The New York Herald Newspaper, December 12, 1872, Page 8

‘THE COURTS. a THE TWEED INDICTMENTS. Important Decision by Judge Ingraham— Objections of Counsel to the Indictments Beviewed—Associate Counsel Properly Employed by the Prosecution—The Secrecy Enjoined Upon Grand Ju- ties—Denial of the Motion to Quash—Tweed to Plead on Monday Next. THE JUMEL ESTATE LITIGATION. Continuation of the Bowen-Chase Suit— Another Page of Ancient Family His- tory—Recollections of a Long Life—The Case Still On. Another Mandamus Against the Comptroller. The Comptroller Battling the City Ex- penses in Every Quarter—The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Brings Him to Bay—Another Fight Over Increased Salaries—The Um- pire Reserves Opinion. THE PHELPS, DODGE-NELSON PROSECUTION. Summing Up by Counsel—What Offence Was Committed, ‘Intended Larceny or Mere Trespass ?”—The Case To Be Given to the Jury This Morning. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. Bummaries—Business in the Court of Oyer and Terminer—Validity of Chattel Mort- gages on Stock—Decisions, In the Court of Oyer and Terminer yesterday Judge Ingraham delivered a lengthy and ex- haustive decision upon the motion to quash the in- dictment against William M. Tweed, After review- ing the whole of the facts, both on behalf of the Gefendant as well as of the people, the motion was denied, and the case will be heard on Monday mext, when W. M. Tweed will be called upon to plead. An the United States Circuit Court yesterday, be- fore Judge Shipman and a special jury, the further hearing of the case of George Washington Bowen ‘va. Nelson Chase was resumed. The examination Of the plaintiff was concluded, and, after some docu- mentary evidence had been put in, the case was adjourned till this morning, A Polish pedier, speaking English very badly, complained yesterday to Commissioner Shields hat he had been cheated out of his goods bya Chatham street sharper, who had passed upon him #$20 bill of the Confederate States. As the bill ‘was not a countericit of the United States moncy the Commissioner was unable to do anything for the poor Pole, but sent him over to Marshal Hart, a@t the City Hail, in the hope that that official | ‘Would be able to hunt up the swindlers and bring them to justice. Francis Syirith was brought before Commissioner Bhields yesterday on a charge of doing business as Uquor dealer at 99 Thompson street without paying the special tax. He was discharged on his own Tecoguizance to appear for examination. In the Phelps, Dodge-Nelson case the whole of Jesterday was occupied by coun: on either side summing up. The case will be given to the jury to-day, Application was made yesterday before Judge Barrett, at Supreme Court, Chambers, on behalf of Joseph B. Young, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, fora mandamus against the Board of Audit and Apportionment, directing them to appropriate money to pay alleged arrearages claimed to be due on his salary. $7,500 salary, and the Comptroller claims that $5,000 18 all he is entitled to receive. Judge Bar- Fett gave no decision in the matter, but simply lis- tened to the argument and then took the papers. THE TWEED INDICTHENT. {mportant Decision by Judge Ingra- ham—Upbjections of Defendant's Counsel to the Indictments Reviewed—Associated Counsel Prosecution—Matters in Which Secrecy 4s Enjoined Upon a Grand Jury—De- | nial of the Motion—Tweed to be Called Up for Arraignment and Trial on Monday Next. In the Court of Oyer and Terminer yesterday, Judge Ingraham presiding, a final decision was given im the long-contested motion to quash the indictments found against William M. Tweed. The Court had been engaged during the morning ses- sion in trying cases on the criminal calendar, the offenders being principally petty burglars, pick- pockets and third-rate homicides. After the re- cess, however, it was apparent to the Court, from the presence of eminent counsel within the bar, that some decision was expected from him ina ease of greater magnitude than any of those he had spent the morning hours in trying, and im- mediately he called cr the case of The People vs. William M, Tweed. The ex-Boss was not Present, but was represented by counsel, THE CASE OF TWEED. Judge Ingraham said:—I observe that there are many of the counsel engaged in the Tweed case in Court, and I may as weil, therefore, state at once that I have endeavored to give a careful examina- tion to all the points discussed in reference to the motion made in the case last week, and to all the matters outside of the indictment, and have come to the conclusion that they are insufficient to war- raut my granting the motion. The reasons which have influenced me to this decision will be found in the opinion which I shall file to-day. That motion ‘will therefore be denied, and the further hearing of the case must be taken on Monday, as originally Sxed. JUDGE INGRATAM’S OPINION, A motion fe made in this case to quash the indictment, po far asit relates to the defendant Tweed. This motion made for several causes, which are set out in the mov- Ang papers, some of them for matters not appearing oo the face of the indictment, and others for alleged detects 4n the various counts therein. It is founded in part on affidavits and on the minutes of the Grand Jury as well &@s on the indictment itself. Among other om by the defendant's counsel, are publications in the Tribune, accompanied by an affidavit of the defendat that he'believed the publications were made by one of «counsel for the people. Upon the argument it was id that the admissibility of the publications as extracts from new: 's could hot be sanctioned tor any pur- Pose, and tl in order warrant their introduction, it must shown that the counsel was the au sumed the responsibility of the publication by his Signature. The only evidence offered was the affidavit of the belief of the person making the affidavit thatthe thereof. This counsel was responsible tor the authershi fis no evidence of such as the affidavit, are both to be disregarded, as affording No prot of the facts for which they are used. Althoug! the practice does not admit of striking out matters used na motion except for the purpose of Preventing libel: lous or scandalous matter trom being put upon the files of fe Court, yet such matver can ‘ought to be disre. ded in the disposition of the mi in, furnishing no any decision by the Court can be shall therefore treat those publications und thi 6 not to be considered in deciding the mo.ion befor Another matter which has been to some extent hinted n this motion 1s, that the counsel who appeared before the Grand Jury, or the Attorney General, for whom he ‘was acting, was actuated by motives b to fendants. "There was no such charge ly made, f it wi appe: @nderstand the counsel for the detend ant. tended, | feel bound to aay there was not ng ean on the papers before me which warranted it in regar fo elther of the : the law officer of the Pounsel acting for The Attorney General, as ite, State, “and the etnsoclate im, under his directio with the assent of the ‘District Attorney, a be presumed acting in the proper discharge, of public duties. Wrong motives ure not to be imputed to euch officers 0 acting, and if 1 had understood the coun- eelas ee | such imputations I should have felt it my to check it, Whether the act of appearing before be Grand Jury wasib agcordance with the law or BO The sticking poiné is that he claims | Properly £Xmployed by the | ters relied | hor, OF | f, and the publication, aswell | NEW YORK HERALD, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1872—TRIPLE SHEET. roper inquiry, which I will notice hereafter. Beyont that the Court was not juetified in soln, T now proceed to the matters on which this motion is made. which do not appear on the record. The firs matter referred i was that the secrecy which the law throws around the Grand Jury was violated by the admission of the counsel before m. This seci is confined to two branches.of their duty, one in totheir own acts ana to the evidence given before them, to bills found by them, where the ac- not under arrest in cases of felony. Of the there is no pre .. The former part of their oath which requires secret the counsel of the opie, their own The counsel referred to “The this jury is, the magis” secrecy is CMe Lg ig Itis Bok josure has been ma the obtaining of-snch knowledge b rson not author- ized to ay before the: ory violation of fest provi: sion. I think not; witnesses must be before the Grand Jury. Each one knows what took place while he was there, and there is no law L) apes his disclosing such know! .. The presence of @ counsel before them to aid in examinin, matter entirely subject to thelr control, and if assented to by the Grand Jury can form no ground for such imputations without farther proof In relation thereto, The main question connected with this branch ance of the counsel before the Grand bei on the finding of the first indictment, and to examine the witnesses in iy way vitiates the present bill tound by the same rand Jury at@ subsequent day on a re-examination of the witnesses under the direction of the District Attor- torney. At th ney, Sometimes the Attorney General, in matters relat- ing to the crown, would prepare the indictment and pre- sent it to the Grand Jury. In other cases prosecutors it is urged ourt to prepare the indictment to’ the prosecution of the offender. In thi for hal tat ¢ criminal business of the State has been conducted’ by District At- torney: appointed or elected for that purpose, and their owers and duties have been regulated by law, to which will hereatter refer, In the present case’ it is not claimed that there was any error in regard to the finding . of the indictment now before the Court, nor is it shown that bee lace in thi ‘amination of the witnesses on ictment in any way operated to the prejudice of the defendant other n the mere find- ofthe bill; nor can red such prejud e be presumed, public offi ted by th and do other matte: tf er Seeocluea ich eae the pele his pubite duties im in the of 8 pul ities, The question then ig, whether the presence of a counsel: lor who is not a punite officer, authorized to conduct the criminal proceedings on behaif of the State, may be ad- mitted to the Grand Jury room to examine Witnesses be- fore them and advise them as to an indictment presented to them for thelr action. Whatever may have been the jawin England when Grand Juries were first estab- lished, or during the period when no prosecuting officer was provided, at state of things has not existed in this country.’ Since 1815 the office of District Attorney has existed in| New York, whose duty ‘was specially to attend to Ye oimipal business of the country. (Laws of 1815.) isted the question arose between the District Attorney of Albany and the Court of Sessions whether the District Attorney had a right to be present with the Grand Jury and conduct the examination of witnesses, The Supreme Courtdecided that the District Attorney ought not to attend the Grand Jury for the purpose of examining wit- nesses, nor tor any other purpose except to advise them upon amy question which they might put to him in rela- tion to thelr duty. @7 Cowan, 565.) This was the opinion of the Supreme Court at that time, adverse to any right of the Distrlet Attorney to attend the Grand Jury. In Consequence of this opinion, the Legislature adopted spe- jal provistone relating to thie District Attorney, providing that it should be his duty to attend the Grand Jury when Tequested, for the exainination of witnesses, or givin them advice upon a legal matter, It was also provide that the District Attorney should be allowed at all times to appear before the Grand Jury on his request, for the purpose of giving information relative to an. tter cog- nizable by them, and be permitted to examine witnesses hefore them when they shall deem it necessary. (Sec. 33.) ‘The latter section also prohibited the District Attorney or any other person, except the Grand Jurors, from being present during the expression of their opinions or the giving of their votes upon any matter before them. This decision and the provisions of the statute settle very clearly the question whether any person other than the District Attorney may be present with the Grand Jury. When the decision was made In 7 Cowan, it was irregular for uny person, even the District Attorney, to attend during the sitting of the Grand Jury, either ior examin ing witnesses or for any other purpose, except to advis them on any question they might put fo him. This was in 1827, The alterations In the laws, which were passed in 1828, changed the law so far as to provide certain cases in whieh the District Attorney might appear betore the Grand Jury. In all other respects the law remained un- altered. No other construction can be given to a statute, passed as this was, to remedy partially a decision of the ‘ourt, than to confine its operation to the express words used for such purpose and try to give antic. powers to the District Attorney, leaving the prohibition to all other remaining in tull force. Under the decision of reme Court, the Attorney General has no more ity than the District Attorney to appear betore the Grand Jury. No provision of law changed the effect of that decision as to the Attorney General, and it remains as then held to be improper for the Attorney General or any other person, except Instrict Attorney, to appear before the Grand Jury. I do not reter to the decisions in other States on this ‘point, because I feel bound by the rule adopted in 7 Cowan, and the subsequent modifica- tion of that decision by statute. For the reasons here- atier stated this motion should not be granted on this ac- count. There are some general rules applicable to the motion to quash an indictment which may be referred to as applicable to this motion, It is discretionary to grant such a oubttul as to the question raised should not be granted (1 Wharton, ©. L., sec. 519, and cuses cited 1 Chitty, ©. 1., 299). If’ some of the counts are xood and a motion is made to quash the old indict- ment it will not be granted as to some counts (Bishop on Court Practice, 764). So where the indictment is for a serious offence, affect: ing the public at large, it will not be quashed’ except upon the clearest ground, and the ends of justice will promoted thereby. Most of the objections mae to the indictment are, as betore stated, immaterial. - The appli- ention of these rules to the others wili render it proper to deny the motion asto these. [have fully examined all the objections made by the defendant's counsel, y find nothing that will justify the Court in quashing motion. It must, therefore, be denied. THE JUMEL ESTATE LITIGATION. The Bowen-Chase Suit—Continuation of the Evidence of the Plaintiff—A Family History Read in Court—Case Still On. Yesterday the case of George Washington Bowen vs. Nelson Chase was resumed in the United States Circuit Court, before Judge Shipman and a | Special jury. EXAMINATION OF THE PLAINTIFF RESUMED. George Washington Bowen was further exam- ined. He testified to the signature of Major Reuben Ballou to his military returns in the year | 1777. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Conor—The witness gave a history of the Ballou family. He used to call upon Major Ballou, who termed him son; wit- hess used to call Major Ballou father; was married November 19, 1819, when he twenty-three | years of age; tirst saw Madame Jumel when she was going to the Untted States Hotel at Saratoga: knew he motion or not, but if the motion to quash ety this to be Madame Jumel because the peopie at- | , tending around said that was her name; saw her several times after that; people hooted Madame Jumel at Saratoga when she went out riding; had never spoken to Madame Jumel, and did not know that she had ever spoken to him; witness used to see Mrs. Vandevoort on his visits to this city; he had stayed at her house over night; first saw the roperty about which this suit has been brought four or five years ago; never was out there before that time; this was after he had begun the case; | begun it im 1867; Judge Edmonds begun it for him; | gave him a fee of $500 in bills, Q. Where did you get that money? A. I did not steal it; I had it with me in ‘ovidence, and brought it here; I always have money, but I do not keep an account in the bank; I always carry | with me $500, | Mr. Shaffer said, amid some laughter, that it would be well if the witness did not make that fact known in New York. Witness said, in continuation, that he came on | here to see Judge Edmonds about his case; Mrs. Vandevoort introduced him to the Judge; witness agreed to give Mrs. Vandevoort a certain per cent- | age of the amount recovered; he gave her a writ- eing to that effect, but he got it back and tore it up after ls) Edmonds gave up the case; had been | examined in Providence by Mr. O’Conor about this case; had made a mistake about the date of the race between Henry and Ecupse. The witness having given some further testi- mony almost similar to that which he gave on the woe trial, his examination was brought to a close. Counsel for plaintiff then laid before the jury | Some documentary evidence purporting to show the family associations and surroundings of Mme, | Jumel at Providence in the early part of her life. | The further hearing of the case was adjourned | till to-day. ANOTHER MANDAMUS. Hitch asto the Salary of the Board of edial Mandamus. | For the past fifteen years Joseph B. Young has been the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. No | change of political dynasty or opposing strategic wire-pulling has served to displace him. This speaks well for him, to say the least. Another thing speaking in his favor is the increase from time to time in his salary. In August, 1870, the | Board of Supervisors took a bigger leap than ever | before, and raised his salary from $5,000 to $7,500 | Per annum, This was very pleasant, and eve thing went on pleasantly until September a year | ago, when the Comptroller saw fit to cut down his monthly warrants to the amounts from which they had been last raised. Since then Mr. Young lias been doing what very few would be naturally apt to do, receiving FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS SALARY UNDER PROTEST. But as this is the day of mandainuses he has ven- vared upon trial of this legal experiment to recover the fifty per cent additional which, he claims, has been illegallywithheid from him. Application was Pertiey oa made yesterday before Judge barrett, | or supreme Court, Chambers, for a nandamus | against the Board of Audit and Apportionment di- | recting them to raise the funds requisite to make up thisalieged deficiency. THE CASE PRO AND CON, Mr. sigs ig on behalf ofthe Board, insisted that the Board of Supervisors raised the salary of Mr. | Young illegally and in direct violation of the Tax Levy of 1869, prohibiting the Board from raising salaries and creating new offices. This prohibi- tion, he claimed, was conclusive on the point. Alter commenting at some length on this prohibi- tory enactment he instanced a recent decision in the Court of Appeals, which, he urged, set the matter at rest beyond any possible legal cavil. Mr. Dukes, who appeared for Mr. Young, con- tended that we prohpition selerrgd to 10 the Supervisors’ Clerk—Invoking the Rem- | Tax Levy was unconstitutional, Inasmuch as the subject matter was not embodied in the heading, This pont formed the basis of his entire argument, which he elaborated, of course, to iderable length. ‘Alter hearing the iments Judge Barrett took the papers, reserving his decision. THE PHELPS, DODGE-NELSON CASE. Summing Up of Counsel—What was the Defendant’s Offences Larceny or Trespase!—The Case To Be Given to the Jury this Morning. ‘The trial of Abram Nelson, charged with burg- lary in felonious)y entering the premises of Phelps, Dodge & Co. en the 1st of June, was continued yesterday in the General Sessions, before Recorder Hackett. At the opening of the Court ex-Recorder Smith, counsel for the accused, resumed his argu- ment. He claimed that the proof did not estab- lish the statutory crime bb eg When the counsel had concluded his argument Judge Fullerton, representing the prosecution, inquired of the Court if His Honor desired to hear him in reply. : Recorder Hackett said that he would submit the question to the jury whether the accused when he entered the premises intended to commit a lar- ceny or whether he went there simply as a tres- passer. Mr. Smith then proceeded to address the jury upon the facts, frankly admitting that Nelson had committed a great wrong in seeking to get rich too fast, but contending with earnestness that his client committed no indictable offence. Judge Fullerton made the closing speech to the jury. He spoke foran hour, ana the hour being Jate the Court adjourned ttl this morning, when, after Mr, Fullerton concludes his argument, the Recorder wiil charge the jury. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER. The O’Keefe-Engle Homicide—The De- ceased Accidentally Shot and O'Keefe Acquitted. Before Judge Ingraham. The Court of Oyer and Terminer yesterday was occupied in hearing the trial of John M. O’Keefo, an officer of police, who was indicted for the man- slaughter of Antoine Engle on the 26th September last by shooting him with a pistol. There were a large number of police officers in Court, who evinced a deep interest in the case, among whom were Captain Perry and Sergeant McConnell. Assistant Attorney Fellows opened the case, and said the Grand Jury had charged the prisoner with having taken the life of the deceased by shooting him with a pistol. He understood it to be a case of accidental shooting. The defendant was a police officer, and in the discharge of a municipal regulation shot at a dog which was supposed to be rabid, and in the discharge of that duty acci- dentally shot the deceased. He explained the law Fels OY, to cases of accidental shooting, and calle Theresa Eble, who deposed that her husband ‘was the owner of the dog; it had previously bitten a child in Clarke street; the prisoner came to the house and threatened to shoot the dog then and there, when she requested him not to shoot it in the open street; he took it into the alley close by, when the deceased tied it with a rope and held it while the prisoner shot at it; he dred three times; she did not see the first shot fired, but she saw the second and observed the deceased twist round and heard him exclaim, “Oh, I’m snot!” Adam Engle. the prother of the deceased, cor- roborated the statement of the above witness and said that when the dog jumped, after receiving the first shot, the officer asked the boy what he was about and why he did not hold the dog properly, In cross-examination he said he was a witness before the Coroner when the prisoner was discharged by the Coroner's jury. Mr. Howe addressed the Jury on behalf of the prisoner, and remarked that the Police Commis- sioners had upheld the defendant in what he had done, and it must be understood that they were a ver eee body, who, had they had the faint- est idea that he was guilty of negligence, would have suspended him from duty—a course which they had not thought it just to pursue. The de- ceased was in the act of holding the rope; and after the dog had been shot once he gave a violentjump, which pulled deceased ont of his position, and the officer, in the hurry of the moment, ffred at the dog again, and the builet, uniortunately, entered the deceased. O'Keefe was examined, and detailed the circum- stances of the occurrence, which were materially the same as deposed to by the previous witnesses; and sergeant McDonnell was called and gave the prisoner an unexceptionably good character, His Honor charged the jury upon the law relat- ing to the matter, and that body, without leaving the box, acquitted the prisoner, His Honor, in discharging him, recommended him next time he used a pistol to use it with a lit- tle more caution and care, Charge of Burglary—An Acquittal. Chester S. Jones, a colored man, was indicted for burglary and breaking into a dwelling house in the day time and stealing property of the value of $40, in October last. From the evidence of Mrs. Caroline Perry, a col- ored woman, it appeared that some one had broken into the house where she resided, by entering the window, and stolen a begat f of dress stuff placed in her possession to be made up for other ladies, and other articles belonging to herself, The pris- oner promised to endeavor to restore them and discover the thief ifshe gave him some money, in consequence of which she suspected him and Md him into custody, A man named Thompson, jointly indicted with the prisoner and asserted to be the thief, had, however, left the city, and had not been seen since the robbery, Mr. W. F. Kinzey, who was assigned as counsel for the prisoner by the Court, having briefly ad- dressed the jury, detailing the uncertainty of prisoner’s connection with the robbery aud the absence of evidence pointing to his guilt, His Honor lett the case entirely in the hands of the jury, who acquitted the prisoner, Before leaving the Court His Honor addressed him thus:—‘Jones, you are discharged; but the next time you promise to endeavor to recover stolen goods you had better not ask any one togive you money to do it.” Larceny from the Person—Sentence,. John Brennan, aged seventeen years, and Rich- ard Nash, aged cighteen, were jointly indicted for larceny of a pocketbook and watch from the person of @ man named Shaw. They pleaded guilty, Mr. Price urged on behalf of Nash that he was never arrested before for any crime, and on behalf of Brennan that he had never been in trouble before. He asked for mercy from the Court, and that to save them from becoming infamous by bad connections with other people they should be sent to some other institu- tion than the State Prison. The prosecutor stated that his watch had been returned, but his pocket- book, containing $13, was not recovered. His Honor denied Mr. Price’s Gp but in con- sideration of their youth and of its being their first offence committed them each to one year and six months’ imprisonment in the State Prison. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Validity of Chattel Mortgages on Stock— An Interesting Question to Merchants. Before Judge Daly. Martin Hanan vs. James O’Brien, Sheriff, and Martin Y. Bunn and Another.—A case of some in. terest to merchants has occupied the Court of Common Pleas for three days. The following are the facts in the case:—One Mateson executed, on June 4, 1870, to the plaintiff, a mortgage on his stock of groceries and fixtures, payable on de. mand, to secure payment of a debt of $1,000. A few days alterwards the plaintiff took possession under his mortgage, foreclosing, it and himself | buying in the property. The mortgage contained a clause that it should embrace all stock put in | the store after it was made, “and all that should actually be in the store on the day payment should | be demanded.” It seems that when Mateson made this mortgs he owed the firm of Martin Y. Bunn & Co., his wholesale grocers, upwards of one thou- sand dollars for goods, and on the day of the fore- closure of the mortgage they took possession of all the mortgaged property under an attachment out of the Supreme Court and subsequently at Sheriff's | sale sold the property to satisfy their claim. This | action was thereupon commenced by the plaintiff against the Snerif and Bunn & Uo. for $6,000 | damages, he claiming the property to be his under the foreclosure, and not Mateson’s, and that Buon & Co. had no right to seize his property to satisty Mateson’s debt. A Jarge number of witnesses were examined on the part of plaintiff, and at the close of plaintiff's case counsel for the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that & mortgage containing such provisions was fraudu- lent and void in law as against creditora. The | Judge granted the motion and the complaint was | pra aA dismissed with costs. James D. Rey- mert for plaintit, H. W. Bookstaver for the Sheriff, William Lindsay for Martin Y. Bunn & Co, SUPREME COQURT—CHAMSERS, Deciyions. | By Judge Barrett. Cc. B. Wilson vs. James B, Henderson.—Applica- tion denied. Raynor ve. Selmes et al.—Report confirmed and | order granted, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TcRM. Decisions, By Judge Loew. William M. Gambling vs. Walter Jones.—Motion to place case on special calendar for short causes denied without costs. Jonn A, Hadden vs. Thomas E. Courtney.—Mo- Non to open default denied with $10 costs to abide aca with leave to renew upon additional afida- vi COURT CALEMDARS—TWS DAY. Surreme Court Crecurr—TauaL Teru—Part 1— Bolte, J Van Brunt.—Nos. 923, 945, 2239, 3977. 234), 3717, 107934, 2359, 2363, 2367, 2369, 2371, 2375, 2385, 2393, 2396, 2399, 2401. Part 2— Held by Judge Brady.—Case on. SUPREME CouRT—SPROIAL TERM—] Held by Judge Fancher.—Demurrers—Nos. 18, 31, Law and Fact— Nos, 26, 5, 48, 55, 57, 87, 90, 8, 35, 36, 45, 91, 92, 93, 94. 96, 97, 98,90, 106, soe Sa lois ios, 0, tat Tir, 0, 186, 174, 118, 74 0, 41, 143, 14 Behe JUPERIOR COURT—TRIAL TERM—| 1, 2—Held’ by ‘Judge Van Vorst.—Nos. 876, 1476, ™ 2020, 1888, ee Court or Common eld by Judges aay Woe and Sigh pet ag ue Sd 13%, 140, 52 Lot 180, i. Court O¥ Common PLEAS—Trrai, TenM—Part 1— He) fe Judge Daly,—Nos. 1634, 1589, 1524, 1051, 1888, 692, 1078, 1866, 1707, a, is 1916, dA, 1 1896, 1629, 1092, 112434, oy Lr 00 165, Tak TA TS, Ta a. —NOB. 2 oon i, 1412, 1413, 1090, a Part 2—Held by i ge Joachimsen.—Nos, 789, 1109, 1101, 1007, 1667, 803, 535, 680, 1747, 1503, 1115, 1501, Part 3— Held by Judge Curtis\—Nos. 5. 998, 907, 1006, , 999, 1000, 1001, 1002, Zon, 1004, URT OF GENERAL SEssions—Held by Recorder Hackett.—Robbery—John Herrick, Thomas Scully and James Dennis. Felonious Assault and Bat- tery—Thomas Carr and James Hanrahan. Bur- Peo Wilen Davis and Jacob Walther. reeny—James McGuire, William Lynn, Bene Ravitch, John H, Young, ‘Terence McDonald, Wil- liam H. Fells, Patrick Donohue, Charles Schmidt, faa vii Ea Sle Mlle Cosa a UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. Liability of a Surcty on a Bond—The Dower Interest on a First Husband’s Estate—An Army Deserter’s Bounty—A Claim for Rent Made Under Contract with a Quartermaster—Important De- cisions by the Court, WASHINGTON, Dec. 11, 1872, No. 29. Plekerskill, Survivor, &c., vs. Lahens et al.—Appeal trom the Circuit Court for the South- ern district of New York.—This is a suit in equity on a joint bond made by Lahens as principal and one Laforge as surety, conditioned to pay all moneys which might be recovered in acertain suit, or the collection of which might be stayed by the issuing of an injunction therem. ‘fhe suit was upon certain notes which Lahens had endorsed in the name of his firm, as alleged, without considera- tion, and was brought against all the members of the firm. By the law of New York, when this ac- tion on the notes was commenced and when the bonds were given, there could have been no recov- ery in the action without establishing the original liability of all the defendants therein; but before the trial of the case the law was changed so that there could be recovery against every one of the defendants. Under the change of the law the case resulted in @ judgment against Lahens only, and the question is whether Laforge or his executor is liable as the surety of Lahens alone under the change of the law during the pendency of the action. The Court below dismissed the bill, hold- ing that the bond being joint and not several there could be no recovery against the Laforge estate and that the change in the New York law could not alter the liability of Laforge as surety ona bond executed prior to the enactment. It is here argued in support of the appeal that the prohibi- tion against laws impairing the obligation of con- tracts has never been understood to embrace laws that relate merely to the remedy for their en- forcement and, that in legal intendment both Lahens and Laforge must be regarded as princt-' als on this bond, so far as the rights of he plaintiffs are concerned, In the case of statutory obligations of this character it is the intention of the law and not the intention ofthe part that ought to control. The law requires the ond to be given for the protection and indemnity of the parties against whom the relief is sought and whose rights are imperilied by its bein rAnteS, and the law requires that sureties shal given for the better security of the plaintit. It is not @ question of contract. The plaintity has no election to accept or to refuse to accept the bond. The only right he has in the premises is to require that the sureties shall justify as required by the statute. The intention of the law was that the property of the principal and of the surety should stand charged with the liability assumed in favor of the plaintiff, and so it should be construed. T. J. Glover, F. H. Dykers and Francis Kernan for ap- pellees; W. W. Macfarland for appellants, No, 84. Dainse vs. DeZeyk—Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.—Tho bill in this case seeks to subject the dower interest of Mrs. DeZeyk in her first husband's estate to the pavanenk of @ judgment against her present hus- and, On promissory netes made by the husband and wife jointly. The Court below, baeing their decision on the District act of 1869, relative to the rights of married women, as here asserted, dis- missed the bill. Itis here maintained that under the laws of the District, when the notes were made, the dower being unassigned, could ‘be charged, and that the B sonata law of the District having been enacted after the accrual of the plain- tit’s rights, the case ts not affected by the change in the law. Carlisle and McPherson for appellants, No. 35. United States vs. Kelly—Appeal from the Court of Ciaims.—Kelly, a citizen of Detroit, en- listed in the Ninetcenth infantry, in February, 1864, and thereby became entitled to a bounty of $400, payable in instalments, as certain periods of his service should expire. While a soldier he deserted, but was afterwards restored to duty without trial and made good the time of his deser- tion, He was paid $175, the amount of bounty due up to the time of desertion, but was refused the balance. This suit was brought to recover the balance, and the Court of Claims held that as he Was permitted to make good the time lost by deser- tion and was afterwards honorably discharged from the service, he was entitled to the bounty. From that decision the government appeal, con- tending that the circumstances of the case defeat the claim. C. H. Hill for government, Chipman & Hosmer for claimant. No. 44. United States vs. Provine—Appeal from the Court of Claims.—This was a claim for rent under a contract made with a depot quartermaster at Memphis, in 1863, whereby the government agreed to pay $250 per month each for a block of eight stores, which had been taken possession 0! alter the occupation of that city. The original, amount agreed upon was $125 per month, and it Was subsequently increased in respect of a portion of the houses, but, by mistake, not as to all. This claim is for the time which elapsed by mistake on @ portion of the block before the increase was made, the ground being taken that it should be ny because it was paid on the balance of the jouses, although no formal agreement to increase the rent had been made. The Court held that without a specific agreement at all the government was liable for a reasonable rent and also for re- pairs which it became necessary to make after the surrender of the premises by the department officers. Itis nere maintained that the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction in such a case, and that the receipts in tull given by the clatmai final settlement of the demand; also that crease of rent was without the sanction of the Quartermaster General's Department it was void. It ts further claimed that the government is in no case bound for the repairs. C. H. Hill for govern- ment; claimant not appearing. No. 58, Unitea States vs. Cook—Certificate of division from the Circuit Court for the Southern district of Ohio.—The defendant was§indicted at the October term of 1864 for embezzlement of funds held i aed as paymaster in the army, the indictment charging acts of embezzlement at cer- tain times in May, July, September and October, 1862, Demurrer was interposed to the counts 60 charging, on the ground that more than two years had elapsed since the commission of the offence charges On the questions whether he could de- mur to the counts, whether he was liable to indict- ment and whether the statute of limitations was wee the Court were divided in opinion and the case was certified here, where it is held that he cannot take exception to the counts in the indict- ment by demurrer; that he is liable to be prose- cuted, convicted and punished under the counts, and that the thirty-second section of the Crimes act contains tne only limitation applicable to the charge; but it cannot be made available by de- murrer to the indictment, Mr. Justice Clifford de- livered the opinion. No. 66, James et al. va, City of Milwaukee—Error to the Circuit Court for the District of Wisconsin,— This was an action to recover on certain bonds issued by the city in ald of the Milwauk ind Su- erior Railroad Company and to the Milwaukee and eloit Railroad Company. The general act of the State authorizing such aid to railroads by munict- pal corporations prohibited subscriptions in aid of roads not duly incorporated and organize: as the roads in question were not at the act incorporated and organized, the qu whether the bonds issued in their The Court below held that they wer judgment was for the city. The writ oferror main- tained that the legisiation did not mean that aid should be extended only to roads then incorporated and organized, but that wid should not be at any time extended to roads which were not in rated and organized; and the th was that whenever at future time a railroad should be incorporated and organized it was competent for orporations to subscribe its aid, The ained this construction of the logisiation, and reversed the judgment. Mr. Justice Swayne delivered the opinion, No, 49. Young vs, Steamboat Key vity=Ap- pen from the Circuit Court for the Eastern Dis- riot of Wisconsin.—The libel in this case was filed to recover for a quantity of wheat lost on the Mississippi in May, 1864, by the all negligence of the ateamer, its oficers, &c. The answer set forth that another company were now the owners of the steamer; that she remained the property of the company which undertook to carry the wheat from the date ofthe loss in May, 1864, until May, she out of its hands by sale ; juently was within the jurisdiction o! r the loss and could have been pro- ceeded inst. On this state of facts the Court held that the lien for the value of the wheat had become stale from neglect to enforce it, and that iter 80 pons. delay Co repeal canis a be mats become pro) iy 01 bona puretaser withont notice. The libel was, there- . The appeal urged that the” mere conveyance wit out notice, even to an innocent purchaser, will of itself disturb a maritime lien, and that in order to defeat the lien some other circum- stance than org of time must be made to reaaz Pelore the ity upon which the doctrine crt i Senaucit ecco ae ar - lant did not Know it. ‘This Court find the facts for the livellant and sustain his view of the case, and BNA 4 Geerte and direct a decree for libel-. . Sustice Miller delivered the opinion, No. i "Reybold vs. The United States—Appeal from the Court of Claims.—The owners of the steamer Express chartered her to the government, they: the marine and the government the war risk, January, 1865, when the Potomac was » and no orafta were running but vernment and ferry boats, the Express being at ‘ashington, was ordere: st the discretion of the master, to proceed nesboro, and was lost on the trip, ‘me Indgmens was that the loss was occasioned by the state of navigation, which was @ marine risk to be borne by the owners, and that, although the existence of the war may @ been one of the reasons for ordering the to be made, still 1t was too re- mote @ cause bring the loss within the risk assumed by the government. This Court affirms that {aciemeney remarking that in such a case the relief must come from Congress. The Court of Claims has no power to entertain a suit based upon a claim of such a character. Mr. Justice Davis delivered the opinion. No, 36. Hedrick vs, Hughes—Error to the Cir- cuit Court for the District of Missourl.—This was @ contest poncerning quarter section of land in Howard county, our, The judgment below was for the defendant, who is the vendee of parties title by patent from the govern- ment, and who been personally in possession ‘since 1839 and has materially improved the prop- erty. The Court regarded the long and undisturbed possession of the defendant as conclusive of his rights and as a bar to the action. This Court takes the same view and affirms the judgment. Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion. No. 28 Prout vs. Robey—Appeal from the Su- preme Court of the District of Columbia.—This suit Was brought to establish title to certain real estate in Washington which was under perpetual lease to the mother of the claimant. The property had been estranged by the acts of a second husband of the lessee, who, after her death, exercised au- thority over it, and executed a conveyance of it to the Catholic Church years after the heir learned her rights, and by this action succeeded in establishing them, the facts warranting a decree for her below, which ts here affirmed. Mr, Justice Swayne deliv- ered the opinion, No. 48. Cheney et al., vs. Van Arsdale et al.— Error to Circuit Court for Eastern District of Wis- consin,—This action was brought by the defendants in error to recover certain internal revenue duties alleged to have been illegally assessed on cast iron thimble skeins and pipe boxes manufactured by them, The question was upon the construction of the act as to exemptions claimed onthem. The verdict was against the Collector, Cheeney, below, and the government brought the case here, where the judgment entered on the verdict 1s reversed, the Court holding that the Court below erred in instructing the jury that the articles manufactured by the complainants were exempt from duty. Mr. Justice Strong delivered the opinion. No. 50. Frow vs. De La Vega—Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Western District of Texas,— The bill in this case charged Frow and a number of others with Atte Hn to defraud De La Vega out of certain lands ‘in Texas. Defaults were taken against Frow and some others, which were subse- uently made judgments absolute, and the ques- tion was here whether the plaintiff was entitled to redress on a judgment by default, in advance of final decrees st those who appeared and de- fended the case. This Court reverses the order making the judgments pro confesso absolute, say- ing that if the case be decided in the complain- ant’s favor he will then be entitled to a final decree against all, inclading defaulting parties. But a final, decree on the merits against a delaulting de- fendant alone, pending tae continuance of the cause against others, would be incongruous and illegal. Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion. No. 52, Massey & Downing vs. Allen, assignee in bankruptcy of Downing—Appeal from the Cir- cuit Court for the District of souri,—This was the affirmance of a decree giving to the creditors of Downing certain property which he had trans- ferred to y by bill of sale before bankruptcy, but without any formal delivery of possession. The Court below, finding, further, that there had been no record made of the sale, Massey having neglected to fle his bill of sale, held that the transfer did not put the property beyond the reach of the creditors, and the decree was for the assignee. This Court sustained that view of the facts and affirm the decree, Mr, Justice Field delivered the opinion. No, 60, Dillion vs. United States—Appeal from the Court of Claims; and No, 61. Home Insurance Company vs. Huebberger et al.—Error to the Cir- cuit Court for the Northern District of Minois.— The Chef Justice announced the affirmance of the judgments in these cases, no opinion being written in either of them. Starr et al. vs. City of Salem—Error to the Cir- cult Court for the District of Massachusetts.—Dis- missed, ++ MARRIAGES AND DEATHS. Marricd. BROwN—CRAMSEY.—On Wednesday, December 11, 1872, at St. James’ Methodist Episcopal church, of Harlem, N. Y., by the Rev. H. B. Ridgaway, FRANK S. Brown, of New Preston, Conn., to HANNAH E., eldest daughter of James Db. Cramsey, of Harlem, Horstry—Grium.—On Wednesday, December 11, at the Church of Our Saviour, Brooklyn, by the Rev, Mr. Booth, CHARLES A, HorsLey, of Bergen, N. J., to ANNA M. GRiMM, of Brooklyn, N. Y. SLOANE—VANDEBILT.—On Tuesday, December 10, at St. Bartholomew’s church, by the Rev. Stephen H. Tyng, Jr., assisted by the Rev. Samuel Cooke, D. D. WILLIAM D. SLOANE to EMILY THORN, daughter of William H. Vandebilt, Esq. SHINER—BowWMAN.—In Brooklyn, on Wednesday, December 11, at the residence of the bride’s mother, by the Rey. T. L. Cuyler, D. D., A. W. SHINER to Minnetra A., eldest daughter of the late P. Bowman, all of Brooklyn. No cards. VINCENT—PARKER.—On Tuesday, December 10, 1872, at the residence of the bride’s parents, by the Rev. Stephen H. Tyng, Jr., CHARLES R. VINCENT to Nia, daughter of Dr. Theodore Parker, all of this city. No cards, Died. Borton.—On Tuesday, December 10, after a lin- gering iliness, Laura B., wife of James Clinton olson and daughter of the late Theodore B, Tall- madge. Funeral at her late residence, Westfield, N. Jy | on Friday, December 13, at Fc ite one o’clock P. M. Relatives and friends are invited to attend. pein foot of Liberty street at twelve o’cloc BuscuER.—On Monday, December 9, at his resi- dence, 107 Madison strect, Henry WILHELM BUSCHER, aged 42 years. The relatives and friends of the family, also the members and ex-members of E Troop, Third regi- ment of cavairy, N. G. 8, N. Y., and the members of Herman , No. 268, F. and A., are respect- fully invited to attend the funeral, this (Thursday) afternoon, at one o'clock, from the German Pres- byterian church, corner of Madison and Mont- gomery streets, CAMPBELL.—In Brooklyn, on Monday, December 9, MaRY ANNE, wife of James Campbell, in the 25th year of her age, Relatives and friends are ctfully invited to attend the funeral, from her late residence, 680 Hicks street, on Thursday, December 12, at’ two o'clock; from thence to Flatbush for interment. CanNiIFF.—In Brooklyn, after @ short but painful illness, MARY T., wife of James R. Cannif, and pace daughter of James and Mary T. Bulmer, of rooklyn. Notice of the funeral on Saturday. CoLLINGwoop.—On Wednesday, December 11 JOHN COLLINGWoopD, aged 82 years, 9 months and 8. 8 day: The friends of the family are invited to attend the funeral, from his late residence, 345 West Twenty-sixth street, on Friday, December 13, at one o'clock, without further notice. COONEY.—ALICE COONEY, daughter of James Sroee, and Margaret Hackett, who was killed on Saturday evening, corner and Hudson streets, aged 5 tom and,5 months, Her tather left her, burned hic desolate six months ago. Boston and Chicago papers Please copy. CoveRt.—At Rahway, N. J.,on Wednesday, De- cember 11, AURELIA WINDER, daughter of Frances i and the late Jacob F, Covert, in the 19th year of er age. The relatives and friends of the family are in- vited to attend the funeral, at St. Paul's church, Rahway, N. J., on Friday, 13th inst., at one o'clock P. M., without further notice. CRaIG.—On Monday, December 9, at St. Louis, Mo., RoBERT H. CRAIG, co! iat Particulars of funeral hereai CROWELL.—At Camden, a, cember 10, FRANK WESLEY, infant son of and Carrie M. Crowell. Funeral from the residence of his grandfather, R. H. Cornwell, 16 Lefferts street, Brooklyn, on Fri- day, 13th, at two P. M. (BERT.—On Tuesday, mber 10, Ropert L, oO ear a UTHBERT, in the 53d 8 nee. Friends are invited to nd the funeral ser- vices, at his late chetge | No.8 West Sixtieth street, on Friday morning, at eleven o'clock. The wae wilbe taken to Orange, N.J., for inter- ment. DaLy—On Wednesday, December 11, Rev. B. DALY, im the 78th vert of his age. ~ bani His relatives, friends and the reverend clei of this city are respectiully invited to attend the to attend the funeral, from the residence of the Parents, 856 West Fifty-secoud street, to-day (Thursday), at one o’clock P. hi. "s DovGLAss.—On Monday, December 9, 1872, JANET, wife of Seth C. Douglass, Relatives and friends are invited to attend the funeral, from her late residence, 75 Chrystie street, Fy aid December 12, 1872, at eleven o'clock ‘EMANUAL.—In Brooklyn, on Wedi December 11, ELEANOR, relict of ing. My rel Eman » poy ere relatives lends of the re. rally invited Yo attend the, Mineral, Ba rider. afternoon, 10 o'clock, residence, 105 N treet, Bi ee, der ae Fiynx.—On We O rr Mary MaTILpA FLYNN, wife of Michael J. Flanagan, ter of Michael Thomas and Mary Fiynn,| = ive of Loughrea, county Galway, aged ear. relatives and friends are respectfully invited to attend the funeral, from her late residence, 247° be ie street, on Friday, 13th inst., at: wo P, Gonua.—On Wednesday, December ‘ny, 1872,' CATHARINE GORMAN, beloved wife of John sqatt 27 years. r - he friends and relatives of the ‘are spectfully invited to attend the funeral, from her erate ee rare eee NS morning, Dece' met Re: tp HAVEN.—Suddenly, on Wednesday, der, Louis Gopey, youngest son of the Tate 8, L. an Avmienda of the fat are invited to attend the LOT Lp og loa ama morning, a e Hi —At Rossville, 8. L, on Tuesday, Decem- ber 10, 1872, DaniEL Meany” native of Cork, Ire- aged. 16 years. arrive land, of apople: nis remains wi in New York yy Staten’ ee ats Auli facie’ A.M. on Lig oe Decemner an Tred Cem: money *“\, * on rns evening, December 10, 1872, Aorta’ Homey, we ot Albert Huber, years. " The funeral wit take place from the residence of her brother-in-law, Mr. John Fallon, 672 Atlantia avenue, corner of Sixth street, this (Thursday) afternoon, at half-past two o'clock. KELLY.—On Tuesday, December 10, ALICE KELLY, beloved wife of Patrick Kelly, deceased, aged ot years. The relatives and friends of the , and those of her brother, Bernard, are respectfully invited to attend the funeral, from the residence of her brother, James Donnelly, 1,143 First avenue, corner of Sixty-second street, on Thursday, December 12,. at one o’clock P. M. } Kenny.—In Brooklyn, on Tuesday, December 10,, pp bere wife of Francis J. Kenny, mas e 22d year of her age. The relatives and friends of the family are re-’ ctfully invited to attend the faneral, from the Church of St, Mary, Oe ot the Sea, Court street,! near Luqueer, on Friday, December 18, at half-past ten o'clock A. M., where @ solemn juiem mass will be offered for the repose of her soul, thence to the Cemetery of the Holy Cross for interment. LUEBEER.—In Hamburg, Germany, on Thursday, | November 7, Matratas LUEBKER, formerly Witt Steinway & Sons, New York, aged 29 years. Lu¥r.—On Wednesday, December I1, at the resi~’ dence of his uncle, William H, Norris, after a long and painful illness, Jacop Ames Lurr. | ‘The friends aud acquaintances of the family are! respectfully invited to attend his funeral, from his late residence, 722 Third avenue, on Friday next,’ at twelve o'clock. } MACrHERSON.—At Rome, Italy, on Sunday, No- vember 17, 1872, ROBERT MACPHERSON, Esq., aged 56 years, Marrin.—On Monday, December 9, after a linger. ing illness, WILLIAM HENRY, son of the late Joni Martin, Jr., aged 31 years. Relatives and friends of the family are meenects fully invited to attend the funeral, from hi: late residence, 20 East Forty-ninth street, this Thursday afternoon. at two o'clock. 4 MORONEY.—On Tuesday, December 10, MICHA! Moroney, native of county Clare, Ireland, parish) of Milltown, in the 74th year of his age, The relatives and friends are respectfully invite: to.attend his funeral, from his late residence, No. 7| Roosevelt street, to-day (Thursday), at two o'clock, to Calvary Cemetery. McCovrr.—On Wednesday, December 11, Jaurs Eyer native. of county Tyrone, Ireland, aged. ears. Reiatives ‘and friends of the family are invited to attend the funeral, from late resi. dence, 237 West Thirteenth street, on Friday, oember 13, at nine o'clock, ‘and to st. Joseph's pe ee Sy will Lestat 2k solemn re- jm mass for the repose sol : McCLuskEy.—On Tuesday, December 10, 187: BripGer MCCLUSKEY, aged 19 years. ‘The relatives and frien faiso the children o' Mary), are invited to attend her funeral, from 63' Washington street, at half-past nine o’clock A. M., to St. Joseph Church, Sixth avenue. I MONAMEE.- Tuesday, December 10, Mrcra®E: MCNAMEE, gged_27 years, a native of Glenmacoter, county Tyrone, Ireland. Relatives and friends of the family are invited t attend the funeral from the residence of hi brother-in-law, William McCort, No. 390 Sout Second street, Williamsburg, on Thursday, De~, cember 12, at two o'clock. Nason.—On Wednesday morning, December 11 at his residence in Mountclair, N. J.,in the 57t year of his , Mr. JOSEPH NASON, of the firm ol Nason & Co., New York, and formerly of the firm 0: Walworth & Nason, Boston. , The remains will be taken to Boston for inter. ment. Funeral services will be held at his lat residence, to-day (Thursday), December 12, at half- past three o’clock P. M. Carriages will await thd arrival of the two P. M. train from the foot of Bars clay street, New York. Return trains at five and ay minutes aus P.M. joston papers please copy. OGALLAGHAN.-On Wednesday moraing, Devomy ber 11, at the pastoral residence of the Church ol St. Mary, Cold Springs, Rev. Connettus F. O’CaL4 LAGHAN. The reverend clergy and friends of the family ar respectfully requested to attend at St. James’ church, at the solemn mass of requiem, on Friday, morning, at halt-past ten o'clock, iy PikE.—Suddenly, on Saturday evening, Decem~’ ber 7, 1872, SAMUEL N. PIKE, aged 50 years. ‘The friends of deceased are respectfully invite to attend the funeral, from hts late residence, 61 Fitth avenue, on Thatsday morning, Ts at ten o'clock, REILLY.—On Tuesday, December 10, 1872, MAR’ ANN, the beloved wife ‘of Philip Reilly, aged 2 ears, * The relatives and friends of the family are re- spectfully invited to attend the funeral, from th residence, 142 Pearl street, at half-past eight o'clock, to St. Peter’s Church, Barclay street, where ther willbe a solemn requiem mass and from there Calvary Cemetery. ! ReNson.—On Wednesday, December 11, ARNOLD A. RENSON. The relatives and friends of the family are ing vited to attend the funeral, from his inte resi4 dence, 158 Second avenue, on Sunday, December) 15, at one o'clock P, M. } ROSENFELD.—On Tuesday, November 26, at Frank~ fort-on-the-Main, Louis ROSENFELD, late of this “tea a ers ene leveland ani le papers please copy. SCANLON.—On Wedne: December Dinix funeral, t, Patrick’s cathedral, on Friday, the 15th inst, at ten o'clock A. M., when a solemn high one es Sta will be offered up for the repose DONNELLY.—On he bmain'f December 11, GzR- ‘TRUDE, y it daugiter of Peter and Anns Don- 37 years and 11 montis, nelly, 76 Selauyen und iieade ake eaneeSioiy Invited JosePHiNe, only child of Thomas and Lizzie Ha Scanlon, aged 1 year, 8 months and 16 days, The relatives and friends of the family, and thos of her grandfather, Jacob Somerindyke, are invite to attend the funel from the residence of hei nts, 118 East ity-fifth street, on Friday, the 13th inst., at one o’clock P. M. } Sarra.—On rye. December 10, after a ton and severe iliness, WINEFRED SMrrH, the belove wie of Thomas Smith, aged 82 years, 3 months an 19 8. "The relatives and friends of the family are re-' spectfully invited to attend the funeral, from her late residence, 229 East Fifty-first street, on Thurs- day, December 12, at one o’c! 'VENSON.—On Tuesday, December 10, WILLIAM! V., youngest child of Thomas F. and ma CO. Stevenson, and grandson of William A. Vreeland,) Bad aged 2 months and 26 days, \ e relatives and friends of the family are’ by pete? invited to attend the funera), from the residence of his father, 500 State street, Brooklyn, on Thuraday, 12th inst., at two.o’clock P. M. TAYLOR.—On Monday, the 9th inst, Soria’ SHERMAN, wife of Robert L. jor. The relatives and friends of the family are in- vited to attend her funeral, from the residence of her son-in-law, Joseph B. Varnum, 116 East Twen- tieth street, Gramercy park, on Thursday morning, : niin inst., at ten o’ciock, without er invita- ion. TRLFAIR.—Relatives and friends of Jang Curtrs,’ widow of Edward W. Telfair, are invited to atten the funeral, this eRe), afternoon, at three, o’clock, from 181 East Fifty-ninth street. ) ULRIcH.—On Wednesday, December 11, after a short tinese, mcaeanera aan Be wed wife of jonn Ulrich, dece: The relatives and friends of the family are re- spectfully invited to attend the Releot Friday morning, at eight o’clock, from the Nicholas church, Second street, between avenue Aand First avenue. VREDENBURGH.—At New Castle, Westchester county, N. Y., ISAac VREDENBURGH, formerly a resi- dent of New York city, in the 824 year of his age. Relatives and friends are seerepa ey, invited to meet the remains at the Grand Central Depot, at half-past eleven o'clock morning, Decem- ber 12, from whence they be conveyed to Greenw . Werss.—On Wednesday afternoon, December 11, ELMmasera A. Wees, aged 79 years. Her relatives and friends are invited to attend the funeral, ier late residence, 226 West Fiftieth. street, on Friday afternoon, at three o'clock. WeBsTER.—On We the Le Many BR. Wnnorns dest e Lennox » eldes daughter of the late E, W. and Marla Sage Webster. | of Istand of Cuba, LLL WILttaMs.—Phe friends. and relatives of Rev. C. C. Wil and family are invited to ne! rvices of hi wife, Maruna A., from his residence, 103 North Ox- ford street, Brooklyn, on Fridsy, 13, at ten o'clock A. M. WoLcort.—On four-n cay, twelfth month, the lith, Gzorce F. Wotcorr, ian 50 years. of the family are invited rvices on sixth day, 13t! ‘The relatives ond friends est first street, al to atteud the funeral at his late residence, 43 three P.M. The remains will be taken to Woud- law tery on seventh day morning, WoRDEN.—On Tuesday, December after a. short but severe wen Guorcs WoupEy, in the d friends of the family are invited. resident ‘al, from his late at atreet, ans toattend the fum East Pifiv-secon