the de- fendant wiliully noglected tion and to {orm such persont of official duty and he must be convicted. Fourth—That delegating such examination to another and acting on his report that he had audited the claim atacertain sum was not a performance of the duty im- poses, by the staiuce, and that the cortifang of Cre] in order that they might be paid om such a report an withons a antean or investigation would be a neglect of duty. th—That to authorize a conviction on the first three counts on any Keyser, Garvey or Davidson item it is not necessary thit thé prosecution should show the defendant to have acted corruptly, or to have known that either or both of his co-auditors were acting corruptly. It is sufficient if the prosecution show a wilful neglect to per- form the duties required by the act. Sixth—That if the defendant intentionally neglected to perform the duties impose by the act with reicrence to the items charged in the indictment, he must be con: victed, notwithstanding he acted in the belief that he could deiegate to others the duties im} on him by the act, Wat ignorance of the law is not excuse. Seventh—That if the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant certified to claims mentioned in the indictment without having honestly made up his mind that they were Just and honest claims, and with a belief that such claiins were unjust, extravagant, false and fictitious, so that by means of such certificate the claims vere paid, that then the defendant may be convicted on the fourth count on each item as to which the jury be- om the evidence the defendant so acted. EFighth—If the defendant certified that the bills were audited, and the bills were paid by means of such certifi. cate, when, in fact, they wore false fradulent and had not been audited, this would be such misconduct in pop as to constitute an indictable offence at common W. CONCURRENCR AND COURTRSY ALL ROUND. Mr. Peckhal concluding, said:—Now, Your Honor, I think I have gone over all the authorities and cited all the legal opinions that, in my judg- ment and to the extent of my reading and expe- rience, are necessary to sustain the prosecution on the four counts of the indictment relied upon for a verdict in the case. I beg. to say here that I en- tirely concur with Mr. Buckley, counsel on the other side, who addressed the Court from their. view of the case, with regard to the effect this case and its determination will have on the public mind and the effect it will have on the defendant himself. Mr. Ea aera) my learned brother say so? Mr. Peckham—I do say 80. 9 Mr. Stoughton—You have changed your views somewhat, then, since your Spening. Mr. Peckham—I hope I expressed great satisfac- tion in my opening, so faras I could possibly make my view of the case satisfactory to the gentlemen for the defence. e Mr, Stoughton—I appreciate the courteous con- ducting of the case on the part of the prosecution. Mr. Peckham—Then we are all agreed in bein; exceedingly courteous on both sides. (Laughter. I will, however, call the attention of the Court to this phase of the indictment hat it charges a trivial offence, as it were, a charge of official neglect of certain duties, But at the same time the 1 ul if the de I att statute attaches great importance to the proper fulfilment of these duties. It is in his case of the highest importance, in ar- TnRees decision and construction of the statute, that the Court should let the public know, and let all know and understand not only the requirements that are made by the statute, but what official duties and responsibilities are imposed upon those accepting office. It 1s important to know whether men, without committing an offence, accept omeclal duties and then take it on themselves neglect to perform those duties. This is, perhaps, the only great, Leg aptereed point in this case. It is important because it necessarily involves the ques- tion whether the public are to be protected by the enforcement of those duties on the part of those who contract to perform them, or whether the pub- lic have no protection, and that the man whom they may elect to office for the faithful rape of those duties can delegate them to others wholly without responsibility to the public. Mr. Stonghton—I believe Mr. Tremain intends to sum EDIE the prosecution. Mr, Peckham—Yes; I don’t think our duty would be discharged otherwise. The Court then adjourned till this morning. THE CASE OF BOSS TWEED. + He Will Be Brought Into Court To-Day and Required to Prepare for a Speedy Trial, In anticipation of the immediate termination of the trial of Mayor Hall, the District Attorney and his associates representing the State Attorney General have determined to bri Tweed into Court to-day, and then to fix withJudge Braay upon an early day for his trialin the Court of Oyer and Terminer. ie prosecution are alive to the necessity of putting the ex-Boss on trial, as the public sentiment is not satisfied with the effort to make a sacrifice of Mayor Hall for misfeasance in office, while the principal alleged actor in the sta- pendous frauds against the city government goes unwhipt of justice. THE INDICTED ASSISTANT ALDER- MEN. Isaac Robinson and Edward Costello In- dicted for Bribery—They are Bailed in $5,000 Each to Appear for Trial—Spicy Developments. Immediately after a recess of thirty minutes had been ordered by the Court in Mayor Hall’s trial, at one o’clock, Sheriff Brennan introduced to Judge Brady, {n the Court of Oyer and Terminer, Assistant Aldermen Isaac Robinson and Edward Costello, ‘who were in custody of the Sheriff on an indict- ment found by the Grand Jury on the previous day for bribery. HISTORY OF THE CASE. It seems that there was an ordinance pending be- fore the Board of Assistant Aldermen to prohibit the running of freight cars in the day time over Fourth avenue, the Bowery and Centre street below Twenty-seventh street, and that the defendants went to the President of the New Haven Railroad Company and demaaded from him, as a considera- tion for defeating the ordinance, the sum of $7,600. Judge Brady took the indictments from Mr. Sparks, Clerk of the Court, and glanced over them. Mr. Robinson—I should like to know on what charge I have been arrested? Judge Brady—It is for bribery, and a very se- rious offence. Mr, Robinson—I should like to have a copy of the indictment and the names of the witnesses. District Attorney Garvin—I will give the defend- ant @ copy of the indictment ana also the names of the witnesses. Mr. Robinson—1 want to know what amount of bail will be taken? BL Brady fixed the bail at $5,000 for each de- ndant. Both defendants left the Court in custody, and subse gpa Notes bail, William Colligan and _Ber- or ‘ostello becoming their sureties in $5,000 each. INTERVIEW WITH ROBINSON. After bail had been given Mr. Robinson gave the following particulars concerning his indictment :— During the month of March last Mr, Edward Van Ranst came to Assistant Alderman Costello and myself and stated that Mr, James H. Tt Superintendent of the New Haven Railr: nt us his compliments and would have an inte: king no heed of the invita- tion, Lallowed severa! to elapse, when a messenger from Mr, Hoyt waited pon usand asked us to come u to, Forty-second street depot. In accordance with his Yacae* went up there and saw Mr. Hoyt. He told us that WANTED US TO DEFEAT THE RESOLUTION Yonbiga the running of the freight Seu of the New javen Railroad during daytime through Ceutre street, the Bowery and Fourth avenue. He gave as his reasons for asking this thatthe New Haven Raili was a demo- cratic railroad company; that Mr. Bishop, of the road, Cc he was alwa} road during RST RATE PELLO afi ; knew well how to do business with members of legisla- tive bodies, and always took plenty of money with = him. Mr. Hoyt concluded by saying that he wished particularily that we should see Mr. Bishop, to Which I replied that if he wanted to gee us we could alw: yaybe found at the City Hail. In repl; Berk. esa! ir. Bishop's Sing wae oo very vainable that he could not say if he woul! able fo.get down {own to the Aldermanic rooms. To oblige hit consont meet him, but no time was fixed jor an in- ferric 8) ty i this we receive! the following lett Hoytim om Mr. Robinson then gave the reporter the foliow- ing letter to copy :— LETTER FROM SUPERINTENDENT HOYT. Gaxenat SurennteNDENt's Orri New Yong axp New Haven Raiunoap Company, New Your, March 26, 1972. Messrs. Ipaao Bostxson and Eowann Costxito Gustiswex—I wrote to Mr, Bishop relative Ss ‘ou as carly as possible, ral eit yetcmuch an Maney, et on aed see him, but he got iny letter mad toloseaphied toe this Morning that he will see you at his to-morrow lay) Morning, at ten o’cloc! on iT. HOYT. I went to see Mr, Bi ¥ f Hog yh vy ir, Bishop at the time ited, and the fore th ‘idermon wan Acasa” iT tah withent Seas Promise as to how I would vote; when the resolution tion! the fadiotment doce ot ea That {received ‘ome cent; Clook upon the whole affair as ‘4 MALICIOUS PLOT, devised for Political purposes, as I am at the present mo- ment a candidate for Alderman; the alloged black mail- ing mentioned in the indictment took place last Marc! and is now brought up before election time to ht Ba dariane tava ce ones aad Roththg bettie aah’ Wo Row BI truth, aud No day bas as vet been fixed for the trial of the sonatas but it will, no doubt, be brought on with- CHARGE OF FALSE REGISTRATION. The Case of Francis P. Healy—He is Con- fined in Ludlow Street Jail. In the case of the United States vs. Francis P. Healy the further hearing of the case of the de- fendant, who is charged with having falsely regis- tered his name as a voter at 258 Moit street, was resumed yesterday before Commissioner Daven- port. General Davies and Mr. De Kay appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Healy, who is @ lawyer, de- fended himself. Mr. De Kay asked Mr. Healy if his witnesses were in attendance, Mr. Healy—No; they have been served irregu- larly, and {suppose they have taken advantage of it. Comnussioner Davenport—Are you ready to go on? Mr. Healy—No; I understand my witnesses are not present, They have been served irregularly; but whether regularly or irregularly, I must invoke the ald of the Court in enforcing their attendance, Mr. De Kay—How do you mean served irregu- larly? Mr. Healy—The summonses were given to sec- ond parties to serve them on the persons to whom they were addressed, Mr. ve Kay—The summonses were given to Mr. Dowley, an efficient marshal, to serve for the de- fendant. I gave him the names and told him to be bg tg careful to serve the be dan on the par- jes, There can be no mistake; [ have seen no re- turn to the summonses, I want to finish this case this morning, Mr. Healy—Let the person who served the sum- monses come here, andi will interrogate him. I have no doubt the Marshal has done duty, but I want to see how it is. Mr. De Kay—Did you ask to have a Mrs, Woods «cummoned? Mr. Healy—Yes. E. 0, Abbott, a Deputy Marshal, here stated, in reply to a question from the Court, that he was with Mr. Dowley when the latter was serving the summonses in question. Mr. Abbott said he recol- lected some of the names of the persons who were summoned as witnesses. Some of the persons whose names were on the back of the original sum- monses were personally served, and where the par- ties could not be served personally the summonacs were given to parties who knew them for the pur- pose of effecting the service. General Davies—Have you no one who can serve subpoenas for you? nips a do not want to assume the responsi- of it, Joun E. Dowley, Deputy Marshal, stated that he had personally served summonses on two witnesses for the defendant, Anne McGill and ‘Thomas Ryan, and three witnesses, named Woods, Griftin an Harrington, had been served by leaving the sum- monses at their residence. Mr. Healy said the point he wished to sustain de- pended on the testimony of these witnesses and he must have them in attendance. He did not want to let the case go by default, and if there had been laches on the part of the Marshal in serving the papers— neral Davies—There is no laches on the part of the Marshal, Mr. Healy—I can prove my residence there ifI have those witnesses. Some of those witnesses do not like to take an oath, thinking it would prevent them from ing salvation if they were other- wise fit for it. I would like to have this examina- tion before the election. After some further discussion in reference to the non-attendance of the witnesses for the defence, the District Attorney, at the request of the de- fendant, said he would issue new summonses for the witnesses who had not been personally served and attachments against those who had been per- sonally summoned. ‘The defendant observed that, confined as he was in Ludlow Street ail under $5,000, he could not go around to serve those papers. The case was on the point of being adjourned, when Thomas Ryan, one of the witnesses for the de- fence, made his appearance. Being sworn he testi- fled that he was in the liquor business at 258 Mott street; has known the defendant, Francis P. Healy, about eighteen months; during fifteen months o! that time have known him to reside at 258 Mott street, in the same policing ie which witness’ store is situated; Healy lived there with the old lady, Mrs. McKenna; he lived there on Saturday last, at the time of his arrest. In cross-examination General Davies put a ques- tion as to whether or not the defendant paid rent at 258 Mott street. Defendant objected to this, and said it made no matter whether he pald rent or not, so long as he resided at the place. The Commissioner allowed the question and the de- fendant excepted. The witness replied that de- fendant paid a little once in a while to the old woman, Mra. McKenna—one or two dollars a week. He paid whenever he was able. Mrs. McGill was next called for the defence. At first she declined to be sworn, stating that she did not like to take an oath. She said she would tell the truth, but could not take the oath. The Com- missioner proceeded to administer the oath, ana, having pronounced all the woras of it, he told the witness to ‘kiss the book.’ She said she ‘would not kiss the book."” Mr. Healy—Mrs. McGill, where do you reside ? General Davies—One moment; the witness is not sworn. The Oommissioner—She cannot be examined ‘until she is sworn. Finally the witness kissed the book, and testified that she frequently visited the house of Mrs, McKenna, who was her stepmother; has known Francis P. Healy for about en months; during that time he had stopped with Mrs. McKenna at 268 Mott street; witness lived at 260 Mott street. ‘The case was then adjourned until this morn! for the porrose of securing the attendance of the remaining witness for defence, the Commissioner intimating that he understood the government would have one or two witnesses in rebuttal. MANDAMUS AGAINST THE BOARD OF AUDIT AND APPORTIONMENT. The Salaries and Allowance of Officers nd Attend: s im the Court of Oyer and Terminer to be Paid. Some time since application was made to Judge Leonard, of the Supreme Court, for a mandamus against the Board of Audit and Apportionment to audit and allow the claims of attendants at the Court of Oyer and Terminer, said attendants being appointees of the Sheriff. There were some ninety claimants, and their claims run back into 1871. The matter was argued at great length, Mr. Charles W. Brooke appearing om behalf of the claimants and Mr. Strahan in ition. Judge Leonard yester- day rendered his decision in the case granting the application. The following is the OPINION OF JUDGE LEONARD. Ttay pears ‘without dispute that this claim was audited and sitowed the Board of Supervisors before the crea- tion of the rd of Apportionment and Audit. The audit and allowance of the claim by the Supervisors w: the nature of & judicial act, that co neither rescind nor review the Jedgment which they ren- ered, allowing the demand of the relator. This has held in repo: cases by the Supreme Court. No has been given to the Board of Apportionment it to entertain any such jurisdiction as a review or rescission of the action of the Supervisors. Itis the dut ‘the Board of Apportionment and Audit to receive the action of the Supe: in the matter as conclusive, and to audit and allow the demand at the sum so allowed | R,. Supervisors. The it of mandamus is granted, with costs. THE LORD GORDON CASE. rations of the So-Ca! of Greeley-Gould Notoriety. In the multiplicity of constantly recurring excit- ing ‘ents, the case of the pseudo Lora Gordon has been almost forgotten. While other events have, however, thrust him thus from the public memory, the records of his doings, or rather doing Jay Gould, Horace Greeley and others, as carefally chronicled in the daily papers at the time, have found their way into the columns of foreign papers. Mr. Thomas Smith, one of the firm of Marshall & Sons, jewellers, 78 George street, Edinburgh, read one of these accounts, He at once made up his mind from the circumstances of the case that this Lord Gordon, who, according to the published accounts, had played the rdveof swindler here with such success, was none other thana swindler who had cheated them and other trades- men “in Edinburgh town” out of their goods under the aristocratic name of LORD GLENCAIRN. He wrote to Messrs, Compton and Root, Gould's, attorneys, in regard to the matter, and after some correspondence obtained and sent to them a vho- fogtpgh of Lord Glencairn. This likencss of their Lord Glencairn proved to be Ai perfect picture of vi and testimony to the antecedent career Lord Glencairn Great Britain. He responded at ouce, and came over in tie steamship Batavia on her last trip, Upon his arrival Mr. Smith set himself pon oak at work to discover the whereabouts of Gordon-Gtencairn, but without any success, Messrs. Gould’s counsel Were quite a8 anxious to find Gordon as Mr. Smith, and with tats view deferred the examination of the latter until yesterday, when he was taken before qudge ier, of the Supreme Court, and exam- ined de esse, There were present at the ex- anaes sonee Fullerton and —_ — of r, Bi enerai Collis, of Philade|p! testimony of Mr. Smith was as follows :— ©. Wiien was the person ealiine hineetf Lord Glencatrn e calling himse jonca’ Introduced to you? A. During the year 199; a clergy: man named Simpson introduced him'to our firm by. name; this ele lived in Glenisla, Forfarshire, Booand, and represented Lord Glencairn' to be a laud: Pwner of great wealth, who wanted something in our line of business: he Lord Glencairn had been near bis (Mr. pson's) place. 1 By Bid Lord Glencairn open an account with yout A. purchases he evinced great” toler ive as of in VASTIDIOUSNESS OF TASTE as to the articles selected, tre: juently making it necessary to have the tal orders dircetly; he repre- sented to the firm that he was possessed of imme! Wealth, not only in Seotiand, but in England and Ireland as well; his estates in Scotland, he said, were in Ayr- shire, and those in England in Northamptonshire, but locality of those in Ireland he (witnesn Wad forgotten; he jlated that Mr. Howard Fatiorson, of 67 Lincoln's inn, London, was his solicitor and attended to his business; subsequently Lord Glencairn, aa U} turned out, sought to make purchases of a Mr, Keller, a diamond dealer in Lon- don, and referred to our firm as one with whom he had been dealing for many years; Mr. Keller wrote to us to y ins! rn Been dealing for years he’had only been dealing tof months; after receiving. this letter I went by the next at Mr. Patterson's chambers and train to London, called desired 9 noe Lord Glencairn; the statement was that His Lordship was not in; the floor was strewn with game, hich His Lordship 8 however, wii were talking RA AMR ANA 8 TIGRE a hat I knew belonged to His ip; I took a seat and expressed my deter mination to sce Lord Glencairn before he left. . Well, did you see him? A. Mr, Patterson went up atsirsand vory’ shortly twas invited inane clcaandly furnished room, designated as His Lordship's reception room; His Lordship was sitting at a writing table; he re- ceived me very graciously and referred me at once to Mr. iter represented his client as WORTH ONE NUNDRED THOUEAND DOLLARS, ded me not to displease him, as otherwise good customer ; iinally Patterson said such articles as were on hand Lord Glencairn would return and give a check for the balahce, but if hoe (witness) would accept it he would guarantee payment of the full amount by the 25th of March, 1870, Q. Did you accept the proposition? A. Yes, but the Uetirereratae's ats plas eminem 3 raon came to our place in Edinbu: 1 thathe had juire if Lord Giencairn had lett London, saying that he was going to Scotland {¢ days, but had mot returned; I went to London, aud found Mr. Patterson perfectly frantic. . What made him frantic? A. He said that Lord Glencairn had GOT INTO HIM TO THR EXTENT OF FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS, and that out of this sum he obtained £300 only the previous day; Patterson said that Lord Glencairn had ruined him and at the same time offered to return somo of the goods which Lord Glencairn had presented to his (Mr. Patter- son’s) family, if he would be released from his guaranteo; ES er ere leaving a balance of £131 still duc on id Lord Glencairn swindle other parties? A. Pignty of them. Q. Of what amount do you suppose? A. Of £10,000 at least—that is to say, in Edinburga and London; he refer red to the Duke of Hamilton and Marquis of Hastings 4g being neariy allled to him. Q. Were inquiries ever made of theso parties regarding hint” A. Yes, and they both pronounced him = AN IMPOSTOR; Lord Glencairn’s “tiger” wore a cockade, which indi- cated that his employer was in the government service; he told witness that his mother was @ very gay woman, but a more worthy man than his tather never lived; he never heard him aay th: LORD GLENCAIRN’: peed in; T saw on a table ha rds Patterson; the r at his father was a duke ; he never heard him breathe the name Gordon, and he never heard the names Count, Dr. Crous or Baron Thurl mentioned until he saw thei in the testimony published in the pro- Ceedings In this city; in 188. Lord. Gleneairn in Scotland as Herbert Hamilton; it London in March, 1870, or as far axcan be ascertained, Lord Glencairn has never showed himself again either'in, England, Scotland o Ire- land; he left at Mr. Patterson's chambers a tin box with the name “Habe Honorable H. Edinburgh and delivered over to the makers, who hi never been paid for it; he brought the slippers with him. (The slippers were produced, and @ very elaborate pair they were, the material being patent leather, highly orua- mented and having massive silver buc! did not know where Lord Glencairn is now; Lord Glen- ao boasted of his having an elegant Durdan vase with t) v LIKENESS OF THE FIRST NAPOLEON'S MOTHER on tt; ho said that the present Napoleon heard of it and sent to him to see {t; that he sent it to the French Court by a special commissioner, with the instruction that h was not to let it out of his presence, and that the Em- Peror offered £10,000 sterling for it, which he refused; he offered to loan it to their firm to place on exhibition; on another occasion Lord Glencairn asked him how old his son ‘was, and, having been answered “Twenty years,” said, “I well remember when I was that age; my father into the breakfast room and said, ‘Herbert, my son, you have reached the brightest period of lire; 'you ets aro; deny yourself noth- ing that your fancy or desires crave, but ‘never do any- thing you would ashamed to have me know;’ this would be my advice to your son.” The witness produced a number of letters re- ceived by his firm and others, signed Glencairn, which he swore were in Glencairn's handwriting. A large number of letters, written by Lord Gordon to Jay Gould, was shown to the witness and sworn by him to be also in Lord Glencairn’s handwriting. It was evident that the Glencairn and _ Gordon let- ters were in the same handwriting. Witness pro- duced a photograph of Lord Glencairn which he had obtained in England, It was immediately recognized by all present as the picture of Gordon. There were several residents of this city present who had known Mr. Smith in Scotland, and spoke of him as a person of the highest respectability. The examination will be resumed at ten o'clock this morning. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS’ COURT. The Alleged Whiskey Ring Frauds— Abandonment of the Prosecution and Discharge of the Accused. Before Commissioner Shields. The United States vs. Lewis Samuels and Others.—The defendant has been charged, on the complaint of one Strauss, with having conspired with others to defraud the government out of the duty on ten barrels of whiskey manufactured in 1866, at a distiltery in Eighth street, in this city. ‘The case has been several times called up for hear- ing and adjourned. Yesterday, however, the pros- ecution abandoned it, Mr. Pierrepont, Mr. Rollins and Mr. Harland ap- peared as counsel for the defence, and Mr. De Kay and ex-Recorder Smith for the government. Mr. Smith said in this case he was counsel for the com- lainant (Strauss). He brought Strauss to the istrict Attorney's office, and there Strauss made a complaint against the defendant, Cr ed him ‘with the offence mentioned in the affidavit. After the complaint was made and the warrant was issued his attention was called to certain matters in the case which at firat had escaped his notice Upon investigation he was satisfied that the » oA ernment could not sustain the charge that had been made. a been instrumental in having the Pe! refel he deemed it his duty to state the fact to the Court, and he did so as a matter of justice to the defendants. He now left the matter with the government. 3 -—I am directed by the District Attor- to state that he has looked into the case and coincides with Mr. Smith, I, therefore, ask a dis- missal of the case. The case was dismissed accordingly. WATURALIZAT'ON IN THE UNITED STATES COURTS. From the 9th of September to the 26th inst. 315 rsons have been naturalized as citizens in the nited States Courts of this city. iit SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS. Decisions. By Judge Barrett. Thomas Hope ve Onarles E, Lawrence et al.— Case and amendments settled. aa 8. Gallup et al, vs. Samuel M, Lederer.— me. By Judge Ingraham. Davis et al. va. Bilayye or et al.—Motion granted. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM. Dicisions. By Judge Robinson. Luft vs. Graham et al.—Motion to set aside de- fault denied, with $10 costs, Connolly vs. .—Motion to set aside case for defendant’s examination on supplementary rons ceeding granted, with $10, to be set up aj it judgmen' : iinet vs. Ten Eyck.—Order of arrest denied. Corbett vs. Hausman.—Warrant under nom-im- prisonment act denied. SEFFERSON MARKET POLICE COURT, Robbery in a Jewelry Store—Large Draft on a Gentleman’s Wardrobe— Pocketbook Snatching. Henry Marshall and James Williams were brought up charged with stealing a quantity of jewelry from the store of Richard Elias, 611 Broadway. The evidence showed that the prisoners entered the lace together on Monday evening, and Marshall Was observed to take a At of shirt studs from @ tray on the counter and put them in his pocket. When charged with the offénee he panty A threw them on the floor. An officer was sent for and they were taken to the station house. The Vo aii was valued at $61. They were held to await the action of the Grand Jury. Alexander White and Joseph Townsend, two negro boys, were charged with stealing cldthing to the amohnt of $241 from the wardrobe of Peter Dewitt, ina boarding house on West Fourteenth street. It was shown that Ania who waa em- ployed hy a Mier co pak, a Uf faking the of carr; com) with Townsend. They were committed an deta oTJonE Clark attempted: to snatch , ‘pocketbook the hands of irs. Alice Burke, on the stroct, failed, and was civtured by a policeman to the station house. He was committed tor Bred BROOKLYN COURTS. CITY COURT—SENERAL TERM. The Homan-Earle Breach of Promise Case. Before Judges Thompson and McCue. Last October RoxceHena Homan, a lady about thirty years of age, sued Alexander Earle ter $20,000 damages for an alloget breach of promise, and got a verdict of $15,000, Mr. Earle, who is commonly known in Brooklyn as “the man that looks like Beecher’ (and he certainly bears a atrik- ing facial resemblance to that eminent divine), isa prominent member of the church, and the case ex- cited great pablid interest at the time of the trial. The allegation was that he proposed to Miss Hoe man, Was accepted, and then transferred his affec- tions to another lady whom he married, Mr. Earle appealed to the general term of the ae Court for a new trial, and the case was esterday. His counsel asked for a feve! of the Jadgment and a new trial, on the grounds that the verdict was unwarranted by the plaintia’s own evidence, that it was irreconcilable with a number of wholly undisputed facts, and that if was conm- trary to the clear weight and preponderance of the ‘evidence. Counsel held that Judge Netlsom (who presided at the trial) erred in declining to nt a non-suit at the close of the case for plain- if, For the cod oor of @ motion for a non-sulé the facts adduced by the plaintiff were admitted te be true, and it was Pere @ question of law fer tae Court to decide, and not a question of fact for the jury whether or not the existence of a contract te marry had been proven, and whether plaintiff had been justified in drawing the inference ahe had Corn. Po held there was no express promise om elther side, Counsel for Miss Homan said there Li 4 no fae alleged as to the making of the contract, and ri for jury was at liberty to infer when it was made, asserted that the verdict was not excessive Miss Homan had a right to expect that her a! in life was to be very much ed; that she would jot be compelled to work daily for a mere id that she was to be placed entirely above. ‘ant during life. Such men as Mr. Earle were not plenty, and it might so happen that she would hever again have such an advantageous oppor- breed Counsel held that a marriage contract did exist, The question in this case is whether a promise of marriagre can be implied irom the circamstances, Decision reserved. COURT CF SESSIONS. Trial of the “sSiiver Gang.” Before Judge Moore and Associates, Michael O’Brien and Thomas Brown, two of the Gang of alleged burglars known as the “Silver Gang,” were acquitted of the charge of having broken into and robbed Mr. Graves’ residence, No. 116 Washington street. Yesterday O’Brien and Peter Weir, another member of this gang, were tried for robbing the house of Edward eget in Second place. The chief testimony agail them, as in the other case, was that of the in- former, Higgins, and that of Cae Ferry, who recovered the stolen pro) boa ounsellor Great for the defence, appealed to the jury not to convi the prisoners on the testimony of @ self-confessed thief like Higgins, who had ill-fecling against them. The jury, however, did convict them, and they were remanded for sentence. ‘ Dischargefl. Michael Kelly, Michael Hunnan, Ellen Pryer, Man garet Sterling and Honora Ghegan, who were charged with receiving property stolen by the Su- ver Gang, were discharged, the Court having no {Heals ion. ‘The alleged offences were co! teed in New York. Michael Doll, indicted on the charge of setting fire to the premises 85 Bushwick avenue ia August last, was acquitted, BROOXLYN COURT CALENDAR, Crry Court.—Nos, 312, 300, 85, 241, 303, 255, 336, 523, 74, 94, 174, 181, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 345, S47, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 354, 355, 356, 357, MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS. we rs The Public Baths, Commissioner Van Nort, of the Department of Public Works, reports that the number of bathers at the two public baths from October 1 to Octoper 13 was 9,961, of whom 2,124 were females. The baths were closed for the season on the 13th inst., having been open since June 17—119 pina aan which time they were visited if 531,140 bathers, whom 118,229 were females. The largest number of bathers on any one day during the season was 10,671, on Thursday, August 12. The cost of main- taining and repairing the baths for the year 1872 Will be $9,358 47; the city, therefore, pays less than two cents for every bather, Hacks and Cart Licenses. By direction of the Mayor Marshal Hart has ex tended the time for renewing the licenses of hacks, carts, express wagons and coalmen to October 31, This action is taken on accouut of the prevalence of hippozy mosis. Those Unfortunate Paintings. The Sheriff's employés seem to entertain a special spite against the unfortunate celebrities whose features have been perpetuated on canvas in the Governor’s Room of the City Hall. When- ever a judgment is rendered against the city for an amount that these paintings will cover Deputy Stevens or some of equally valiant associates hies to the second story and seizes them in an exe- cution. A Lr many times has this indignity been offer’ | the past and the Comptroller has been compiled to rescue them from public sale. On Monday Joel Stevens a; seized them, this time on a judgment secured against the city by Edward Boyle ior saiary as a city oflicer. A kee) ‘was put in charge, and yesterday Pompe Green took the preliminary steps to satisfy the pat bate and relieve the paintings from the clu of the Sheriff. It is to be hoped that the Comptroller will in the future satisfy judgments aa soon as found and e the “feelings” of those entlemen whose features adorn the walls of the jovernor’s Contracts for Public Works. Commissioner Van Nort, of the Department ot Public Works, reports that the following additional awards of contracts for public works have been made, proposals for which were opened on the 234 and 24th inst. :— Building sewers in Eleventh second and Firty-fourth Bullding sewer tn Fitty-drth street, bet A apdirn avanne, to i, U Crceemayer: a7 Regulating, Grading, c., 1i7th street, from Sixth to ce ee ea e | La 5 ay gun avenue, toYohn B. Nichol « Payments by Comptroller. Comptroller Green yesterday made the following payments:— Department of Police—For pay of the force expenses of department for Ogtober.... Laceeresneee ie ments to October I5..... Laborers—Smail Pipes - Pan Catal streets, to October 15...-- 6407 The balance of rolls of small pipe mon will be paid to-morrow to Kingsbridge. THE NATIONAL GAME. acne getieene The Baltimores Defeat the Mutuals— Score 2 to 1. The Baltimore and Mutual Clubs played another of their championship games yesterday afternoon, on the Union Grounds, Williamsburg. The attend- ance was small, owing probably to the fact that the means of reaching the place of playing were very limited, most of the horse cars having been with- drawn because of the “epizootic.” The game was quite pleasant to look upon, but long before it was called, rumors were indulged in that it would not be decided upon the merits of the players, and these rumors seemed to assume some tangible shape when the Baltimores sold in the first pools two to one over the New York boys. Such odda ‘Were not at all warranted, but when $25 to “any- thing you could get”? was offered in the same ad it was a little astonishing to the simple-mii There are many thin, uliar im the base ball world toa man with eyes wide open, and yes- terday’s contest was just one of t things. The following is @ summary of the gume:— el como om! B1 commownm on” eoks cl cnccomnuc! cok 0 Ump revaudelh Eekiond 1-7 Shea ‘Timo of Game—One hour and thirty minutes, National Game Notes, To-day, on the Union grounds, the Baltimores and Mutuals play the last of their championship games. Who will be tho favorites * On Thuraday thp Baltt- mores, will play the Atlanties oa the Capiteline