The New York Herald Newspaper, December 21, 1872, Page 11

THE COURTS. —+—__ STOKES’ TRIAL---THIRD DAY. ene An Unprofitable Session—One of the “Nine” Sworn Excused—The Reason Therefor— More Press Commente—The Odd Number Only Again Secured— The Nine Yet on the As- sendant—OContinuation of the Oase To-Day. tinea aati THE JOMEL ESTATE CONTROVERSY. Another Day of Legal Objection and Argu- meut—The Admissibility of Hearsay Evi- dence—Mme. Jumel’s Declarations— Maternity or Paternity, or Nei- fher, That is the Ques- tion—Decision on the Point Reserved. Persea envio wanvenrncuneeny MATRIMONIAL MAR-PLOTS. The Conjugal Troubles of the Lichten- steins—How Mrs. Lichtenstein, Nee Hart, Was Not Taken to the Fond Heart of Her Spouse—The Court Reserves Opinion. DUTCH HEINRICH. —_+__—_ He is Granted a New Trial, but is Not Ready to Go On—Application of Counsel for Postponement— The Case Off Till January. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. 6ummaries—Suit for Right of Dower Under Diffi- culties—A Patent Suit—Bankruptoy Calen- éar—Convicted of Bigamy—Business in the G@oneral Sessions—Courtesies from a Jury to a Judge in the Marine Court—Decisions. In the United States Circuit Court yesterday the farther hearing of the case of George Washington Bowen vs, Nelson Chase was resumed before Judge Shipman and the special jury. The arguments of counsel upon the point whether the Court should receive in evidence declarations alleged to have been made by Madame Jumel, that she had had an Megitimate son, have concluded. The Court ad- Journed till Monday morning when, in all probabil- ity, Judge Shipman will deliver his opinion on the question in controversy. Recent statements in the HERALD have shown that there has been quite an extensive plunder of mail bags from the Post OMice of this city, and that @ considerable part ef this property was sold to rag dealers, to some of them in good faith; but the au- thorities have at length arrested the person who, ae they claim, has actually purloined the bags. Yes- terday one Richard Brandon, who is known as “lampy Dick,’ was brought before Commissioner Shields, and held tn default of $1,000 bail for ex- etiination on the above charge. He confessed that the accusation was trne; that he hae been fora sonsiderable time past engaged in this species of theft, and that he alone bas been concerned in the alleged robbery. In the Gencral Sessions yesterday counsel moved that the trial of Henry Newman, alias “Dutch Heinrichs,” be postponed till January in order to prove an alibi by two detectives, Recorder Hackett granted the motion. Counsel demurred to an in- dictment against George Woods and Morris Harris, charged with violating the iottery laws in getting @p 4 gift concert. His Honor took the papers and reserved his decision. The Recorder sent a large umber of prisoners to the State Prison for grand Jarceny and burglary. . THE STOKES TRIAL. cocina fincas Another Day Lost in Obtaining a Jury— The Scenes in Court. ‘The Court of Oyer and Terminer was decidedly the dullest place in the city of New York yesterday, except, perhaps, a cell in the Tombs, If Pope were & Modern poetaster instead of being one of days bygone, he should have made it a picture in his “Dunciad,” and have peopled his fancy with the actors of that weary and monotonous scene, being, Of Course, decorous enough not to have included any Of the learned counsel on either side among Bis characters. What unpardonable injustice would ‘that have been | When the Court was opened yesterday the Prisoner was brought in and took his scat in the ‘sual place. Beside him for the frst time during the new trial was his sister, attired in deep mourn- ing. His father, brother and cousin were also present. His counsel, Messrs. Tremain, Townsend and Dos Passos sat in front of him. The counsel for the people were promptly in attendance. The Judge was on the bench. Tho crier opened the proceedings, and the first incident was an EXPLANATION ON THE PART OF THE THIRD JUROR, ‘who had been sworn on the first day, Thomas Mal- Jaby, of No, 124 Waverley place, to the effect that & friend of his was @ near relative of the prisoner Stokes. The reason that the explanation had ome so late was that counsel for the people had hot asked him the question as to whether he knew of anything that would disqualify him from serving. The Judge remarked that there was no doubt ‘about the fact that the juror was entirely free from any responsibility in the error that had been com- mitted, and he accordingly discharged him, THE NINTH JUROR, Ten persons were examined consecutively before one was found whose qualifications suited both sides, and he was Mr. George N. Manchester, a dealer in bricks, whose place of business is at the foot of East Twenty-ninth strect. He is unlike any former occupant of the seat of torture. He has an immense head, with a lofty forehead and thin hair and side Whiskers, both of which are in hue, i# Howe is rather large and his eyes are of a deep blua. He impresses one as being of a cold and Se nified disposition, from whom little sympathy could be expected, either ior the dead or the living. No other juror was secured yesterday. THB EXAMINATIONS ‘went on and on, with always the same resuit, the Judge saying to the willing or unwilling candi- date, “You may stand aside, sir,” until at length hile voice sounded as if despair were beginning to ghaw into his heart. Mr. Fullerton asked of one gentleman, who responded to his name, if the pre- vious opinion which he had formed would atfect the verdict 1) he should render upon the evi- dence. The answer © @ strong sensation among the spectators I seen it proved clearly to me that Stokes didn't kill Fisk then my opinions would change.’ AFTER THE RECESS several ‘gentlemen’ summoned aa jurors came Upon the stand, and counsel at one time was greatly puzzled ’to distinguish between one of hese and @ “feed merchant” of the same name, At length Mr. James Campbell, also a “gentle- man,” was called. LHe was an ancient personage, who undertook to quiz tue ieading lawyer of the weit tate at was your ” eald Mr. Tremain your former business “An importer of the na.” “What were thowe prema ety oF Hotta “oom ¢ tatingiy), one of and —.? Me, Fela thane 40, Fellows—The in: Your Honor, could not he mistarcneeeee een et, laughter subsided and the examination pro- * Mr, Reach. for the neanic. wanted to know if 3 =! them was gin NEW YORK HERALD, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2], 1872—TRIPLE SHEET, ant District at "s ju doubtedly could not in sucl an instance be ex- The Court urned at ten minutes before four o'clock, and the new panel of 150 jurors there ‘Were not more than twenty yet remaining to be examined. ‘The trial will continue to-day, The Proceedings Yesterday. Before proceeding with the calling of the rol! of jurors District Attorney Fellows, addressing the Court, sald he desired to call His Honor’s atten- tion to certain matters affecting the jurors already empanelied, ANOTHER REPERENCE TO THE PRESS. In one of the evening papers it was stated that the four{h juror (John A. Beyer) was acquainted with the accused and had exchanged friendly recogni- tion with him on taking his seat in the jury box. Counsel on either side was not aware of that fact, and can now say that it was entirely unfounded, Another suggestion was made in regard to the fifth Jaror which was equaliy unwarranted, With re- gard tothe third juror (Theodore Malleby), the prosecution only discovered this morning that he is in the immediate employ or in the pay of @ relative of the prisoner. This gentleman was in the Greenwich Savings Bank, of which Clinton Gilbert, maternal uncle of the accused, is treasurer. He (Mr. Fellows) would not consider it proper that any one connected with the dead man should serve on this jury, and he would be recreant to his duty if he allowed any one on the jury who might be lable to the control o1 the prisoner. Mr. Tremain said at this stage of the case the District Attorney could not object to the juror. He considered him a fair juror, and believed that he would render a true verdict; but, to prevent any suspicion, the deience would agree to allow the juror to be excused. AN EXPLANATION, Mr. Malleby, the Juror concerned, said that when called as a juror and asked if he had formed and expressed an opinion, he said he had formed an opinion, but had abstained from expressing it, thinking that the next question would be, “Why did you so abstain?” He was asked no further question, but was sworn in before he had an oppor- tunity to explain, and on taking his seat he told his fellow-jurora the facts of the matter. Mr, Fellows stated that in what he had sald he Intended nothing derogatory to the juror, and be- lieved him to be a fair, honest man. THE THIRD JUROR DISMISSED. Judge Boardman, in dismissing Mr. Malleby, sald he had acted pertectly right in the premises, aud would no doubt give a true verdict, but in case of a disagreement the odium thereof might fail on him, Mr. Malleby then took his leave, bowing to the Court.and counsel, leaving only cight jurors instead of nine, This little episode created quite a sensation in the court room. Mr. Beyer, who was charged with knowing the prisoner, said that the statement was falve, and thanked Mr, Fellows for explaining that fact to the Court, Having disposed of these outside issues, the call- ing of jurors commenced, but it was not until after ten had been disposed of as incompetent that THE NINTH JUROR, George Nelson Manchester, appeared, and being ound In a proper state of mind, was sworn in. Mr, Manchester appears an intelligent man; he 1s a dealer in bricks at the foot of East 129th street, and resides at the foot o1 East Ninth street. Judge Boardman ruled on his competency to serve, to which Mr. Townsend excepted, and con- Bere Surprise was expressed at his being ac- cepted, m the time of getting the ninth juror until recess fifteen jurors were examined, Of these thirteen were excused for having formed opinions, and two were challenged peremptorily—one by prosecution and one by defence—so that three are still wanted ae coer ee the full jury. Judge Brady occupied the bench with Judge Boardman fora short period, A recess was here taken. After Recess. The uninteresting process of examining jurors as to their competency to serve was continued alter recess. Previous thereto forty-seven names had beeu called, out of which only one was secured, a salted @ milk dealer, who did business with i Erie Railroad, was excused on that ac- coun Andrew A. Brown, Solomon Friedman, William J. Cunningham and Leo S. Blogg were excused, having formed opinions as to the case. i. Evans told Mr, Tremain that he thought he would be biassed by his previous opinions — alter hear- ing the evidence, while to Mr, Beac! said he could & verdict independent of past impres- sion, re being some’ inconsistency in these anewera the Court excused his attendance. AN ORTHODOX QUAKER, Jonathan Aiken, was found competent in every respect but one; le had conscientious scrupica about capital pee toeed and stated that he be- longed to the religious denomination kuown as Ort x Quakers, Excused. William Clymer and Francis Godine were excused, being found biassed. dames Campbell was asked by Mr, Tremain as to his business, He replied that he was now in no business, bat some Met) oe ago Was an im- porter of the products of Holiand. Mr. Tremain—What products? Juror (hesitatingly)—Well, gin. (Laughter.) Mr. Pee Fe went on to say that he was not accustomed to discuss sensations; he had no bias inst the prisoner. . Beach asked him if he’ perfectly understood the workings of his own mind or the occult infiu- ences working on his brain. The juror replied that he did, whereupon Mr, Beach said he would excuse him, observing, however, that lie was an excellent man in the proper place, “and that is,” said Mr. Fellows, “as an importer of Hollands.’ The re Juror didn’t see the point of the joke and retired. Albert Morris Bley, a naturalized citizen, born in Prussia, Was some wiiat confused in his statements, so that it was difficult to arrive at an idea as to the condition of his mind. The triers dismissed him aa incompetent, The calling of the jury panel went on, but at the adjournment the nine still held their piaces, and tho three vacant chairs remain waiting for what to-day may bring forth, the Court having deter- mined to sit Saturday. THE JUMEL PROPERTY CASE. The Case of Bowen vs. ChasemArgument Upon the Admissibility of Hearsay Evidenc . The furthor hearing of the case of George Wash- ington Bowen vs. Nelsoh Chase was resumed yes- terday in the United States Circuit Court before Judge Shipman and the special jury. Mr, Charles O’Conor and Mr. J. C. Carter ap- peared as counsel for the defendant, and Mr. Hoar, Mr. Chatfleld and Mr. Chauncey Shaffer for the plaintifr. The question before the Court yesterday was, ag upon the preceding day, whether the plainut should be allowed to give evidence of alleged de- clarations on the part of Madame Jumel that she had an illegitimate son, Mr. Chatfield, for the plaintiff, resumed his ad- dress to the Court on the point at issue. He main. tained that general reputation as to pedigree was received as evidence in the Courts, He read from a law book to the effect that, under American au- thorities, every conceivable species of hearsay evidence was receivable in such a case as this. Mr. Charles O'Conor, for the defendant, replicd that this was @ point of the greatest importance, and one requiring from an enlightened Court a most carefal exmination before passing upon It a judicial decision. It was a case of the greatest gravity and should not be treated lightly. The point was new in every possible respect. He was not aware that the records of the Taw furnished any instance of a question or dispute as to the ma- ternity of an individual—he meant the maternity of one of the present generation—or of the paternity of any one apart from the supposed infidelity of the husband. Where the paternity, or maternity, or either, was not in issue, the question of marriage or not of marriage raised questions as to whether the child of the mother and of the father, or aup- posed father, was legitimate, This case was of an extraordinary and unheard-of character; the case of a man alleged to have been born of @ particular woman, and now seventy years old, who never had one speck of intercourse With his alleged mother during the whole of that time, Whether in a case of this kind declarations of the mother or statements of common repute could be given in evidence were two distinct things. pute to be received as evidence of paternity, as apart from tllegitimacy ? This question as to the media of evidence in cases of this description was the case of the general law, the same In England, the same in each State ot the Union, the same in cases arising in the District of Columbia and other places as would constitute matter of original jurisaiction in the Courts of the United States. It was a broad bth principle of the law of evidence, and the authorities before the revolution in England and authorities since, and American authorit es in ail the States of the Union that proessed to be governed by common law, fur- nished evidence as to what the rule was for our Courts, The Judges of Engiand did not profess to give anything new. They administered the com- mon law. On this great question of the taw of evidence the Court was to determine whether it would take hearsay in place of the sworn oath of a pergon on the dy, were dealing with a matter of law, the same all the tine in all Anglo- America, This common law -was their common bdirthright. It was @ gift from their yevero% ancestors; it was the safegnatd of every man’s right and repote; it was of the utmost value, It was br general and comprehensive, often departed from by error, to be sure, ane; ater bat in all must be given in some in onr Courte of of phy common Taw it had been sald by an able writer that I> had God for itaguide, human reason as its interpreter and the preserva- tion of society for its end. It was the same, thanks to their fathers who had regulated their institu- tions, in every State of this Union. Mr. O’Conor reterred the Court to a case in Taylor on Evidence, sixth edition, page 575, section 672, The great point in that case was whether there had. been & Marriage, $0 that any oi the children could be re- greet as legitimate—whether, in fact, there had een & marriage. Now, the declarant in that case was the brother of the party from whom the de- scent was sought to be traced. He was undoubt- edly competent, under the general ralea of evi- denice, a8 a witness as to who were the legitimate children—the legitimate relatives—of bis brother, It competent to state who were the legitimate children of his brother, he was perfectly competent, asa declarant, to state that A B was not arelative of nis brother; and that was the very thing the brother stated—ie said the chil- dren were not legitimate. That was asserting that & person who made @ claim to be a member of the Jamily was not a member ofit. Jt was not evi- dence to introduce an alleged illegitimate into the family, but it was evidence to protect legislate members of a family and to establish their right by asserting that they were the only relatives, and that AB, C Dand E P, who set up to be relatives, Were not relatives. As a matter of conrse, this law for the ge mag of property and the rvation of families from intrusion of those who were not heirs, not members of the family, could hardly be supposed to be limited in such a way as to admit the declarations of deceased members of the family a6 to who were reiauives, and also to protect the ity of this rule of evidence. The law aliowed a legitimate jarant to say who were not mem- bers of the family, and thus not only admitted, if he might say so, a true and legitimate memover of the family, but excluded and repudiated pretend- ers to a claim to or partnership in an inheritance. The learned gentleman then went on to con- sider the question as to how far the mut- ter was influenced by the fact of a a seeking descent through filegitimacy. ‘heir roposition was that under the law of the State of ew York this rule as to pedigree did not apply to the case of an illegitimate son seeking to inherit from his mother, or of a mother claiming to inherit from her illegitimate child, He had iormed the opinion that the declarations of Madame Jumel were not admissabie, but oa thas they should acquiesce, us a matter of expediency, in the declar- ations of the witnesses on the other side, because they firmly believed that a4 witness who imputed to Madame Jumel that she had had a child would be exposed to tne most satisfactory evidence that that statement was not only untrue, but wae wil- fully so, Under the idea of giving the party at the other side rope enough he had ad- vised that they should acquiesce in tie declarations of Madame Jumel, but that was an entirely different question from whether those declarations were evidence. They proceeded with the case until they reached a certain point of time when Mra, Vandervoort proceeded to give evidence of the declarations of Lavinia Ballou. It was pro- posed by these declarations to give Madame Jumel newly discovered brothers and sisters, He thought that was taking too much rope, and he therefore objected to the declarations of Lavinia Ballou, judge Shipman satd, “suppose under the law of England a question of this kind arose—a son born in wedlock, and for some cause was removed from the bosom of the family at a very early date, con- tinued apart from the family, and, being dead, left Jawful issue, and the question of that rightful issue to the inheritance of the father came up, would the declarations of the mother, she being dead, bid she had such @ child, be recelved in evi- dence?’ Mr. O’Conor—I do not think, Your Honor, that there would be any dificuity at all ag to the admis- sibility of such declarations, The learned counse! then went on with his argu- ment on the point at igsue, and, having made a ney able address, closed his observations at about past two o'clock. ‘The Court then adjourned until Monday next, when it is expected Judge Shipman will render his decision upon the point in controversy, MORE OF MATRIMONIAL INFELI- CITIES, The Lichtensteins im Court—The Story Over Again—A Judictal Appeal—Opin- fon Reserved. David Lichtenstein in March, 1871, married Phebe Hart, According to her story they did not live very harmoniously, he, as she says, being not only insanely jealous of her, but calling her most opprobrious names and in various ways ill-using her. For these reasons she left him about a year after thetr marriage and subsequently brought suit for a limited divorce. At @ Y nernieetd hear- ing some time ago before Judge Leonard, of the Supreme Court, he was ordered to pay @ week alimony and $75 counsel fee. order, it appears, was not compiled with, and the result was the arrest of Lichtenstein for contempt of Court and his lodgment in Ludlow Btrect Jail, where he is still confined. A mo- tion to vacate this order of arrest wae yester- day argued at considerable length. Mr. Kidney Stewart, on behalf of Mr. Lichtenstein, urged that the nature of the business oi his client (that of perfumery agent) cut off his income while in prie- on, and that the onty possible way to secure com- pl with the order was to restore him his liberty. Mr. William F. Howe, who appeared for Mrs. Lichtenstein, based his reply entirely upon the legal points invulved in the case. He claimed that the orJer wag perfectly regular and that it could not be set astde upon the grounds ctaime: but only upon the ground of irregularity. He cite various authorities, and at the close of the a beh Judge Barrett took the papers, reserving his lecision. THE CASE OF DUICH HEINRICHS. The Trial Moved On—Counsel Succeeds in Getting a Postponement Till the January Term—The Law’s Delay. At the opening of the Court of Gencral Sessions, Recorder Hackett presiding, Mr. Wiiliam F, Howe moved for an adjournment of the trial of Henry Newman upon the ground of the absence of material witnesses. It will be remembered that Newman, alias Dutch Heinrichs, was tried in this Court during the Summer and convicted, but Mr. Howe took @ number of exceptions, and with characteristic zeal carried the case to the Supreme Court, General Term, and succeeded in procuring a new trial. Mr. Howe, in support of his motion for a postponement, said that the two absent witnesses were James H. Siming- ton and James M. Tilley, both detective officers of this city. The defendant is accused of stealing some bonds, on the 15th day of January, in an office on Pine street, between the hours of eleven and twelve o’clock. It could not be contradicted that at that time the defendant wae in the actual cus- tody of Simington, who was detained upon suspi- cion of larceny, and Detective Tilley saw him in Simington’s cugtody, Detective Tully would also testify to that fact. <A great deal had been said as to the antecedents of New- man, and he (Mr. Howe) was aware that the motive power by which the prosecution came into Court was the Board of Brokers in Wall street; but he had yet to learn that in this or any other Court they have any more rights ti the meanest boot- black who should black the boots of the prose- cutors, Alter a thorough investigation of the facts he (Mr. Howe) believed Newman to be innocent of the charge, aud that there might be no mistake in this case he (the counsel) personally served the witnesses already bamed, who were now absent upon official duty. Newman is ready and anxious for trial and he would try the case any day next term that His Honor might designate. All that society, law or justice asked was @ fair trial for this man. If the prosecution gee him guilty let Newman go to the tate Prison; but if he be innocent, though it were Rulotf himself resuscitated from the 6 he (the counsel) apprehended that Hiv Honor wouid decide that Newman shall only be convicted upon legitimate testimony alter he has had an opportunity to interpose his defence. Assistant District Attorney Stewart asked that the couns¢| be required to file an aflidavit embody- es oy statement, ir, Howe had the necessary affidavit ready, which was filed, and thereupon the Recorder goaerve the case to.be adjourned till the January erm. The Gist Concert Lottery CasemDemurrer to the Indictment, Apsistant District Attorney Sullivan called the attention of the Court to an indictment against George Woods and Morris Harris, charged with violating the laws against lotteries, and sald the defendants were on bail, not having pleaded. A demurrer was set down to be argued that da; Mr. Sullivan claimed that the indictment was per- fectly in accordance with section thirty-four of the second revised statutes. Mr. Howe sald that his associate would submit written points. He simply contented himself with saying that the aetendants was charged with getting up a concert, to be given at the Academy of Music, the price tor admission being $1. Having paid that, there was an end of the contract. The defendant, as an inducement to people to purchase tickets, presented some gift— such Aa & pair of sleeve buttors, a watch or some other article, His Honor took the papers and re- served bis decision, BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT. Important Patent Suit. Before Judge Blatchford. A decision in the matter of the Union Paper Bag Machine Company vs, G, L. Newell and George H. Mallory was given yosterday, The Judgé hoe granted @ perpetual injanction decrecing that the patent of B, I, ice is sound and vad, George Tarding, cmaue fer tie: pinta A. J. Toad, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. Bankruptey Calendar for This Day. Before Judge Blatchford. Stephen R. Saxton vs, Harles W. Wetherall and James M. Wetherall. Samuel I. Cochran John M, Courtney, William E, Tredwell vs. Donald Cameron and Au- drew J. Scott. Adolph Deyer vs. Isa: William G, Webb et a: Fourth National Bank of vs, Joseph Hayes. John 3. Loomis vs. James and Michael Groody. Robert Hill vs, Charles H. Horton, Robert McDonnell vs. William G. Leask and Leon- ard W, Sautelie, Henry Holthusen vs. The Deer Park Blue Stone Company. J mn OC, Worth ve. Lawrence and James Daly, George A. Palmer ve. Mitclell Ryder. Horace K. Thurber vs, I, R. A. Power. Michael Lisnan vs, John H. Behrens and Abraham . Strelitz. . Joseph Page. the City of New York Boehm, Saree W. Zenar vs, the Rhinebeck Printing and Publishing Semen aoe Marcus Fleischeimer vs. Joseph R. Reed. Edward L. Morris vs. Albert R. Bass. Lewte F. Wiliams vs. John E. Middieton and John 8. Roke. Argument Calendar. Samuel Barnell, Jr., vs. the Montauk Iron and Steel Company. James Henderson vs, Cosmore G. Bruce, é SUPREME COURT—TRIAL TERM—PART |. Suit for Right of Dower Under culties, Before Judge Van Brunt. Heinrich Hutton died some six months ago with- out a will, and leaving an estate valued at about thirty thousand dollars, He left several children, and, as claimed by the latter, was a widower at the time of his death, and had been so for severnl years, This etatement, however, is denied bya woman claiming to have been married to him some two years prevlously, and in pursuance of such alleged marriage calling herself Mariana Hutton. Mrs. Hutton, as she calls herself, finding that the children would not recognize her claim to being the second wife and give her any share of the estate, brought suit for her right of dower. e case wae tried some months ago before Judge Van Brunt, of the Supreme Court, and resulted ‘4 a disagreement of the jury, This result was not satisfactory to the prosecutor, and a new trial was ordered. The second trial was before the same Judge, and was concluded yearetcey. As the facts were iully pub- lished in the HgxaLp at the previous trial it is unnecessary to reiterate in extenso the details, Her story was that she lived with Mr, Hutton asa domestic; that they lived together as man and wife, he saying that no form of marriage was necessary to constitute the union a@ legal marriage; that a child was the product of this union, and that in the Bureau of Stattati Heinrich Hutton was put down as the fathe and herself, under the name of Maria Hutton, as the mother of the child, The defence was that she was merely a servant of M Hutton; that he treated her as a servant and pa! her asaservant, and that there was never any allegation or suspicion on the part of the children of their marriage. This second trial occupied sev- eral days and terminated in a verdict for the de- fendants, Dim- SUPREME. COURT—CHAMBERS. Decisions. By Judge Leonard, Truesdale vs. Redfield & Rice Manufacturing Company.—Motion denied ; $10 costs. ko, Sb The United States Submarine and Tor- pedo Boat Company.—Allowance of $100 granted to defendant. In the Matter of the Petition of Richard Wright, &c.—Petition granted, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions. By Judge Larremore. Stevenson va. Millbank.—Order for substituted service granted. Bohner vs. Bohner,—AfMidavit of service is de- fective. See rule. Wolff va. Muller.—Receiver appointed, Kettler vs. Moe pide oe er) granted, Donnell va. Birdseye.—Order denying motion to Ket aside default, &c., confirmed, Buttomore vs. Scholle.—Application granted, Williams vs. Wittroch.—Same. In the matter of W. T. McMahon et al. va. William M. Proud, Jr., Receiver, Judge Daly has held ina untae case, Must pay, and this must control my sialon. Simon va, Boas.—Piaintiff ordered to appear on the 23d of December before referee. By ore Robinson, Cassidy vs. Rivaldo (in equity.) —Findings filed, MARINE COURT—SPECIAL TERM AND CHAMBERS, Decisions. By Judge Grose. Philip Brady vs. H, Hyman.—Motion denied with- out costs, Charles E. Heuberer and Another vs. Charles Bough.—Motion granted on conditions, See memorandum, Levy F. Conn and Another vs. Marcus Simon.— The judgment and execution must be set aside, with costs, aa being trreguiar. Andrew J. Bates and Another ve. Adolph Weis.— Motion to discharge defendant from arrest granted COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, Convicted of Bigamy—Sentence. Before Recorder Hackett, Jasper Van Riper was triea upon a charge of bigamy. Sarah &. Van Riper swore that on the 8th of March, 1859, she was Married in Rutland town- ship, Pa., to the prisoner, her maiden name being Btarkes, and lived with him up to last July, at which time she left her home in Paterson to visit her father and was absent three weeks. Upon her return she found that he had left Patersom and sold all the furniture, Rev. John W. Selleck, pastor of the Twenty-fourth street Methodist Episcopal church, testified that On the 31st of July, 1871, he married the prisoner, who gave his name as John V. Reynolds, to a female named Elizabeth Anderson. The jury rendered a verdict of gniity, and the Recorder sentenced him to the State Prison for three years and #ix months, Larceny of a Watch. Thomas Brown, jointly indieted with Thomas Donohue for stealing asilver watch from Frederick Windhom, on the 26th of October, with force and violence pleaded gulity to petit larceny from the person. Brown was sent to the State Prison for live years. A Trio of Burglars Sent to the State Prison. ‘Thomas McCormack, alias Thomas Ward, Thomas Jefferson, alias James Robinson, and Henry Otten- burg, alias Harry Merville, were tried and con- victed of burglary inthe third degree. The evi- dence for the people established the fact that On the night of the 8th of November the window of Bernard Lavin’s store, 572 Third avenue, was broken and three muffs and an umbrella were stolen. Two officers on the corner of Thirty-eighth street heard a noise, ran up there and found the risoners running from the place and arrested hom on the spot. The poltcemen subsequently returned to the place and found tue stolen prop- erty in @ wagon, It appeared from the testimony of the com nt that he and his family occupied rooms off the store, and if that statement had been made to the Grand jury an indictment for burglary in the first degree could have been found, The jury rendered a verdict of guilty, and the Recorder sentenced each of them for the full term—five years in the State Prison at hard ‘labor, An Acquittal. Margaret Fley was charged with stealing a bag of coffee on the 5th of this month, the property of Wm. Lynch, The testimony demonstrated that the coffee was stolen by ® boy named Downing, and consequently the jury promptly rendered a verdict of not guilty, A Dishonest Porter Sent to Si: Sing. Daniel Gorman, @ handcart porter, was tricd upon an indictment alleging that on the 6th of November tole a box of gimps and fringes, valued at $350, the property of Henry M. Saxe. He was instructed to deliver the box at one of the Albany boats, but failed to do #0, The prison- ers version of the affuir was that when going down Canal rect 80) boys threw missiles at him, id he jased them for @ block or two, and when he returned he found that his handcart and its contents had disap- peared, The jury did not credit his story, and, upon their rendition of a verdict of guilty, His Honor sentenced him to the State Prison for three years and six months, Grand Larcenics. Gaston de Gaye was tried for an attempt at grand larceny, the complainant, William Wright, swearing that by a forged paper he obtained ad- mission to his room in his boarding house in West Seventeenth street, where he had a trunk, contain- ing money and clothes, The jury pronounced him geity of ao attempt at grand larceny, and the Court sentenced him to the State Prison for two years and six months. David Rice was charged with Stealing the panta. lo0ne of his employer, Jamncs Gibson, on the Sth of November, which contained $341, when he went into his room to wake him up. A month alter tho Jareeny the prisoner informed the complainant where he could Gnd the pantaloons. They were found aud $245 Of the money Was Fecovered, Rig was convicted and sent to the State Prison for eet rt Fritze pleaded guilty to grand tarceny in Decem| ry watch the at x stealing, on the sth and chain, Vpinet at $90, ir years in the State was the sentence pronounced upon Fritae. viiam Smith aiso pleaded guilty to a similar 0 my the charge against him being that on the 20th of November he stole @ watch worth $60, owned by Culien P. Grandin. He was gent to the State gon for three years and six mouths, Sentences, James Whalen, who pleaded guilty early in the term to an attempt at grand larceny, wae sent to the Penitentiary for one year, Thomas Geogahan, who pleaded gulity to an attempt at burglary, Was sent to the State Prison for two years and six months. Peter he was tried for grand larceny (second offence) and convicted of petty larceny, the jury expressing their belief that be was the person previously convicted in 1869, Mr. Howe contended that the Court had no power to send Wiley for a longer period than eix months to the Penitentiary, the verdict only being legally that of petty larceny, His Honor overruled the motion for a new t and sentenced Wiley to the State Prison for five years, John Donovan pleaded guilty to stealing a pair of pantaloons on the 8th inst., contatoing 16, from the apartments of Henry Horstmann, He was remanded for sentence, John Murray, jointly indicted for the same offence, Was tried, the other defendant swearing that Mur- ray had nothing to do with the theft, The Jury, failing to agree, were discht from Murray the further consideration of the case Was allowed to go on his own recognizance. ‘The Court remained in seasion till a late hour in the afternoon in order to dispoge of the calendar. COURTESIES FROM A JURY TO JUDGE. A rather pleasant break in the routine of Court proceedings occurred yesterday in Part 1 of the Marine Court, at the close of the jury term for 1872. As the jurors were about to be discharged, with the usual ‘thanks of the Court,” the foreman o¢ ie last jury empanelied arose and read the follow- 1B — 5 To the Hon. Gronax Sura, Chicf Justice Marine Court: Dxar Sir—This being the last day of our tern: as jurors, we cannot sever our connection with this horiorable Court without expressing our thanks for the gentlemanly and courteous manner in which you, as judge, have treated us, as well as for the obliging conduct of the officers and attaches of your Court Theretore we, as citizens, take this medium of thanking you, with heart. felt wishes for {ont future weltare, wishing you and yours a merry Christmas, and very many happy returns of the new year. Here followed the jurors’ names. A request was also made that it might be entered on the records of the Court, Judge Shea, in reply, said :— It is exceedingly gratifying to me, gentlemen, to recelve this smewhat unusual instancs of appreeiution on the part of jurors, but’ for that reason none tho less spprecinted "by me, and in resiing my. thanks I am only responding to a very natural feeling. We are invited here in a common effort to administer jus- tice intelligently, and certainly honestly. I thank you Most heartily for this expression of your wisher to me ag aman, and fT ask that it shall not become an oficial act, either on your part or mino, I think I will best p serve the propricties of our respective positions, The jury were then discharged, and, bowing to the Bench, left the court room, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. + Importation of Spirits from a Bonded Warehouse—Foreclosure of a Mortgage on Ebony Chattel—Vatside Spirtt Ar- rangements. Wasnineron, D. 0., Dee. 20, 1872, No. 78, United States vs. Bennett et al.; error to the Circuit Court for the Southern district of Ohio; also, No. 79, Same vs. Same; No. 80, Same vs. Crane et al, and No $1, Same ve. Crane et al—Iin the first of these cases, which presents all the questions raised by the othera, the defendants were sureties on certain ware- house transportation bonds, conditioned for the transportation of spirits from a bonded warehouse in Greenville, Ohic, to a bonded warehouse in Boston, and deliver them to tne Collector of the district within thirty days, There being failure to perform the duty the delendants were assessed, as @ penalty, the full value of the taxes on ‘the liquors, which they paid. The government now seeks to collect a penaity of a per cent on that amount, imposed by the law as existing at .the date of the bond. The de fence was that the statute under which the bond was required and the penalty imposed ‘was repealed. On this plea jadgment was for the defendants, and the government malotains here that the repeal does not operate to prevent it from maintaining a suit for a breach of the condi- tion of a bond given before the repeal was enacted. The bond being, voluntary and notin iteelf illegal, the action for its breach may still be maintained. J. D. Cox and H, 8. Barnett for plaintiff in error; C. H. Hill and G. H. Williams for government, No. 75. Tawer va. Keach et al.—i preme Court of Texas.—In this case the defendants here gave their note, in March, 1862, for $10,000, to be paid in the common currency of the country circulating at its maturity, for @ piece of tand and anuamber of slaves, This sult was upon that note, and to foreclose the mortgage. The defence was that the “common currency’ referred to in the note was Confederate money, and that it was, therefore, vold, and that it was also void as a portion of the consideration being for siaves. The District Court of the State enforced the con- tract and rendered judgment of foreciosure, hold- ing that the note should be paid in the currency of the country at the present time, ‘Ihe Supreme Court of the State reversed that judgment, holding that the contract upon the note is void, under the laws of Texas now in force. The writ of error decks to have the role of this Court enforced, bnt finds it diMcult to estab- lish jurisdiction in the Court to review the sion below. Tt is maintained howe hat the provisions of the federal consti- ver, tution, gcse & State from making any law which shall impair the obligation of contracts and forbidding the taking of property without due pro- cess of law, give jurisdiction; and it is submitted that the injustice of allowing the purchaser to keep the pigperes purchased, at the same time set- ting up the illegality of bis own part of the point to correct it. W. Paschal for plaintiff in error; defendants not appearing. No, 77. Garubart et al vs. United States—Appeal 4 from the Circuit Court for the Middle District of Alabama.—This was on information see ing the forfeiture of a q eing ba Rt distilled spirits for found outside oO: y distiHery or warehouse before payment of tax nd for bel ng Temoved without permit or bond and for not being stamped ac- cording to law. The Court below condemned the property, the the decree being as for a default; and iti here in- sisted that this was error, inasmuch as the claim- ants filed an answer, which was stricken out on motion of the District Attorney, and they were de- nied leave to amend and rejused further time to lead. Pithe government maintains that as it does not appear from the record for what cause the answer was stricken out, it should be considered by this Court as having been becanse it was too late, or for some other good cause within the discretion of the Court, and therefore not properly reviewable here. J. N. Noble and N. P. Chipman for appellants; C,H, Hill and G, Hf. Williams for government, COURT OF APPEALS CALENDAR, ALBANY, Dee, 20, 1872, The following 1s the Court of Appeals day caien- dar for December 28:—Nos, 94, 360, 891, 514, 198, APTER THE SNOW. ‘The city yesterday was in that pleasant condi- tion for all wayfarers whicn is usually to be en- joyed after one of those “beautiful” snow storms that set the blood up to our heads in merriness and set us all mad about sleighs and the jolliness Of snowy recollections, Poetic fancy ss very good in ite way, and the beautifal snow is in the ab- stract a beautiful thing. But slush is slush, The condition of the city after a snow storm, it 1s un- necessary to say, is one of slu and the happy horn of the dilemma stares out that if it were not one of slush it would have been one of ice, on which locomotion would be extremely precarious, It 1s, therefore, perhaps a matter of congratula- tion that there was no frost yesterday morning or we should have had during the ef @ series of bone fractures caused by falis on the sidewalks. There was, however, the usual growling and misanthropic opinion current upon the state of the weather, and temporary indignation found no diminution in its acerbity oy the feeling of Pte dadaes which the evi. dence of the eyes suggested from the rufferings of one’s neighbor. The day in the streets was one of those peculiarly New York days alter @ snow storm that is familiar from long experience; that hurts nobody seriously, though the cause of serious an- noyances and inconveniences, THE ASIATIO COOLIE TRADE. A Liberated Cargo Perambalating Japan. {From the Yokohama Herald, Oct. 15.) Judgment has been given by the Japanese Court Mm the action brought by Captain Hereira, of the Marla Luz, against the “coolie emigrants.” It finds for the defendants, who are, therefore, ab- solved from any contract they may have entered into, compulsorily of voluntarily, and are allowed to return to China, i Captain Hereira has started for Macao to procure another load of passengers, ‘The coolies released from the ship are seen per- ambulating the street lo @ very mixerable condi tlon, i con. | tract, is #0 Monstrous that the Court will strain a | i THE BROOKLYN POISONING CASE, DR. IRISH UPON THE STAND. The Story of Anderson’s Illness—The Trip to Newark and the Doctor's Little Bill—Ander- son’s Application for Arsenio to Poison Cats—Rebutting Testimony — Hated Her Husband and Loved the Doc- tor—Niee Times Riding in the Park—If It Was Ed. I'd Dance Over His Grave It seemed yesterday as if the interest in the trial had begun to abate, os the usual large crowd was notin attendance at the opening of the Court. ‘The Doctor appeared very confident and conversed cheerfully with his wife and friends, The Court opened promptly at tem o'clock and the proceed, ings were resumed, The first witness called yesterday was David G. Higgins, a clerk in Irish's Fulton avenue drog store, who said that on the day of Anderson's death, April 9, the Doetor was in the store and got some sedative powders, Judge Pratt ruled out an offer of the defence to show what the Doctor said about Anderson’s con- dition. Q. Did the Doctor at that time make any state- ment as tohis treatment of Mr. Anderson and luis symptoms? A. In the morning of that day he saiat HB HAD A SICK PATIENT who vomited, and he got a neutralizing mixture to allay the irritation of the stomach, William Lewis was in the Fulton avenue store when the powders were put up and given w the Doctor, ANOTHER POISONING OASR. A. K. Eaton, Professeor of Chemistry in the Packer Institute, said he made an analysis of the contents of the stomach of Mrs. Van Sickle and found poison there; he examined the tissues, &c., together. [The husband of Mrs. Van Sickle is now in jail awaiting trial on the charge of having: poisoned her.—Rep.} District Attorney Britton did not cross-examine the witness, The prisoner, Dr. Irish, was then called to testify in his own behalf. He was examined by Mr. Tracy, and said that he was thirty-seven years old; had been married nineteen years and always lived with his family up to the time of his arrest; he first met Anderson in the Winter of 1869 and Mrs. Anderson in May, 1969, at Van Gilder's printing office, 74 Fulton street, where he was getting some printing done; he was interested in five drag stores in New York and Brooklyn at the time and wag one of the proprietors of Ottawa beer; he had fre- quent occasion to go to Van (ilder’s, and WAS INTRODUCED TO MRS, ANDERSON f there by Mr. Van Gilder; Mrs. Anderson and Mra.” Van Gilder were in the front room, and witness was introduced to both; he did not know then that Mrs, Anderson was the wife of Edward 0. Ander- son, with whom he hada speaking acquaintance, but at the races in June he met them both; in July he attended Mrs. Anderson, who was suffering’ from pneumonia, and up to that time he had no further acquaintance with her than he described; in September witness and Anderson went bine- fishing, and when returning they were tobe met at Canarsie by their respective wives; a generat introduction subsequently took place, and fron tuat time on BOTH FAMILIES WERR VERY INTIMATE, and visited each other. Witness’ attention wae called to the testimony of the Coburn family, rela~ tyve to an improper meeting of the Doctor and Mrs, Anderson in the hallway at 74 Fulton street, and pronounced that story “false in conception and utterance.” He denied that Anderson ever ac- cused him of BEING TOO INTIMATE WITH HIS WIFE, during the entire length of their acquaintanee. Witness spoke of the visits of his wife and bimsecif to Greentawn, at the house of Anderson’s relatives, and said that the deceased generally accompanied him from the city. Iu June, 1871, Mra. An- derson was sick, and the Doctor attended her professionally, She recovered in July suf ficiently to be enabled to go in the country, and the," Doctor continued to attend her; her difficulty wae about the heart, spasms and hysteria, and she was, not a well woman even at this day; Mrs. Irish went: to Mrs, Anderson’s house and cleaned it up before the latter’s return from the country; the two women dressed alike and were a great deal together; dur- ing this time Mr. Anderson became intemperate by” his associations, but when Mr. Anderson was Mr. Anderson no better man ever lived; he was suffer- ing from dyspepsia, and the Doctortold him thas, unless he stopped drinking he could do Bim no good; he promised to stop, but the Doctor would find bite tight again and reprimand him; on sev- eral occasions Anderson APPLIED TO HIM FOR ARSENIC to kill cats about his house, and one Rae when Mrs, Anderson was at his house she asked him for’ the arsenic promised her husband; the doctor and’ Mrs. Anderson went to the store, and he gave her, some arsenic and saw her a part of the way home; he did not recollect of the transaction in Paris ee and arsenic mentioned by the drug clerk ‘ackson, and could not say whether it occurred or not. . (The incident in question, as related by Jackson, was that she doctor ordered him to put up adollar’s worth of Paris green and @ dollar's worth of arsenic.) In relation to the meet- ing Anderson and himself in Myrtle avenue the Doctor said that om that occasion they had no quarrel whatever. Anderson apologized for not being able to pay the Doctor's bli, aud complained that he had a set of suckers round him who took every cent he could et. The Doctor lectured him about his habits, and je thereupon promised to reiorm. In relation to Anderson's visit to the drug store the night before his death, the Doctor said that the deceased, vomited, and when asked what the matter was,, said that it was his d—d stomach again. “ ness gave him some bicarbonate of soda, whicty was immediately thrown up. He agreed sub. stantially with Jackson’s statement of what oc~ curred there alter that, with one slight exception in regard to the chiorviorm. He diaguosed the case a8 ab aggravation of THE OLD DIFFICULTY, which he knew Anderson suifered from, and he treated him throughout on that theory. ‘The Docs tor described his visit to Anderson on the day of his death and alter death, at which latter time he, learned that brandy had been given to the patient. This, he considered, was a, adding fuel to the fire, He denied emphatically that he had ever, ps Anderson any poison, or knew that M ack peen administered to him; in fi he fever, dreamed of such a thing. He explained the vi to Newark with Mrs. Anderson as being made for the purpose of obtaining a beer fountain which the deceased had owned. He sald he registered nia name as “5. P, Williams” and lady, because if he had registered his own name and that of Mra. Ap- derson, people might improperly criticize his course and ask What he was doing there with her, He NEVER HAD ANY IMPROPER RELATIONS WITH THE WOMAN in any shape or manner; his relations with her were those of physician aud patient; she owed bia. $200 for medical attendance after the death of her husband; the Doctor denied that he had told Maguire, the keeper of the Morgue, that “what he and that Woman had done was necessary to save his lite,’ or anything of the kind; what he told Anderson’s brother was, that Edward's death wus. caused by intemperance and individual fodulgence 5 he never sald that the deceased vomited up por- tions of the coats of the stomach. . District Attorney Britton cross-examined at length, and the doctor said (hat the first he knew t Anderson had been poisoned was at the time y, of the Healtty ct him that he would found in the stom: y the disinterment was a piece of folly, a8 his convic- tions were so strong as to the cause of death; thas was his feeling, however, at the time. As to the visit to Newark, he said that he registered 3, P, Williams and lady” to Minin Mrs. Anderson’s and his own reputation. The remainder of the crogs- examination revealed nothing important. Mr. Charles F, Draper testified as follows :—I live at Newark, N. J.; in March last my ofice was at 673 Broad street; [recollect that in the latter part of March last a man came into my office inquiring for Dr. Perrine; L went with him to the drug store of 0. P. Kenzie. [Photograph of Anderson shown the Wituess.} That ts the man who went with me. Alter [had obtained what | wanted, Mr, Anderson called my attention to the fact that he wanted some arsente to kill cats with; [ motioned to the clerk to do up four drachms for him; tt was put ap for him, and he took it away with him; we left the drug store together and went to a saloon, where he had a drink and I had @ cigar; we went into the back part of the saloon; he emptied the contents of the paper into an einpty vial that he took owt oF = pocket; that colored gentlemen came into the saloon, » Cross-examined by Mr, Britton—I now. coor am drug store; I went to Newark from New York; Rept a drug store at 737 Third avenue; 1 resided ay that same place; F lived in Ogden Block in Newark, I now reside at 20 Lafayette street; I had seen thi man before in New York; I recoguized him in