The New York Herald Newspaper, December 6, 1872, Page 8

8 THE COURTS. HE CASE OF WM. M. TWEED. Another Day of Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing—Continuation of Argument to Quash the Indictment -The Change of Judges to Try the Gase— Tremain in Reply to De- fendant’s Counsel, AN INSIDE VIEW OF ERIE OPERATIONS. History of Jay Geuld’s Resignation—The Klection of Generals Dix, McCtellan and @thers to the Erie Direc- tory—Giould’s Release. THE INCOME TAX. Constitutionality of the Income Tax Tested in the United States Courts— Judge Freedman Objects—Case Ar- gued and Decision Reserved. THE KING-O’NELL TRAGEDY. Mrs. King Applies to the Court for'the Custody of the Children—The Applica- tion Granted—The Children FPermit- ted to Visit Their Father in Prison. eS IN THE OTHER COURTS. on Summaries—Another Mandamus Against the Comptroller—A Suit Interesting to Parties Doing Business in New York and Non- Residente—Business in the Gen- eral Sessions—Decisicns. The Dock Commissioners took preliminary steps yesterday, before Judge Leonard, at Supreme Gourt, Chambers, to obtain eontro) of the balance et the Dock fund sti) in the hands of the Comptrol- wer. Application was made and granted for an ‘order to sbow cause why a Mandamus should not Jeone against the Comptroller directing him to pay ‘the fund over to the Dock Commiesioners, The order was made returnable on Monday next, when “Mie case will come up for a hearing. ‘The case of The People ve, Wiliam M. Tweed was ‘again before the Court of Oyer and Terminer yes- terday, and the day was spent in the further arg nent of the Motion to quash the indictment, hearing WM) be continued thie morning, when Mr. ¥ieid will reply on behal! of the defendant, in the Court of Over.and Terminer yesterday, be- tore Judge Ingraham, the prisoner Scannell was ealled upon to plead to the charge of killing John Denohoe, and upon application of counsel the ‘Ywiat was fixed for ten o'clock this morning. In the same Court Arthur Quinn was called upon ‘#0 plead to the charge of killing Martin Stiner, on the 13th of August last, and upon application of prisoner’s counse) the trial was set down for Mon- gay morning next, at ten o'clock. Decision was given yesterday by Judge Leonard, of the Supreme Court, upon the application made by Mrs. Anna King for the custody of her children. he is the wife of Jonn ©. King, between whom and herself proceedings ior a divorce were pending at the time of the aileged shooting of Anthony F. O'Neil by her busvand, the children then, by pre- | vious order of the Court, being in the custody of she father. Judge Leonard directed the children ‘to be given over to her care, but with permission to them to visit their father once a week, each ‘visit to be of two hours’ duration. THE CASE OF WILLIAM M. TWEED. Another Day of Legal Encounter and of tne Law's Delay—Continuation of the Argument on the Motion to Quash the Indictment—Mr. Tremain in Reply to Defendant's Counsel. Yesterday the case of The People against William @. Tweed was again up before Judge Ingraham in the Court of Oyer and Terminer on a continuation of argument by Tweed’s counsel to quash the in- fictment. This argument to quash is becoming bot only farcical as a legal illusion, but, unfor- tinately, ittends to bring the administration of justice into contempt. The change made in the Judges to try the case must appear unfortunate fem the fact that Judge Brady, who had listened 10 all the bombast and rhodomontade of defendant's la)king counsel, had just come to the point to have © more special pleading from that frothy gentie- man of ‘sound and fury” when his seat on the Bench was filled by another, Judge Brady nad re- solved to have Tweed arraigned first and to listen to argument after; now, from present appearances, it will be all argument and no arraignment, no wial, no conviction, no punishment, So wags the degal world along. SKGUMENT TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT AGAINST WILLIAM M. TWEED, ‘The hearing was resumed yesterday morning in the Court of Oyer and Terminer before Judge In- graham. There were present the same array of counsel as on Tuesday, the gentleman in the big Wig being again prominent as the leader of the defence. The ‘Boss,’ who appeared in exceed- ingly good spirits, was prior to the commencement of the proceedings busily engaged for some time | 4m conversation with a gentleman whose name did not transpire, devoid of that scene of crushing and excitement ‘which was apparent on Tuesday last, many doubt- | Jese preferring to remain sent until the trial actually assumes some prospect of its being taken $n band and prosecuted to a conclusion—a pros- pect which, from present appearances, seems | highly problematical. Mr. Peckham, in opening the case for the prose- cation, said that when the case was taken into Court, the day before yesterday, he had hoped Bome progress would have been made, but he was exceedingly dissatisied with what nad been done. From the circumstances which the other side had endeavored to prove it certainly did appear that te prosecution were going to be trampled on and dad actually got themscives into an unfortunate muddie, They had urged tnat bis presence on be- half of the District Attorney bad been illegal, and ‘that no lawyer could appear before that body other than the District Attorney himself. All that he had done had been to lay the indictment before the Grand Jury, to explain it, to examine witnesses and to advise them to either find or ignore the Dill, and it was for the other side to prove the im- po ge | Of any one appearing beiore the Grand jury other than the District Attorney him- well, There was no difference between him- Mf and a party authorized to appear for him. sequence of certain letters wi the fribune, but there had been no evic duced to connect him therewith. fo conceive that the Court would accept the propo- sition that a man could not becoine a public prose- eutor because he had expreesed an opinion as to the unfitness of 4 man to be entrusted with an mee ad- i mt position, in which the benefit of the public was #0 deeply juterested. Counsel had at a) times a right to express an opsnion as to whether & prisoner was innocent or guilty, wut in this cae he could only say that if the prisoner was proved t be innocent of the charge no one would take a greater pleasure in his acquittal than hiruself. Jo reference W the appearance of any other person other than the District Attorney counsel oo the other side bad shown no principle againgt it, but had satisfied themselves with a poor au- thority Which bad no point or argument in it, ‘The | The court, although well filed, was | had been held that he was disqualified in con- | ch had be the iD | e It wae impossible | NWHW YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1872.-TRIPLE SHEET. He cited several authorities im support of his right WO appear before the Grand Jury, and in reference Attorney to appoimt a substinte. If they couid transpose the weaning Of section 23 to the effect that no other person than the District At ey Himee}f should appear before the Grand Jury they were equally weil authorized to draw the inierence fyom the latter part of the same section that any person could be present except at the probitited and stated times. He referred also to sections St | and 39, and with reference to the intimation of the other side, that he was jiable Jor a misdemeanor by reason of his cognizance of the preceedings of the Grand Jury, that idea must be dispelied on reading section 40. He denied that he advised the Grane Jury even, for he had advised the District Attorney sultatiens with them, as appeared ip his afp- davit, other than the open transactions he had bad with them under his instructions, He referred to the opinion of one of the first Attor- ney Generals of the United States (in vol, 1 of Opinions, p. 42), as we!) as to Judge Wilson’s opin- ion in his lecture on Common Law, p. 31, in bowl of which it was held that the Grand Jury bad the vight of the presence of the public prosecutor, In one of Mr. Bishop's notes the language used by Chitty was repeated, and the common law with reference to the presence of the District Attorney oY any prosecuting oficer was laid aown and ex- jained, apd by jt indictments for high treason, or 73 any case other than where there was a private prosecutor, caunsel might be present with the Grand Jury and cross-examine their witnesses, any ordinary counsel or barrister baving the saine privilege, and the same View was carried out in the cause of Larrup vs. The State, in which the cir- cumstances bore @ strong analogy to the question here raised, bhey having examined witnesses, &c., and were regarded as being there by the appoint- ment of the District Attorney. veral other cases and judgments were cited to support his view that. any one duly appointed by the District Attorney could appear before the Grand Jury aud explain the indictment, &c, In almost every criminal case the prosecuting ofiver had the right to retain any counsel he-liked to assixt him in. the trfa), and aithough the same objection had frequently been taken op previous occasions it had in almost every instance been overruled, Counsel for the defence denied that unis wae #0, and said that in the McFarland case great trouble arose to the District Attorney by reason o! his con- duct in appointing some one else to prosecute the ease. Mr. Peckham continued his argument, and asked where the legal difference was in the appearance of one or she other before the Grand Jury. Opposing counsel maintained that in cases where the District Attorney bimseif was unable to attend before the jury it wax for the Court to appofnt his substitute, and that be had no power to act in the matter himself, Mr. Peckham said it was a matter of absolute necessity that some one should appear before the Grand Jury to explain ail the circumstances in connection with dificult and intricate cause otherwise the jury would never be able wo arrive at a just conclusion; they would be in doubt about allmanner of things, and therefore he held that any one appointed by the District Attorney to make such explanation to them was equally as valid as he could be himself. With reference to the name of John Brown, which had been intro- qused, and referred to by counsel on the other side as “A SKUNK UPON THE FENCE,” he denied that their insinuations with reeard to it were either correct or just, and 80 far as his own conduct was concerned nis knowledge of the pro- ceedings of the Grand Jury closed when he left their room aud requested them to answer to the bil. The only trreguiarity claimed in this case was that the names of the witnesses were not set forth by the District Attorney, and therefore the only real points which this result would point to would be the inference that this jury was incompetent from the Jact of a stranger coming before them. It appeared to him that it would be making the action of the Grand Jury and the administration of justice a farce. Assuming, even supposing, his presence had been an irregularity, that did not alter the facts of their inquiring out all that they bad done and acting independently afverwards, which fact shows that they desired to act properly. He submitted, there- fore, that nothing improper had occurred; that whatever there was, supposing it to be irregular, was cured entirely by the District Attorney's hav- ing advised the Grand Jury tg ignore any previous action they had taken in the prececdings and to Investigate it entirely by themselves, Counsel for the defence cited several leading cases in an endeavor to prove that the power was vested in the Court to qnash the indictment. Mr. Tremain addressed himself to the principal question, and said the motion to quash the mdict- ment, so far as it related to exclusive iacts, sought to be based upon ‘three propositions: first, that the proceedings before the Grand Jury were illegal and sas ed second, that this indictment was tainted by this irregularity asa fruit of it, and third, thet this irregularity was of itself, upon the papers before the Court, sufticient ground to make it the duty of the Court to grant a motion to quash the Indictment, These three propositions must all be maintained afiirmatively on the part of the defendant. It was not enough toshow that vhis was merely an irregularity, but the whole of the Haha! must be established before the Court could be justified in declaring such to be the case. Mr. Peckham, a sworn attorney of this and of all the Courts of this State, at the request of the highest law oMecer, with the concurrence and joint request of the’ District Attorney of the county, appeared before the Grand Jury, without any objection being raised, and by their implied and expressed consent he | proceeded to examine the witnesses on the part of | the government, explaining the nature of the in- dictment, and leaving the Matter aiterwards with ; the Grand Jury to decide, This was the slender | foundation upon which this pee superstructure of | aspersions, accusations aad imputations of mo- | tives was raised which had occupied the at- tention of that Court for the whole of one day. It was on this slender hye that the prosecution had been abused, and all connected with it, in a manver unparalleled in his expericnce, One day had been occupied in begging the highest Court of original jurisdiction in criminal Courts to dismiss an indictment that had been found by the Grand Jury of the county for an offence involving the loss of millions of dollars, according to the accusation | made by the Grand Jury, taken unlawfully and wrongfully from the taxpayers of the city and county of New York, and the limit to these expres- | sions and to this so-called argument seemed to rest entirely upen the strength and the persist. ency of the counsel for the defendant. He was uD Willing to suppose for a moment thai tlhe FOUL IMPUTATIONS that had been made upon the Grand Jury and the | Attorney General, an honored member of the pro- | fession, could have received the approval of the Court, or that His Honor’s silence could be at- tributed to any other cause than a reluctance to interiere even when tne widest latitude seemed in- suiliclent for the counsel. The consequence was that if that were the law at Rome they must do at Rome as the Romans do, and if that Court should he converted into an arena for the exhibition of giaditorial combats, or into a bear den, the respon- sibility would not rest upon those who were depre- | gating it. In the first place, when the Assistant District Attorney, after several unsuccessful efforts to arraign the defendant in the simple discharge | of his duty, moved that the defendant should be arraigned, he was told that the counsel for the government had this “indictment upon the brain ;” that they were so eager to get at the defendant that they were blinded to even the sanctity of ote They had been told that Mr. Peckham had en guilty of a violation of the statute of the State and ought to be indicted. They had been told that the Grand Jury, | In order to cover up their criminal conduct, ha | sought concealment under the name of “John | Brown.” They had heard an aspersion thrown | upon a Judge of the Supreme Court, because he had attempted to arrest a guilty man “upon the | pretentious authority of a so-called Attorney- | General.” fee ad motives of political hostility had been imputed to the gentleman who appeared before the Grand Jury. He took the occasion, therefore, to protest against such conduct, and he should not follow, at least just now, this example; but he desired the counsel to understand that they | recognized no superiors at that bar, and no school- masters. And when the gentleman who arraigned | the counsel for the government asked, after weeks | of delay and days occupied in dilatory motions, to | simply arraign the defendant, he could net sce the | force © criticism upon them for endeavoring | to eoete their duty, What could they do that would be acceptable to the defendant or his | learned counsel? Should they go down on their | bended knees, with obsequious manner, and ask the honorable defendant whether he would be good enongh to plead, and, if not, when it would be convenient for him to plead to the in- dictment that this impudent Grand Jury had thought fit to bring against him? They had be- lieved that this defendant was in oniy the same position as any other defendant against whom a | Grand Jury had laid an indictment for a great offence. The Attorney General, he was sure, would receive no damage by the aspersions coming from the counsel for the defe: | Would carry no weight outside circle, for he could sustain himself by the knowl- edge that he was only doing his duty. He con- tended that his friend had every right to be pres- to section 23 said It was competent for the: Livtriét, to recall the witnesses, He wag present ai novon- | | | | | | dell, Mr. Hal Bland if charged with similar crime, and was enth- tert opty. 3 same Justice apg conpside rat.on. “The hegring*of the tral was then ad- journed until thie day, when Myr. Field will reply foy the cefencavt, AN. INSIDE VIEW OF “ERIE” OPERATIONS. Senee rae History of Jny Gould's Resignation— The Eicetion of Generals Dix, McClel- lan and Others to the Directory of the Brie Railway—Goald’s Release. Anew chapter hag been added to the history of the Erie Ring collapse, which must prove intergst- ing ip a)! the aspects of this interminable litigations How Gould was dethroned and the facts connected with the coup @état of General Sickles while he was here on a brief visit from the seat of his minis. terial dutiee a. Madyia, and the co-operation of Geneva) Dix in that most successful raid on the Erie Ring, wiil be found detailed as given below from the testimony of those who knew whereof they testified, given before a referee the other day. The testimony subjoined was given on reference in support of the motion made before Judge Fancher in Supremo Court Chambers to vacate the order of arrest fonnd against Gould :— TRETAMONY OF EDWIN ELDRIDGE. Edwin Eldridge, baving been sworn, depored as tol- o Q Where do you reside and what is your occupation? A. T reside ip the city of Elmira, N. Y., and am &@ manu facturer oF jrou, Q. Have you been a director of the Erie Railway Com- any, aud jor how long! A. I was a director from the Hing of WTI to July, Q. Were you appointed in April, 1871, by the Board of Directors, one of the committee to examine into the transuetions of that company of Jay Gould, James Fisk, Jr. and Frederick A. Lane? A. Yes, qj ‘ou sist areportor release to be executed to thote A T did, Q. Did you, a8 one ot the directors, vote in favor of the execution of such release tA. I did. Did you, as such director, also vote on December 30, 1871, or thereabouts, In favor of a “Telease, then or soon afterwards executed to the same parties, on the part of the company by John Hilton and Henry ‘Thompson as @ committee FA. I did, Q. In reporting and voting in favor of each of these re- leases did you act in good taith and with a view to the real interest of the company? A. I did, sir. ‘And so {nr as vou have any knowledge, information or belies, dd the other directors, voting with you in tavor of such release, act in like manner? A. Ithink they ad. THR WRATH AND RAPHAEL LAWSUIT. Q. At the time that such releases were executed was any litigation onaieg to which the Erie Railway Com- pany and Jay Gould were barties in which aqutestion was raised concerning the validity of the Issue of certain con- vertible bonds by the Executive Committee ot the com- pany (of whom Jay Gould was one), and in whieh charges ‘were mace that the prope of sach convertible bonds had not been accounted tor to the company t A, 1_know there Was & suit brought against the company by Heath and yapneel in which general charges Were made against Mr. Gould, 'Q. Look at this paper now shown to you and say whether it isor is not a copy of the complaint in the suit of Heath and. Raphael eepinas the Erie Railway Cour pany, Gould and others which wae submitted to the com- mittee which made the report referred to? It te. Q. State whether itis not charged in th that a large share of the moneys received trom th of those convertible bouds had’ not been accounted for. A. Tam aware of the existence of this suit, and thatis ‘one of the charges. . Was not a copy of that bill of complaint laid before all the directors of the company who were in attendance atthe meetings where the resolutions sanctioning these releases were A. I remember that when the committee were appointed they were directed to mvesti- gate the charges in that particular suit, and that a copy of the bill shart int was on the table of the board. . Was it not charged in that complaint that enormous amounts of money belonging to the said company had fer long periods of time been retained in the hands of Gould, Fisk and Lane, and had been used by them for their own private advantage? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were there not at that fime many general and vague charges of fraud and misnse of the corporate funds pub- hely made against Messrs. Gould, Fisk and Lane in con- nection with the affairs of the company? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did not the committee appointed ‘by the Board take into consideration all these various chargesand endeavor to ascertain the facts about them? They did, sir; they were instructed to do 50. Q. Did Mr. Gould exercise any influence or contro} over you aga member of this committee or over any of your ‘associates, 80 far as you are aware? A, He did notover me; I do not know anything about my associates. Q. Did you act with entire independence of Mr. Gould, both as a member of the committee and as a member oi the Board of Directors, in reporting and voting for the execution of such releases? A. I did. Q. Sate what was your motive in congenting to the ex- ecution of these releases, A, Because I supposed it wi right; because 1 was unable to discover from the exan nation an; aon why they should not be granted; also because I believed it would be for the interest of the com- pany, so a8 fo end any litigation. Q. bid Mr. Gould refuse to answer any inquiries ad- | dressed to bim by the committee in the course of their investigation? A. Tam not aware that the committee went to Mr. Gould for any information, but we went'to i to the Auditor and other il yi eritiemen 7 3S ‘FRY. PROPOSALS TO MR. 8, 1. #. BARLOW, rie Railway office on the lth of id you On. the ey: 4 3 ening of that day have an inter- view with Mr. Samuel L. M. Barlow? A. T did. ). Did you have any conversation with bim upon the subjectoi a compromise betwecn the persons repre- sented by him, claiming to be directors on. the one side and Mr. Gould’on the other side? A. T did, sir, Q. Stute the substance of that interview. A. T asked perinission of Mr. Gould to see Mr. Barlow and see if e terms could not be made in settlement of the matier. He told me I might. I then went to Mr. Bar- low's house and found him there. come to ec if any compromise of this matter between them and Mr. Gould could not be made, and Was that be’ would be very glad to compromise, said that if Mr. Gould and his party would surrender an@ ive them the control of the road, they would discharge ir. Gould from ail liabilities in question, and would pro- tect such contracts as he had that were ‘not outrageous. That was about the language used by him. I told him thought the matter could be settled in that way, and assured him that I should do everything in my: power to bring it about, and if Mr. Gould did not agree to those terms I should’ abandon his side and go with them. He, on his part, said that it should be carried out: I then went back to the office and intormed Mr. Gould of the arrangements which I had made. 1 met Mr. Henry N. Smith there, and he joined with me in persuading Mi, Gould to accept the terms offered. Mr. Smith and t went to Mr. Barlow’s house again that ‘evening, and there the matter was talked over in accordance with the arrangements J ha made, and an agreement to that effect come to, and it was verbally arranged that on the next morning he would meet Mr. Gould, and_ an agree- ment would rawn up carrying out our views. Mr. Barlow was satisfied to settle on those terms, and said he did not care how much Mr. Gould had stolen. Q. What did he say about past transactions of Mr. Gould, 11 anything tA. Tthink Mr. Smith made use of tho Ianguage, “Let bygones be bygones,” to which Mr. Barlow assented; the sum and substance of our conver- sation was that an arrangement was come to by which the whole thing should be ended, and that they would give a tull releawe and pay fo Mr. Gould the money which ¢ had Joaned the company, aig: Dt Mr Gould assent to this arrangement? A. He id. JAY GOULD'S RPSIGNATION, . Did he do anything in pursuance of it? A. He ral Sickles ii the morning and pertected, as he i rangement; he went into the Director eek me, with General Sickles, myself and others, aud did carry ow ancement. jt th 2 nant Mr. Gould on that day resign as President? A. je did, Q! Dia not you, Mr. mid, Mr. Sherwood and Mr. Drake act together as directors of the company on the 1th and 12th of March, 187 A. Yes, sir, we did. Q. Was not @ meeting called by ‘Mr. Gould, as Presi dent,on the 12th of March? A. Yi Q. Did not toad Mr. Drake, erwood, Mr. Kams- and Mr. Archer attend that meeting, Mr. Gould acting as President? A. We did. Q. At that meeting were not the resignations of a nam- ber of the other directors presented and accepted? A. They were, Q. Did not that meeting then vote to fill the vacancies by'cleeting Messrs. Barlow, McClellan, Travers and other persons acting with them? A. i. Q. Did not Mr, Gould then res the Presidency to the board thus consiituted rd unite in electing General Dix in his place? A. Yes. Q, Did not Mr. Gould thus i the agreement made omhisbehali by you and Mr. Smith with Mr. Barlow A . Yer. Was not 0. H. P; Archer ‘the Vice President of the Bite ‘Hallway ‘Company. on the th of March, and for some time before and aiter that? A. He was. ny conversation’ with him upon the to Mr. Gould or the confirmation of ast releases t had several conversations with him, in which he each time assured me that one of the con- ditions upon which they went into that arrangement was that they gave 4 release to Mr. Gould. Q. Was Mr, Archer a party to the arrangement b; a change in the board, oisting Mr. Goull, was at- don the 11th of March A. Me was. EDWIN ELDRIDGE, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE INCOME TAX. Liability of State Officers to Pay Taxes on Their Incomer—Suit of Judge John J. Freedman vs. The United States= Case Argued and Decision Reserved. In the United States Circuit Court yesterday an interesting case respecting the lability of the sala- ries of State officials to pay income tax was heard before Judge Shipman. he was Assessor of Internal Revenue, demanded from Judge John J, Freedman, of the Superior Court, $162, as an assessment upon his oficial sal- these aspersions | of @ very limited | | lorcing the payment of income tax, Judge Freed. | | ent with the Grand Jury, and the introduction ota | | Prosecution only altered the common law so far as | | the statute altered it; and when the commen law said @ private prosecutor had a right to appear and be with his witnesses he demanded to know | | where the statute was that changed it. In com- | mon law @ prosecutor had a@ right to be present, and this merely to alleviate the conflict that had grown up in many cases between the prosecutor | and the Grand Jury, and, so far as any case | of their vote. So much for the alleged irregularity, and so far as the allegation about the ceriiticaic | was concerned, there would be but one offence | charged, His friend hae spoken of larceny. | could it be Jarceny when the dejendant did not take the money’ But it was forgery—a paper signed by all the parties; but he denied that there was any Court which charged more than one offence, and in setting out any particular ovlence © | it Was quite competent to set out that the party | had been guilty of other similar offences. As re- | @arded the audit, there was nothing in the statute, | it was true, setting forth how it should be made, but it was certain that that duty had been ne; ected, He held that there was no ground npon which the Court could quash the indictment, and raid jt must be remembered that the defendant Stood 1D the fae Position we aByOne ee WOuld was known, any counsellor of the | Court could be present with the jury except | at their deliberations and the casting | this being in fact a suit against the government— | tember, from Tow | ary of $10,000 ayear, It was contended that the salary was taxable under the act of Congress en- man ‘paid the money under. protest, appealed to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who, for more than six months, neglected to pay any attention to the matter, The time within which the Judge was allowed by law to wait for the Commissioners’ decision havin; ended, the Judge instituted « suit in the United States Circuit Court against General Sigel to re- cover $162, and on yesterday the cause was heard before Judge Shipman. Mr. K. Fitch, counsel for Judge Freedman, maintained that it was unconsti- tutional to demand income tax out of the salaries of State oMcers, and that the money paid as in- come tax by the Judge under protest should be reiunded him, Mr, Emerson, for the government— and said that under a recent decision of the Supreme Court no tax could be jevied upon the ‘y ofa State oflicial if paid out of the State Tre: county fund, The Court took the papers and reserved decision, THE KING-O’NEIL TRAGEDY. Apes Ahout the Custody of King's Chudren= Mrs. King to Have the Charge of Them, but They Can Visit Mr. King in Prison, Close upon the heels of the King-O'Neil tragedy, fo General Franz Sigel, when | made before Jndge Leonard; at Supreme Court, Chambers, on beliaif ot Mrs. King, for the ‘custody of her children, Pending the proceedings for | Giverce between Mr. and Mrs, King, the children were assigned to the care of Mr. King. The trans- fer of the latter to the City Prison to await an ex- amination upon the charge of marder preferred against him jeft the children without a and hence this application by his wil Juage Leonard yestexGay gave his decision in the case, JUDGE" LEONARD'S DECISION. Mrs, King must take the custody of the children, They must be permitted to visit My. King once a | week, when their health and the weatner will, in | Mrs. King’s discretion, allow, with a suitable at- tendant selected by her and paid by Mr. King. Visits Lo be of two liours if Mr. King wishes, ANOTHER MANDAMUS AGAINST THE COMPTROLLER. The Dock Commissioners Want Control of the Dock Fund—Comptroller Green Will Not Give It Up—Invoking tie Ar- bitration ef the Court. An application was made yesterday by Mr, Abra- ham R. Lawrence before Judge Leonard, at Sur preme Court Chambers, for an order to show cause why @ mandamus would not issue against the Comptroller directing him to pay over to the Dock Commissioners the balance of dock bonds issued by the city still in his possesgion, “I would like to have this suit made returnable =e earliest moment possible,” urged Mr. Law- “Well, I’) make it a week from Monday,” an- swere@ the Judge, ‘There are always some two hundred cases on my calendar,” “Two hundred cases against the Comptrolier ?’” asked Mr, Lawrence. “Not quite so bad as that. Imean my general calendar,” explained the Judge. “The Comptrolier complains that the fiood of mandainses pouring into hig office ts so great that he hag not time to prepare to meet them.” “But this I insist,” persisted Mr. Lawrence, “should have a preference. It isa matter of in- terest to large numbers. ‘There are some five hundred thousand dollars of dock fund still in the Comptroller's hands. ‘The Comptroller thinks that he alone should disburse this money and sign by warrant for that amount for the Dock Depart- ment. ‘ths compels extra laber and delays and the Dock Commissioners claim the right to pay out the money on their own warrants.”” After some further yemarks Judge Leonard ony made the order returnable on next Thurs- day, BUSINESS IN THE SUPREME COURT—CIRCUIT. Decision. By Judge Van Brunt. Nathanie) Wesi vs, Second Presbyterian church of Brooklyn, N, Y.—dudgment for defendant, SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions. By Judge Curtis. Jeremiah 8. Lane va. Anthony P, Sutter et al— Motion granted on payment of defendant's costs of opposing. Villiam Koenig vs. Adam Steckel et al.—Com- piaint dismissed. By Judge Barbour. John J. Nolan ve, Alfred W. Willmont et al.—Mo- tion denied, with $10 cosis, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SFECIAL TrAM., Decision. By Judge Robinson. te Hildreth vs, Allison.—Judgment for defendant, With costs, Findings filed. MARINE COURT—SPECIAL TERE Interesting to Parties Doing Eusiness in New York and Non-Residents, Before Judge ‘Tracy. Cornelia Blakeley ve. Ira EF, Doying.—This is an application to discharge or vacate an attachment issued from this Court on the ground that the de- fendant was at the time of the application for the same a non-resident of the city of New York, The defendant now seeks to have the attachment set aside for the reason that he is not within the mean- ing of the attachment laws @ non-resident. He admits for other purposes that he isa resident of Huntington, L.1, his family reside there and OTHER COURTS. he visits them and sleeps there at least three hts in the week, but claims that as he conducts his business in this city and sleeps here four nights in the week he is not a non-resident within the statute author- izing attachments to issue against non-residents, n the defendant’s own showing | think the Court would b¢ justified in holding him a non-resident; but the numerous affidavits of the. plaintiil in op- position to the motion puts the question of non- residence beyond dispute, Under the attachment Jaws applicable to this Court a man may be & non- reaident notwithstanding he carries ou business in this city, keeps his bank account here and slee here several nights in the week. Counsel for de- fendant, to support his motion, cites the case of Towner vs. Church, 2 Abbott, page 209, 1 think this Court should be governed by Murphy vs. Baid- win, 11 Abbott, new gerics. page 407, as well ag Barry vs. Kockover, 6 Abbott, page 378; Crane va, Wilson, 8 Abbott, page 78, aud Lee vs, Stanley, 9 Howard's Prac, Rep., page 272. Motion to vacate attachment denied, with costs, COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. A Shooting Affray in First Avenuc—Dis- charge of the Prisoners, Before Recorder Hackett. ‘The first case tried yesterday was an indictment for felonious assault and battery agaiust Thomas Kenney, the complainant being Thomas Costello, keeper of a porter house, corner of Twenty-fifth street and First avenue. He swore thaton the 24th of October while entering his store he was shot at by Kenney, without the least provocation. On cross- examination it came out that Costello had been arrested frequently, and that he was arrested on the charge of murdering Mr. Nathan, but dis- charged. The officer in the case swore that Cos- tello’s place was the resort of disorderly characters, A_ number of witnesses for the defence, among whom was a respectable young man, flatly contra- dicted Costello's story, testifying that Costello turned round and shet at Kenny and his com- panion, Edward Horan. the eee, rendered a verdict of not gulity without leaving their seats. The District Attorney filed an indictment against Edwara Horan, growing out o1 the same afMair, and, with the consent of the Court, Horan was dis- charged. Robbery of a Lady in Second Avenne=A Case of Mistaken Identity—an Excit- ing Scene in Coun, Frederick Cartland, a youth, was tried upona charge of robbery. Miss Hilda Siebenchen testified that‘on the 17th of October, aiter she got out ofa car on the corner of Thirty-filth street and Second avenue, she was seized and held by Cartland and his confederate snatched a pocketbock out of her hand which contained $11. The igs escaped, but next day Cartland was arrested by detective upon a ae given by the complainant. She said that she had seen the prisoner at the corner on two or thre® previous occasions and was sure he was the young man who participated in the robbery. Counsel for the prisoner put him on the stand, and he swore that he never saw the lady in his life and that she was mistaken. A brother of the accused was told to stand up and Miss Siebenchen | re-entered the witness box and exclaimed, “Oh, that is the young man!” She subsequently said she could not positively swear which of the | brothers held her, Under those circumstances the | Recorder instructed the jury to render a verdict of not guilty. In discharging Cartland His Honor intimated that from his antecedents it was proba- ble that he (Cartland) would finish his life in the | State Prison, and hoped that this escape would be @ warning to him, This episode relieved the monotony «of the proceedings, and when the two brothers were plveed before the young Lew for identification the spectators manifested consider- able merriment. Grand Larcenies. Barney Walsh pleaded guilty to larceny from the person, the indictment charging him with steal- ing, on the 7th of November, a gold watch chain, ) worth $65, from John Rahe, while walking through | babies e street. Four years and six months hard | labor in the State Prison was the seiftence pro- nounced by the Court. | dames Ward, who, on the 24th of October, stole a | gold chain valued af $40 from the person of Thomas | MeGuire, in Third avenue, pleaded guiity to aa at- | tempt at grand larceny. | John Connors, being indicted for stealing a gold | Watch and chain valued at $150, on the 21st of Sep- Dorence B. Pitts, pleaded guilty to an attempt to commit the crime. | John Gorman, who was charged with burgiari- ry, but | Ously entering the premises of Peter Kohler, 142 | could be levied if the sufary was paid froin the | Mulberry street, on the Sth of October, and steal- | ing $50 worth of tools, pleaded guilty to an attcmpt at burglary in the tinrd degree, These prisoners were cach sent to the State Prison for two years and six months. William H. | Clark, against whom was a charge of larceny, in stealing clothing valued at $35 on the 11th of Sep- tember, pleaded guilty to petit larceny, and was “sent to the Penitentiary for six months, Conviction of a Car Pickpocket. Patrick Verity and John Lafferty were tried upon an indictment charging them with picking the it wii be remembered that am application was | pocket of Buen Courtney on the 4th of November Palecidingice the platform of a Third avenne car. The pocketbook contained $14 60. It appeared from the testimony that there was a doubt as to Pte compiicily in the whet, and the jury ac- uitted him; but tue preof against Verity was £0 ciear that a verdict of guilty was promptly ren- dered, iis Honor sent him to the Penitentiary for three years, A Bold Larceny. William Long was tried and convicted of grand larceny, which was committed in an andacious manner. ‘The testimony of the prosecution slowed that on Saturday, August 17, Long and his confederate, Sullivan, entered the premises of Moses Christie & Brother, 380 Pearl street, and stoo in a line with the workmen who were being paid off, and that, while Mr. Onristie turned his back for @ Moment, Sullivan pout his hand into the window and grabbed seven ten doliar bills and ran, 10l- lowed by Long. The jury were satisfied from tie evidence that he acted ini complicity with Sullivan, and rendered a verdict of guilty. Long wus re- manded for sentence. Receiving Stolen Goods. The case of Isaae Lyon, who keeps a shop at 54 Market street, charged with receiving stolen goods, came up for examination before Justice Cox at Jefferson Market yesterday. Mr. Charles J. Bur- nett identified certain property found in the place of Lyon a8 a portion of that taken from his store by burglars on the night of the 2d of December. Further examination wos waived, and Lyon was held to baii in the sum of $2,500. Barglary. ‘Thomas Lucas, a young colored man, was brought up charged with burglary, in breaking into the room of James Parker, also colored, No. 125 Greene street, and stealing a quantity of women’s cloth- ing, Committed for further examination, Policy Deaters. Hawiey Ingles, of 1673; Thompsons street, charged With violation of the lottery law, wash eld to bail at Jetterson Market yesterday in the sum of $500 to answer. ‘The evidence against John Farrel, charged with similar offence, was somewht defective, and he ‘Was required to give bail for future good behavior. COURT CALENDARS—THIS DAY. SUPREME CovRT—SpRctaL TeRM—Held by Judge Fancher.—Law and Fact—Nos, 26, 37, 1, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, Supreme Courr—Cincuir—Part 1 —Held by Judge Van Brunt. 170715, 1969, , 3461, 2483, 157, 3857, 3879, 2—Held by Judge 3434, 3628, 3740, 3038 34, 3518, 3° 3692, 3694, 3850, 3938, 2904, 3054, 3106, 3304, 3420, 3558, 3606, 3700, 3776, SUPREME CouRT—CHAMBERS—Hela by Judge Leonard.—Nos. 38, 47, 63, 65, 68, 71, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87, $8, 90, 103, 104, 106, 1074, 108, 109, 110. Call 115. Surenror CourT—TRIAL TeErM—Part 1—Held by Judge Freedman.—Nos, 547, 1551, 1249, 789, 1875, 387%, 1895, 1657, 815, 183, 1609, '1869, '1709, 1429, Court oF CommoN PLEAS—GENERAL TRRM—Held by Judges Charies P. Daly, Robinson and Loew.— }O8. 105, 29, 88, 96, 97, 133, 157, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 65, 77, 101, 104, 108, 116, 121, 125, 124, 13 COURT OF COMMON PL.EAS—TRIAL Held by Judge J. F. Daly.—Nos, 1077, 1514, 846, 332, 1684, 1712, 68, 609, 1634, 1524, 1051, 374, 1386, 633, 1652, 1078, 1666, 1042, 1707. ARINE COURT—TRIAL. ‘TERM—Part 1—Held by Judge Shea,—Adjourned to Monday, December 9% Part 3—Held by Judge ‘Tracy.—Adjourned to Mon- day, December 9, COURT OF OYER AND 'TERMINER—Held by Judge Ingranam.—Burgiary, Chester S. Jones; grand lar- ceny, ©. Hughes; jelonious assault and battery, William Moore, CouRT OF CENERAL SEssions—Held by Judge Hackett.—Robbery, John Kenny; felonious assault and battery, James 0. Chambers; burglary, John Lawson, James L. Watson, William Dav erjury, John Duggan; grand jareeny, Peter Wiley, Sieg- Tmund Schoenberg, Anthony Johnson, Felix Beh- rend, ‘Alexander White and Joseph’ Townsend; receiving stolen goods, Abraham Ujilelder; carry- img slungshot, Danie! Mathews, ~* 158 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. ata Is a Power of Attorney. Made by a Luna- tie Valid t—Trustees of a Colored Bap- tist Church im Hot Water. WAsninGTon, D. C., Dec. 5, 1872. No. 1. Dexter vs. Hall et al.—Error to the Cir- cuit Court for the District of California. —The grautors of Dexter, having acqnired possession of Teul property in San Francisco, purchased the fee of the property from one Harris, who had been given a power of attorney to sell it by the owner, then a lunatic, confined in an asylum near Phila- delphia, The heirs of the owner, John Hall, a lieu- tenant in the navy, asserting that the power of attorney made by their Yather when a lunatic was void, and that wo considera- tion was ever realized for its execution, brought this suit In ejectment to recover the prop- erty from the grantees of the purchasers under the instrument. ‘The verdict below established the lunacy of Hall at the time of the transaction, and the judgment was for his heirs. ‘The cause was brought here and was argued at the last term, Subsequently the Court ordered a reargument on the questions whether, frst, a power of attorne; made by a lunatic is void or voidable, and second, whether the deed given in pursuance of the power of attorney was void. These questions were now argued, the plaintiff m error maintaining that the power of attorney was not absolutely void, but simply voidable, and that the parties paying a valu- able consideration for the deed and taking with- out notice the conveyance would be sustained. The defendants contend that there could be no au- thority Gelegared by an insane man, and that, con- sequently, all conveyances founded upon the power of attorney were void as that instrument itself, Roscoe Conkling for plaintiffs in error; McAllister, Pike & Galpin tor defendants, No, 6, Bouldin et al. vs. Alexander et al.—Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Colum- bia.—This was a suit in equity brought by Alex- | ander and others against Bouldin and others, to have determined which of Trustees of the Third Colored Baptist church of Washington, and as such officers entitled to the possession and custody of the church building ana property; and whether a deed by which Bonidin conveyed the land on which the church is erected to Alexander and his co-claimants was defective. The decision” below was in favor of the plaintitts there, and it is here contended that on the tacts presented the Court erred in its deciston on both the questions involved. More and Riddle for ap- pellants; Thomas Wilson for appellees, COURT OF APPEALS CALENDAR. ALBANY, N. Y., Dec. 5, 1872. The following 1s the day calendar of the Court of Appeals for December 6, 1872:—Nos, 358, 384, 400, 491, 868, 869, 870, 871. ROWING IN ENGLAND, Addy and Bagnall in Their Second Seullers’ Match—Sharp Work—Bagnall | the Winner by a Foul, {From the London Sportsman, Nov. 20.) NEWCASTLE, Nov. 19, 1872, ‘The second of the two scullers’ matches between Robert Bagnall, of Newcastle, and Mark Addy, of Manchester, came off on the Tyne to-day, and re- sulted in favor of Bagnall upon a foul, Our readers will remember that Bagnall defeated the Manches- ter sculler in the first of the brace of contests upon the Thames a fortnight ago, and the match of to- day was for the same stake, the sum at issue being £100 a side, and the course one mile inlength. The stsrting point was ninety yards below Paradise quay and the finish at the Scotswood Suspension Bridge. Mr. Hugh Patrickson was referee and Mr. J, Blenkinsop distance judge. The competing the parties were | oarsmen took ship at four o'clock, when @ thin | mist was Srecning down the river and when the tide was already beginning to turn. Bagnall won the toss for sides and chose the northern or inside berth—a Ld advantage. Betting commenced at 8tolon Bagnall before going on rd the official steamer, but afterwards 5 to 2 was taken, and just before the start afew bets of 2 to 1 on Bag- nail were faid, The Tyne man was shown up by James Taylor, who was in an eight-oared cutter; and Harry Kelley, who was also in an elgnt, piioted Addy. Bagnall got the best of the start, his boat showing two or three feet in front; but Addy, stroking forty-two, at once rushed up to him, and, when ahunared yards had been covered, was in possession of a slight lead. He then began to come Across towards his man in the old style, and, Bag- nall giving way, Addy increased his lead to three- quarters of alength when a quarter of a mile had been covered, gether that a foul was inevitable, and Addy, who was a long way out of his water, touched Bagnall’s right-hand scull with his leit twice. Then he teft off a bit, when Bagnall, put- ting on a splendid spurt, rowed right up level. Addy then began to wear in again, and this time Bagnall, who was leading two or three feet, caught his left hand seull with the blade of his right, and tilted him completely over. Addy’s boat capsized, and Mark clung to it until rescued by Bagnall's cutter, Which picked him up and took himon board, About a third of a mile had been covered when the occurrence took place, and Bagnall, going on, fin- ished the distance at leisure, Afterwards Bagnall claimed the race on the first foul, and the referee, after hearing evidence, decided in his favor, as, in- deed, he was bound to do. and ied The shores were crowded with spectators, six steamers, all heavily freighted, accompan! the race, | have the bulkhead and pier lines extended, TAMMANY HALL. Reorganiszing the District Delogations—Reperts of Inefficiency and Lack of Fidelity Among the Members. The Tammany Hall Democratic Genera) com- mittee met in Tammany Hall last evening, John Fox in the chair. There was @ large attenu- ance. Mr, John Keliy, from the committee of ten appointed to investigate the condition of the va- tious Assembly districts as to efficiency, harmony, &c., reported that the committee would be able to report in full at the next meeting, At preser@®, however, they were able to report the condition of the Seventh, Eighth, Tenth and Seventeenth As- sembly districts, the members of which were ex- amined separately. From the delegates ip the SEVENTH ASSEMALY DISTRICT the information was elicited that a large number of the delegates had not acted unitedly nor ¢o- operated with their associates at the late election, or in favor of the gentiemen nominated by the party, and the committee had much reason to be- lieve that this General Committee cannot piace any reliance on the fidelity of that delegation as now constituted. ‘There aro, individual meimbers, gentlemen of political strength and persona) werih, against-whom the committee do not wish to cast the slightest reflection, . The largest number o! the delegation, however, supported and voted the Apollo Halt ticket for Mayor: and co-operated with that association, We recommend to the General Committee that, for the purpose of a general re- organization in this district, the seaty qj the whole delegation be deciared vacant. Your committee aiso had before them the dele- gation from THE EIGHTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT, ; and: on deliberate invesugation found that the principal member of said delegation ac- knowledged that he not voied at the late election, because there were gentlemen on the Tammany Hall ticket objection- able to him, nor did he support your candidates by his influence, but remained away from tie po}ls allday. Individual members of the delegation stated reluctantly that the work of the canvass was done by -six or seven mem- bers, that the Negation was rarely called together and that it was very douht- ful if they could ever act harmoniousiy or eiti- ciently under the present management. Nine- tenths of the popuiation of the Eighth dis. trict’ German citizens, who have heretofore co-operated with the organization, and your committee is under the impression that jit- tle if any effort was made to vontinue their con- nection or prevail on them to vote for the nominers of the organization, In consideration of these facts, and in accordance with the opinion of your committee, of the utter impossibility of relyiny on the delegation as formed, we recommend that the seats of the whole delegation be declared vacant, and would recommend in making up new delega- tions that the interests of our German citizens be more liberally represented, There are reliabie and trustworthy men among the members or the deie- gation, but they are in the thinority, and are in no Way 1esponsible for the inefMiciency of the ceieya- on. ‘The delegation from the TENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT is not so strong and eflicient as to warrant its con- tinuation as at present formed, Its leading mem- ber favored a judiciai nominee of Apollo Hall whe was his personal friend at the late election, and it is shown that he voted and electioneered tor James O’Brien. A great want of confidence is shown among the voters in the austrict in the delegation, and your committee would recommend that a change be made likely to make it wholly cMeient and trustworthy, and secure for it the coniidence of those whom it represents, and in consequence recommend that all the seats of the delegation be declared vacant. The members of the SEVENTEENTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT also appeared, and it is shown that they were composed 80 antagonistie as to rarely act together, The delegation is now reduced to one-half its original organizatioh. Power should be given the remaining members to fill the vacan- cies, as provided by the bylaws; but we would rec. ommend that the members consult the vanous interests of their distrizt that may be in hasmeny With Tammany Hail. THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION is recommended for adoption:— Resolved, That the seats of the members frwrn the Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Assembly districts be, and they are hereby declared, vacant, und that these dis- fricts be referred to the Cimmitted on Organization, for the purpose of filling said vacancies, and that the per- sons who may be so selected be notified by the Commit- tec on Organization to attend the next mecting of the Genvral Committee, — JOUN KELLY. R THEODORE MIERSON. EDWARD GILON. JOS, BLUMENTHAL, JERE, KENNEFICK. EDWARD F, FITZPATRICK. EDMUND M. PLUM, ABRAHAM 8. HEWI1'T. ‘The following resolution relative to the death of Horace Greeley was aiso presented by the commit- tee for adoption :— Resolved, That In the death of Horace Greeley we lament the loss of one of the great founders of modern jonrnalisin, who has done mugh to create that wonderful social and litical institution; a public man of immense rare Intellectual powers, ever wielded with Intense energy of conviction for objects which he believed to be tor the good of mankind; a private citizen virtuous in all the relations of lite, humane, charitable and full of kindiy deeds, the crowning glory of whose career will remain; that ever since the coniict of arms ceased he has intiex- iVly stood for a complete reconciliation among te people ; and further Resolved, That, while we feel a profound sense of public calamity in the event we deplore, we. condole with his relatives in their aMicting bereavement. ‘The General Committee adopted the resolutions Ele ia l adjourned until next Thursday night. MEETING OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. — The Department of Docks to be Locked After—No More Retuse to be Thrown Into the Bay—Resolutions Touching the Death of Mr. Griffith. A regular monthly meeting of the Chamber of Commerce was held yesterday afternoon, Mr. Wm. E. Dodge in the chair. After the transaction of un- important business the reports of committees were declared in order. Reports were read from Com- mittee No. 5 and Committee No. 8 Mr. Spofford, the chairman of No. 5, submitted the following resolution :— Resolved, That the Chamber respectfully ask the 8¢ retary of the Treasury to recommend the adopuion in t mercantile marine of the United States the commercin code of signals. ae now in use by the navy aud ail other commercial nations. Carried. ‘The following resolutions came from the same committee and were also carried:— ereas it has been customary for steam vessels to throw their ashes and cinders Into the waters 0} the port of New York, and actual examination has shown that such materials have collected and formed shoals inju- rious to the navigation of the harbor; and whereas it t evident that a continuation of the practice will greatly Increase the evil, and itis therefore necessary lor the interests of commerce that the further deposit of such» ashes and cinders in said waters be immediately stopped, and experience has shown that a small penalty is Ipsum. cient to that end; therefore, Resolyed, That the Senators and members of Congress: from this State be earnestly requested to secure the pas- revent the throwing of materials of: appropriation of 00 Newton, United States Enginee and obstructions from the hai ‘being called for by the existence of a wreck in the fair way of Vescels entering at Sandy Hook, beyond the jurisdiction of the uitho: “Whereas the Legistature of this State, on the 17th day of April, 1861, established exterior bulkhead and pier lines for the cities of New York and Brooklyn and the shores in their vicinity, which lines had been determined after thorough examination and full hearing of ai Ues interested, by a commission of eminent scientific appointed for’ the especial purpose of determining how far the shores could safely be extended into the waters of the haroor; and whereas the said commission recom- mended that no structures whatever be permitted toe croach beyond the said lines; and whereas, by subse- quent acts of the islature, authority to alter said exterior lines at will was granted to the Departnent of Docks of the. city of New York, and specific extensions were granted to various parti¢s, resulting in injury to navigation and threatening greater deterioration of the ¢ future; therefore, harbor in Miata committee of three be appointed by ame a Dill restoring the exterior bulk. daa pier lines oF feo, and taking from anyand alt ries the power to alter and encroach upon the said ines for any purpose whatever; that the represen. tatives from the city and vicinity in the Legislature be requested by the Chamber to use thelr influence and to work earnestly for the passage of the same. This resolution gave rise to some discussion as to whether it would or would not improve the city to in Blunt thought it would not, and was very pointed in his remarks regarding the emclency of the pres- ent Department of Docks. This Department was not without its admirers and ters, Who, In their turn, bluntly contradicted what had been said against their friends, NEW MEMBERS, The following gentlemen were proposed and elected members of the Chamber:—James |. An- | thony, John Crerar, James M. Dunbar, Henry Paris Ky this time they were so close to- — Fgleston, Benjamin W. Floyd, Robert N. Siichings James W. MeCullob, Alexander E, Orr, Aiden B. Stockwell and Samuel A. Strang. WALTER 8. GRIFFITH. Mr. A. A, Low called the attention of the Cham- ber to the fact of the demise of its late member and Second Vice President, Mr. Waiter S, Grimth, and read @ preamble and resolution expressing the sincere regrets of the Chamber at the loss of so worthy'and zealous @ member. The Secretary was directed to embody them in his minutes and send a copy of them to the family of the deceased. Mr, Dodge then made a few remarks to the memory of GriMth, and called attention to the sudden demise of Mr. Marsh, one of the Chamber's oldest members, A committee was appointed to draw up resolutions expressive of the great los the Chamber acknowledged in the death of so old ani eficient a member. After the Secretary had read the communications to the Chamber @ mation %¢ -djourn Was made, seconded ayd carried