The New York Herald Newspaper, December 24, 1872, Page 8

a 8 THE COURTS. THE STOKES-FISK MURDER. Fifth Day’s Proceedings—Opening Address to the Jury by Coun- sel for the Prosecution. Se THE BROADWAY WIDEN The Report of the Commis- sioners Confirmed. THE JUMEL ESTATE LITIGATION. The Alleged Deelarations of Madame Jumel and All the Testimony Thereon De- cided To Be Inadmissible. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION A Charge of Theft and a Prompt Ac- quittal of the Accused. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. os The Suit of George Christy's Widow—The Suydam Will Case—Notes of Issue for the January Term—Business in the Gene- ral Seesions—The Late Judge Slosson. The hearing of tho case of George Washington Bowen vs, Nelson Chase was resumed yesterday in the United States Circuit Court vofore Judge Ship- man and the special jury. Judge Shipman pro- nounced his decision on the question as to whether the alleged declarations of Madame Jumel, that she had had an illegitimate son, should be received in evidence. The Judge, in his ruling, excludes this olass of evidence. The further hearing of the cage will be taken up on Thursday. Yesterday the case of Pierre Bertin,-who had been charged with murder and attempted murder at Rouen, Normandy, was commenced before Com- migsioner White. The French government with- drew from the case, and the prisoner, who claims that Bertin is not his proper name, was immedl- ately discharged. The facts of this case have been already published in the Hrna.p. Some time ago the United States recovered against HAlienthal & Co. the sum of $104,000 for alleged fic- titious sales of tobacco, &c. An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court on the ground of certain tech- nical objections to the charge of Judge Blatchford to the jury who tried this case. Yesterday Judge Woodruff rendered a decision sustaining the judg- ment of the Court below. H. Batling, of 481 Greenwich avenue, was yestor- ay held by Commissioner Shields in $500 bail for examination on a charge of not paying the special tax on manufactured tobacco and for selling cigars Without license. “The Supreme Court, General Term, Judges Ingra- ham, Brady and Larned on the bench, gave a de- cision yesterday in the Broadway widening case. They affirm the order of the Special Term, appealed from, which order confirms the report of the Com- missioners. An abétract of the opinion will be found elsewhere, showing that none of the objec- tions taken to the report are held to be tenable. It is said that the case will be further appealed, and that the appellants propose to fight it out on this line if they have to take the case to the United States Supreme Court, Suits (or alleged malicious arrest and prosecu- tion are frequently brought in the courts, but it is rarely the parties bringing the suits get verdicts in their favor. An exceptional case was tried yes- terday before Judge J. F. Daly, in the Court of Common Picas, the prosecutor obtaining a verdict for $6,000 damages. The case presents some rather singular features, as will be seen by the report elsewhere, and viewed in the light of the facts stated the verdict would hardly scer an uureason- able one. Upon the death of ex-Judge Slosson, formerly a Judge of the Supertor Court, being announce. yes- terday at tbe Superior Court Special Term—the only branch of the Court tn sczsion—a motion was made to adjourn the Court, which Judge Monell, Who occupicd the bench, promptly granted, Sev- | eral speeches highly eulogistic of the lato Judge's character were pronounced by various members of the Bar and by Judge Monell. Another important will case was begun-yester- day in Surrogate Hutchings’ Court, the will cf the | late James Suydam, long a resident in this city, being contested. The property in dispute is valued at $600,000, The will is contested by the Widow an: children o1 James Po!homus, who was a Rephew of the testator. The butk of the property “was bequeathed to various charitable institutions dn this city, the principal oficers of which will de- fena the will. THE STOKES TRIAL, + Fifth Day. Yesterday was the fifth day of the second tria! of Edward ‘3, Stokes for the murder of Colonel James Fisk, Jr., at the Grand Central Hotel on the 6th and 7th of January last. It opened on Wednes- day—four days being consumed in securing a jury. It being known that the case would be fairly en- tered upon to-day, a much larger crowd of the curious, inside and outside of the court room Of Oyer and Terminer, appeared than during any of the dajs of the preliminary proceedings. At half- past ten o'clock the room was crowded, ana among those present and the greater assemblage outside there was some of the old interest manifested to get a sight of the prisoner. The latter was escorted to his seat ciose to counsel by the Sheriff and his deputies, and it was remarked that during Judge Fu'lerton’s opening address and the examination of the witnesses, ‘Thomas Hart more particularly, he paid much Closer attention to all the details of the trial than he had done on the first trial. Near him were seated his father and mother, his sister and brother and some otner relatives. Judge, counsel, jury and witnesses were all promptly on hand, and it ‘was evident that business was meant, The same model of the Grand Central Hotel stairs and haill- Way, the scene of the fatal shooting, with the rooms On the landing just above where the shot was fired, was carried in @ sort of semi-solemn manner through the court room by the officials and placed on the steps leading to the bench. The same gen- eral plan or diagram of the hotel was nailed against the wall at the back of the witness stand and in full view of counsel on both sides, There was no delay in getting to work, and in a few minutes, after Orde: and silence were obtained, the OPENING ADDRESS OF COUNSEL for the prosecution was commenced by Ex-Jadge Fullerton addressing the jury, first ap- pealing to them to look at the whole case as it yrould be submitted to them through the lips of the witnesses, with the utmost care and circum. spection—only regarding the consequences which might foliow from their verdict as an additional motive therefor. It was not too much to say at the very outset that a man Who deliberately takes the life of a fellow creature has foricited his own to the Jaws framed for the protection of life. SELECTION OF JURORS. He denied the assertion made on Saturday by ‘counse for the prisoner that no man wouid suit tke prosecution who had not an opinion on the ease. The only thought of the prosecution was to NEW YORK HERALD. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1872.-WITH SUPPLEMENT. select men thoroughly impartial and otherwise qualified, and God forbid that counse) would say or do anything which might tend to any other result than the securing of a fair trial ior the accused. But when a juror on cross-examination stated that James Fisk, he bad read all about the homicide of Jr., and that the circumstances made no and that he had no sion upon his wit bare ay oF and about it, counsel did not question his in! honesty, but his intellectual capacity, reason solely ne was set aside, A WOMAN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE MISCHIEF, ° Counsel then briefly stated the cage forthe prose- cution, as far ag the shooting of the deceased was concerned, stating how the prisoner, esting Fisk, fired two shots into him, 4 killed him, and such an act re that is the calls marder, Next the motives of the assassination were explained. Stokes had ia his letters of Fisk to the or, fallen, ied woman, Helen Josephine all the mischief, lish them, but Fisk got an injangsien, end he was thwarted. ‘HE PRISONER THWARTED AT EVERY STEP. Noxt Mai took out a warrant it Fisk for libel, but the Grand Jury threw out the bill, and after a lengthy litigation ¥isk commeneed proceed- ings it and Mansfeld for conspiracy to levy biackmall, All through the prisoner found himeelf thwarted at every step and defeated by Fisk, and, in this state of mind, on the day of the homicide, he learned at Deimonico's that the Grand Jury had indicted him for attempting to blackmail. THE HOMICIDE ALLEGED TO BE FROM REVENGE. The actions of Stokes subsequently—his follow- ing Fisk's car (a8 Bileged) ; the encounter in the hall; the wi “Now I have you;’ the shoot- ing and the cool demeanor of the accused as he turned on his heel and walked off, saying, ““ihere is @ man shot,’ were sketched in a rapid and highly dramatic style by Mr. Fullerton, who in- sisted that, baMed in his aitempt to get Fisk held by Judge Bixby—bamMed in every way—the prisener had thus deliberately taken his revenge. During this portion of the speech the prisoner smiled, as if amused at the idea of attributing to him a deliberate gnurder from revenge. ‘THE PRISONER SiLENT. When the hall boy said ‘You are the man that shot him," why was the prisoner silent? If he, as {t will be pretended, shot Fisk in self-defence, if he was innocent of the crime before the law, why did he keep his lips closed? Surely, if ever there was a time when @ man should speak out, lt was then. INSANITY. With regard to the defence of insanity or aber- ration of mind, which might be set up, counse did not regard teas worthy of consideration for a single moment. PERILOUS ‘TIMES—A REIGN OF TERROR. In conclusion, Mr. Fulicrton said :—Gentlemen, We live in perilous thines, and lt behooves every. ‘good citizen to perform his whole duty faithfully. bearcely a week passes without the commission of some terrible crime. This great city of ours, of which we are so justly proud, with all its wealth and all its intelligence, and I may add, too, with all its virtue, is beceming the byword and reproach of the whole civilized world. Bad men congregate here from all parts of the world to lead a lue of crime, and the question 1s, whether criminals shall be arrested ;4whethor they shall be pununes and whether a step shall be put to this blcodshe:\? This city with aji its wealth, all its magnificence, yes, and all its ‘tue Was obtaining, a terrible Teputation, BadMon flocked here believing that ing is played out.” They must be checked and, admonished bya clear, terrible example, or the bloody scenes which were witnessed in a sister city years ago would be repeated. Let them do their duty, and the bloody scenes of our streets would cease, men would take courage and order be maintained. But it was on the jury box this depended, All else was useless without them. After Mr. Fullerton bad concluded the examina- tion of the witness was at once proceeded with. TESTIMONY OF CHARLES G. HILL. Charles G. Hill gworn—I reside in West Troy; am alumber dealer; was in this city on the 6th of January, 1872; I stopped at the Grand Central Hotel; I saw and heard of some of the occurrences relating to the shooting of James Fisk, Jr.; my attention was first directed to the killing by the bag oh of a pistol itness here supiained on the diagram the spot where he was in the hotel when he heard the re- Port of the pistol. ‘ In continuation—After hearing the shot Iran to the elevator; from that position I saw a man standing in front of room 219, a little way from the staircase, for the use of ladics; he made an cx- cited motion with his right hand; I walked half- way along the corridor and met him; , “What's up?” and he replied, “There’s a man shot;” I next heard a groan, and, walking to the head of the staircase, recognized Cotonel Fisk; I next tollowed, with others, aiter the man who it was Said did the shooting; I' met a crowd bringing the man I had seen at room 219 up stairs; 1 reco; nized him and tdentify him as present now and Edward 8, Stokes; at the time the prisoner made the excited motion with his right hand, as de- scribed, 1 did not see any pistol in his hand. ‘CROSS-EXAMINATION by Mr. Tremain—At the time I heard the shotI was waiting for the elevator to proceed to my room, on the third floor of the hotel; I had been standing but @ minute at the clevator when I heard the report;.[ heard two reports in quick succession ; roomr2is is on the west side of the cor- ridor of the second floor, almost directly opposite ‘the ladies’ entrance; when the prisoner was in custody I heard some person exclaim, “That's the man who fred the shots,” meaning Stokes; the gas had just been lit in the hall, and a person could see very plainly; Stokes had on a white overcoat on that day, and, I think, a cane in his hand, TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS CURTIS. Mr. Francis Curtis was next called. He was stopping at the Grand Central Hotel on the 6th of January, 1872, and was there at the time of the shooting; he was just coming out of his room on the third floor as he heard @ shot, then a second, and he lo down to the head of the stair- way at the private entrance; beiore reaching the head of the stairway I heard a sound as of some one in distress; next looked down the stairs and recognized Colonel Fisk; there were two persons - With Fisk, and [ assisted them to carry him up, A LEGAL LITTLE TILT SETTLED BY THE COURT, Here Messrs. Tremain and Beach had a little tilt on the question of the propricty of citing, during the course of the trial, the decisions of Justice In- graham on questions of law raised. Judge Boardman said he would prefer to pass upon any questions that might be raised according to his own conscience and knowledge of the law, though the decisions of Justice Ingraham were undoubtedly valuable and correct; yet, to prevent unnec-ssary contusion, he would make bisown rulings, without regard to the decisions of the dis- tinguished gentieman who had presided at the former trial. THINGS GETTING LIVELY. Mr. Townsend here rose, and, leaning aside so as get a good vicw of Mr. Comer, a clerk at the Erie Railway office, cried out, “If Mr. Comer can find any better piace to sit in than where he is— right behind the witness and looking the jury in the face—I desire he would take it.” Mr. Fullerton—I must say thatis entirely uncalled for. Judge Boardman= What is the objection ? Mr. Townsend (smiling)—Simply, we know that he has been a leading spirit in this matter, and he comes here just to sit behind the witness, this, Every man who behaves himself in Court has a sight to sit down where he pleases. Mr. Townsend—I do not appeal to the Court, but to his own se Of propriety. Judge—There is no occasion for it. District Attorney Fellows—I desire, once for all, that these interruptions be put an end to. These interruptions were constantly made on the last trial, We are to get information of this homicide, not from the friends of Stokes, but from the friends of Fisk, and it is but natural shat they should come here to tell us. Mr. Townsend—I protest against the allusion to what took place on the other trial. Mr. Fellows—I am gratified that the counsel are ashamed of what took place on the other trial. (Laughter.) | Mr. Tremain—They are ashamed of the District Attorney. (Laughter.) Judge Boardman—This must cease. THE SCENE IN FISK’S ROOM, On cross-examination the witness described the identification of Stokes by Fisk as the man who shot kim; Stokes was then in custody of an officer; is not sure what the question put to Fisk was, but distinetly recoliccts the answer—“Yea, that is the man that shot me; take him a not remember whether he swore on last ti that the abawer w Yes, that is the man; witness helped to unbutton Fisk; cannot remember whe- ther he swore at the last trial that the Morse boy was unbuttoning him; witness handed young Morse Fisk's pants; Miss Morse came into the room and Fisk recognized her; she went up to the bedside and spoke to him; tad seen her previously on @ Sound steamer. PATRICK TART. The next witness was Patrick Hart, who was haliman at the hotel. He pointed out on the map the parlor hail runuing norti and south; he was on the main stairs and heard two pistol shots; | hastening along the parlor and at the foot of the stairs, by the door leading to the street from the ladies’ entrance, found Colonel Fisk; he had pre- peasy. passed some iman in the hall; witness helped Fisk up stairs, and there somebody cise joined him, and they took the wounded man to artor 217; Is sure there was nobody else with nim helping Fisk up from the bottom of the stairs. Cross-examivation by Mr. Tremain—I have been detained ever since in the House of Detention. Q. (Reading irom the report of the Coroner's in- vestigation)—Did you swear before the Coroner when asked, ‘Do you know of anything unusual havin, P| dat the Grand Central Hotel last Saturday?’ “No, sir; I heard noises or report, and don’t know anything at ail about It.’ A. No, r. Q. Ate you quite sure you didn’t make that answer? A. 1am, sir. on) Was your testimony read over tosou? A. No, sir. Q. Did you see any attempt to fit a pistol ball to more than one pistol aiter the transaction? A, I did not, sir: I did not aay to Henry De Corley, the parlor man, that the ball found fitted Stokes’ pis- tol, but didn’t fit Fisk's; I did'nt say “I found a ball, Henry; that it wiil fit im the black pistol found on the stairs, but will not fit in Fisk's; I didn't say the ball wouldn't fit in the other pistol; I didn't say “Henrv, we are going to make money out of this thing; Mr. Crockett is clerk of the hotel, and he used to come to the House of Deten- tion before the last trial; I didn’t swear before the Coroner that I heard Fisk hollering for some one to come to him, but heard uo shot; I know au old man pamed Gill why was in the House 4 Thirty-fourth street, the full facts of the case pro Judge Boardman—On, there is no necessity for | of Detention; T never said ~was found won't fit Fisk's Oorley or to him, “The ball which piatol;” I never said to who was in the House of a Talby, who was also detained as a wit! “I will never have todo a stroke of work after this.” Court then took a recess. AFTER REC! The witness, Patrick Hart, to Mr. Tremain, that he alone helped Fisk up stairs, and he does not agree with the other witnesses, who swore that they helped him up; but at the top of the stairs there was a great number of gentie- mou got around; Mr. Fisk was at the lowest step of the private stairs, THOMAS HART, was then sworn. He described the shooting as on the last trial, the witness being at the head of the atairs, and told how Fisk, on re- ceiving the second shot, cried out, 3 “on! OH! DONT! upon Stokes remarking to him that “a man had been shot,’ witness, amonee very much scared, replied, ‘* and you are man that shot him ;" ‘ness ited out on the ma representing that portion of the hall in which the tragedy oc- curred the position of the various actors; he also said that when Stokes wi who had been shot, Soe une the Eo that he did not know—that he stated, in reply another doorman, just come CROSS-RX AMINATION, On cross-examination by Mr. Tremain witness oat that previous to the drst trial he had re- Deal the story of the shooting every day to himself, so that he ht make no mistake in relating it. ‘ince — the Sial hawares, he had not followed that practice. emain naked him to repeat the story once more, which Hart did without any deviation from what he had already stated on his diréct examina- tion; witness was positive that when before the Coroner he swore to Stokes having when arrested stated that he knew nothing about the shooting, ‘and that he heard nim “mumble somethin; reason witness did not catch Stokes was because he was afraid he might shoot him; remember swearing before the Coroner that he made an “offer” to catch bare but couldn't, because Stokes was too quick for him; although afraid of being shot he did make an acters to stop Tn reply to turther questions ‘Thomas Hart swore that he never spoke a word to James Brennan in the House of Detention about the homicide; ike 00 place, but that he wi swearing up and th wi that when he sworo before the Coroner he made every one believe him; Brennan did not “Take care or they will catch you upand send you to State Prizon,” and witness did not reply that ‘‘He did'nt care, as he had some of the biggest People in New York to back him;” does not remember Gill tn the House of Detention telling him “He ought to be ashamed to swear against a man when he knew nothing about it,’ and he aid not ly to Gill that “It was the best chance he ever got in his life and he had some of the biggest people in the city to back him: “did not tell the boy Redmond, in the presence of Gill, that he should swear that he saw him (Hart) golng up the stairs before Fis or words to that effect; did not’ say a wor to any of the other boys the House of Deten- tion, except that he was in the Stokes case THE MORSE FAMILY, Mr. Tremain—Did LY, Mr. Fisk commence his visits B eo Grape: Central when the Morse family came je re Mr. Beach—I object. Judge Boardman—Why ? Mr. Beach—On the ground that it is immaterial when they came. Judge—I think it is material to Ox the time of his beginning to visit. ‘itness (Thomas Hart) —He began to visit there when the Morses camo, What did that family consist of ? bjected to and objection overruled. A. The mother, two daughters and a son. Q. Did you tell Jenny Turner, private servant to the Morses, that Fisk used to give you $10 at the time for letting him in? A. He mever gave me a cen Q. How was Stokes standing when at the head of the stairs? A. His right 1a resting on the bannister as he fired, TESTIMONY OF JOHN F. REDMOND. The next witness was Redmond, another hall boy, who swore he was standing on @ ladder clean- ing the glass door and saw Mr. Stokes go up stairs; then Mr, Fisk came in, and, when about haif way bos Mr. Stokes made his appearance at the head of the stairs and fired two shots at Mr. Fisk; witness kept Mr. Fisk in sight from the moment he entered and never saw him move his arm; his cloak was folded around him; the other boy (Hart) had gone up stairs to clean a sponge. ‘Cross-examined—I swore at the inguee that no one went up stuirs between Stokes and Fisk; about two months afterwards it struck me about Hart goitig up; Stokes had not his right arm on the ban- nister when firing. Counsel far the defence intimated that they were not prepared to continue the cross-examination just then, and the Court adjourned till half-past ten o'clock this morning. THE JURY. Judge Boardman informed the jury that he would permit them to retire without the surveiliance of constables, on condition that they would go in pairs, the selection of paling, being with them- selves. ‘This novel way of disposing of them tickled the jurors very much, and they retired seemingly well satisfied with the arrangement. THE BROADWAY WIDENING. Decision of the Supreme Court, General Term, Confirming the Report of the Commissioners—A Further Appeal Prob- able in the Case, In the course of the legal controversy as to the confirmation of the last report of the appointed Commissioners for widening Broadway above and con have been given in the HRRALD, and it is unnecessary to repeat them. The last step was an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Coust, Special Term, confirming the report of the Com- mission, A decision upon this appeal was rendered yesterday in the Supreme Court, General Term, the opinion being given by Judge Larned. OPINION OF JUDGE LARNED, After stating the facts of the case and the grounds of the appeal, together with an explana- tion of the effect on behalf of the appellants to have the hearing of the appeal in some other de- partment, Judge Larned takes up the objection that the report was signed by ouly two of the Com- missioners. Various authorities are cited on the point, showing, as he claims, that the two signa- tures were enough to make it stand good in law. He next answers the objection that all the proceedings were contrary to the fifteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States. This objection. he says, has been overruled ‘Yn another case before the General Term, and there- fore it was Grape gtd to examine it in the pres- ent case, As to the objection of non-compliance with the provision requiring the report to be made within six months, he held that it was nota matter of jurisdiction; that tne Commissioners were only officers of the Court, and that the juris- diction was not lost by the delay. Having disposed of this preliminary point, the opinion proceeds as follows:—“An objection is taken that the fourth section of chapter 57, Laws of 1871, by which a ma- jority of the new Commissioners were required to be other than the former Commissioners, was un- constitutional. The ground is that the constitution has provided the power of appointing Com- missioners to the Court, and it is urged that the Judge who made the appointment construed the act as requiring him to appoint one of the former Commissioners, It does not seem that the Judge considered this imperative. Even if he did so consider it an erroneous construction could not make the law unconstituttonal. The law does not positively require the appointment of any one of the former Commissioners. It _ex- cludes two of them from the appointment. Now, | the exclusion of two men out of all the competent inhabitants of the State (or atleast of the city) cannot jn any reasonable sense be construed as a violation of THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION giving the appointing power to the Court. It is a most common practice to exclude trom @ jury one who has, as a juror, heard the case tried before. If the statute had provided that no convicted felon should be appointed commissioner, would any one say that such a restriction was unconstitutional ? Constitutions are to have a broad, not a petty con- | struction. (People ex rel Potter vs, Jackson, 47 | New York, 375.) It is objected that the Commissioners aye adopted a new area of assessment. The Act of 1871 author- ized the Court to vacate the order | of injunction and to re‘er the matter back to the Commissioners. It directed the Commissioners to amend and correct said report, or to make a new | assessment in whole or in part, as the Court should | direct.” He held that the Commissioners had kept | entirely within the powers delegated to them, He then takes up the remaining objections and arrives at the same conclusions. He held that the objec- tion that no notice regarding the appointment of Mr. Wood had been served was a simple irrogular- ity. He held further that the Court could not en- tel — the objection that the land o1 one of the Hants had been disproportionately assessed, this beluga matter that lay wholly with the Com- missioners. Another question he decided was that where awards had been made to land owners no sub-tenants could come in for damages, ‘the minority report, he held, was not before the Court, A THREATENED APPEAL. It was stated that an appeal would be taken from tis decision of the Court, and that ii necessary the ped ia be carried to the United States Supreme Vourt, THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE, The Suit of Bowen vs. jase—Important Rul of Judge Shipmen on Hearsay Evidenceslic Rules Out the Alleged Declaraiions of Madame Jumcl That She Had Had an Mtegitimate Son. The further hearing of the case of Bowen vs, Chase was resumed yesterday in the United States Gircuit Court before Judge Shipman and the special jury. Mr. Charles O'Conor and Mr. J. ©, Carter ap- peared as counsel for the defendant, and Mr. Hoare, Mr. Chatfield and Mr. Chauncey Shaffer were for the plaintiff. Our last. report of this case stated that the arguments of counsel had closed upon the ques- tion whether the alleged declaration of Madame Jumel, that she had had an legitimate son, should be received in evidence, and that it was probable that yesterday Judge Shipman would deliver his judgment upon the point at issue. When the Court met yesterday at the usual hour eleven o'clock, the room was more than ordinarily crowded, and much interest was manifested in the result of the decision about to be pronounced. Mr. O'Conor, calm and dignified, sat in his place; Mr. J. ©. Carter, his associate, occupied a seat close to the veteran of the Bar. Mr. Hoar, after divest- ing himself of his heavy gray Massachusetts coat, sat down at the table apparently with the convic- tion that he had done all that legal skill could accomplish in presenting his view of the question at issue to the Court; and General Chatfeld had certainty left nothing undone to raise all the points which, in his apapnent, were best calculated to reach the mind of ‘the Court on the point to be determined, JUDGE SHIPMAN'S RULING. Judge Shipman commenced by si! regretted tl Matter should col him on an interlocutory question of this character, especially as he had had but little time to prepare adecision, The first question to be determined was whether certain declarations contained in de- positions as to'general repute that the plaintiff was THE ILLEGITIMATE SON OF BETSY BOWEN, afterwards Madame Jumel, could be admitted in evidence. On this point he adhered to the opinion he had expressed on the last trial of this case. In the year 1824 Mr. Justice Parke had delivered an opinion that the declarations of servants and of intimate acquaintances ag to common repute, with respect to pedigree, could not be received in evi- dence; and a common repute, on that point, could not be admitted in any well considered case. Looking at the authorities which had been Cited in this case, he did not think that the authori. ties of the law ofthe State of New York established the doctrine contended for on behalf of plaintiff thas. common ite outside of the famll, or in the neighborhood should be received in t! matter. Even it the Courts of this State had de- cided so at the time the colonies had geparecee from the mother country, that would be a ion not binding upon this country. of that character would not be controlling authorities in ci like this. The second question to be disposed of was one ot ony importance, and -he regretted that he could not, in writ deliver what he had to say concerning it, But his time had been so completely occupied by a consideration of the mat- ters submitted in sn ppOre of the claim that this class of evidencé should be admitted and by the oes advanced as objections on the other side that he was not leftasingic moment to reduce what he had to say to writing. As, however, the int was one of considerable interest he reserved himself the right to file in writing what he had to say upon it. He thought it must be conceded at the start that this was a case of ~ PURELY NOVEL IMPRESSION, and he would treat it as quest(on of that character. He thought that was apparent trom the questions that had arisen and from the cir- cumstances attending it. He shared, with the counsel for the plaintiff, the embarrassment growing out of the very simplicity of the case. Now, what was the question? It was whether the plain- tiff should be permitted to | weed the naked decla- ration that Madame Jumel had a bastard son, and, of course, with such inferences as had arisen upon the trial, that the PLAINTIFF WAS THAT SON. Now, a person would say that that was avery simple question; yet the simplicity of the ques- tion as to the admissibility of this évidence was more apparent than real. What has the statute of the State of New York done? He would read TMegitimate children may inherit, real and personal Property trom their mother, as if legitimate. He did not apprehend the words “as if legiti- mate’ to have the construction contended for by counsel for plaintiff. The first inquiry aa to what the statute had done might be illustrated by show- ing what it had not done. It was true the language of the act was that a party might inherit as it legitimate; but it did not, by that languege, make the party a legitimate member of the family. If that were 0, Very grave consequences would fol- low, Look at some of the consequences of that statute. While it did not make him the son of his father it made him a member of his mother's family; it made him a momber of all her legitimate family and it would qualily tim as @ deciar- ant to give statements as to her family affect her descent, because if he ‘as a legitimate member of the family he was, of course, admitted into the family, and his declarations, after his mother’s decease, could given in evidence to change the inher:tance of that family, not only of property that might de- seend to his mother, but of property descending through other lines of the same family. And the ‘Bame condition would be reached tf they were to reverse the case and inquire into the right of a mother to inherit irom her legitimate son. After reviewing this part of the question with great ability and much care the Judge said he had been struck very forcibly with tne fact that this was an ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE PLAINTIFF to prove that he was the illegitimate son of a wo- man with whom he never had, according to his recollection, any intercourse whatever, and from whom he had lived apart for seventy-one yeare— ever since the period of his birth—a total stranger to her, and he now asked the liberty of proving that that woman was hia mother because she was alleged to have said so. He considered this a novel question, as it scemed to be in some of the ineldents of the proof, yet he did not think he would be warranted in admitting such evidence, ‘The property of people depended upon evidence of this character, and ita intrinsic weakness lay in the frauds that might be perpetrated under it. Judge Shipman read trom an opinion of CHIRF JUSTICE MARSTLALL * an cloqusnt and able passage upon the question of bi admitting testimony such as that proposed to be iven in the present case. He presumed that it d @vourred to counsel on both sides of the case that im the whole range of their investigations which, he supposed had been directed for the pur- pose of bringing every light and information they could flnd to bear upon the matter in controversy, they had not been able to find a case in which the naked declaration of the mother, even of a leglil- mate child, bad been admitted as proof of the fact ofits birth, He aoe Shipman) had not found such acase, He had failed to find any such caso where such a specific declaration was proved by the parent to fix the fact of birth, and with it, of course, the fact of relationship. it was said that other testimony would be introduced by way of proving the identity of Madame Jumel with the person sworn to by Madame Jumel as having had a bastard child; but that was only another way of arriving at the same result. It was said that in the exercise of his judicial discretion he could Ict this testimony in. “If this testimony was admissi- ble, in his judgment it to some extent en- dangered the title to all the real estate in this State which had descended from childless and sin- gle women. On a question so grave as that he did not feel at liberty to exercise his judicial discre- tion where the consequences would be so serious. He must, therefore, retuse to adm:t this restimony, ‘The above judgment, of which this report is a summary, was delivered, by consent of counsel n both sides, in the presence ot eleven jurors, Mr. Romer, the absent juror, being obliged to re- main away owing to illness. It was stated by a juror that Mr. Romer would not be able to go out for a day or two. It will be remembered that on the last trial of this case a juror got sick avout the same period of the case. ‘The further hearing of the suit was adjourned til Thursday. The swearing in of the Grand Jury was adjourned till that day, there being only a quorum of them in attendance when the Court met. PENALTY OF MALICIOUS PROSECU- TION. spa Diamond Trying to Cut Diamond, but the Biter Getting Bi(—Curious Case and Heavy Verdict of Damages. In the latter part of July, 1870, Louis Tannebaun went into the place of business of Solomon Migel, a dealer in diamonds, and exchanged with, the latter a duplex diamond ring for a diamond pin and two loose diamcnds and giving to boot, as the saying ts, $250 in gold. On the succeeding morning Mr. Migel, according to the statement of Mr. Tanuebaun, went to his residence aud PRESENTING A PISTOL at his head demanded his property back, but with- out making ha proffer of the money and ring he lad received, Mr, Tannebaun refused to accede to this request, and, therefore, Mr. Migel preterred a charge against him before Judge Shandley, ac- cusing him of stealing a lcose diamond. Upon which he was arrested, taken before the po- ilce magistrate and compelled to give $1,000 bati to answer the charge. Subsequently the amount of bally xed by Judge Barnard at $3,000, which Mr. dv.nebaun furnished. At length, alter re- peated efforts on the part of Mr. Tanuebaun to bring the case to trial, the “trial took place im the Court of General Sessions, The result was an acquittal of Mr. Tannebaun, without Leap leav- ing their seats. Upon this termination of the trial Mr. Tannebaun brought suit against Mr. Migel tor alleged malicious arrest and prosecution, laying his damages at $10,000. The latter suit was tried yes- terday before Judge J. I. Daly, holding Trial Term. of the Court of Common Ptcas. Mr. A. J, Requier, who conducted the suit, mae out such a clear case and in addition showing the damage sustained by his client in his, business through the stigma of this charge, that a verdict was given for Mr. Tanae- baun for $6,000, BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS, — a SUPREME COURT—TRIAL TERK—PART 2. The Suit of George Christy’s Widow. was brought by Mrs. Harrington, the widow of George N. Harrington, better known as George Christy, against the legatees of her mother, to substantiate her claim to the house and lot 111 West Twenty-third street, said house and lot having been given to the mother by her husband and claimed by Mrs. Harrington as the gift of her husband, tt is claimed by the defendants’ attorneys that the questions of alleged fraud and forgery are still undecided. The defendants, claim that the ae of the Twenty-third street property by heir iather was in good faith and for a valuable and sufficient consideration actually ped by hit that the ju Sisagrood asto whether the neces. of fraud brought by the plaintif® against her fa' and of ry brought by her against her husband were true, but that the question as to which they agreed is not vital to the case and leaves the whole matter open, the jury finding that. the mother of the defendants did not pers valuable consideration for the conveyance from jomperts. SUAROGATE’S COURT, The Suydam Will Case. Before Surrogate Robert C. Hutchings. In the matter of the last will and testament of James Suydam, deceased, which is contested, the hearing was begun yes‘erday before Surrogate Hutchings. This promises to be another important case, not only to the parties interested but to the public—curious as to the developments in family affairs which generally come to ght in all such cases. In this case there is property amounting to ‘half a million of dollars involved. The testator, who was a well-known citizen, died recently, leaving: property valued at half a million dollars, which by his will he dis) of in be- quests to various charitable institutions, Includins the Bible Society, the American Tract Society an the Synod of the Keformed Dutch Church and Rut- gers Cc lleze, His widow is also a legatec, but not the principal. The will is contested by the widow and children of James Polhemus, who was a nephew of the tes- tator, The contestants are represented by ex- Judge Fithian, with whom are associated Messra. Varnum and Turner, Messrs. Woodward and Charles Tracy appear for the proponents and Messrs. L. K. Miller and T. Westerveit for the sev- eral charitable societies, John 8. Woodward, who drew up the will, was examined to-day, and his testimony was to the effect that the testator was of sound mind, SUPREME COURT—QENERAL TERM. Notes of Issue for the January Term— ‘* Decisions of Cases. Before Judges Ingraham, Brady and Larned. ‘This Court met yesterday, pursuant to adjourn- ment. The only business transacted was render- ing decisions and issuing an HL abe to notes of issue, and, this agcomplished, an Adjournment took Place till the dist inst. to finish up the business of ne-year. : NOTES OF 188UB, New notes of iasue in all cases for the January term, 1873, must be filed with the Clerk of the Court on or before Saturday, the 28th inst. The numbers on the November calendar must he stated, with the name of the judge or referee before whom the case was tried. SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions. By Judge Monell. soho He Fowler vs. Joseph P. Davenport.—Ordgr ranted. Gottlib Haussman vs. Henry Hooding.—Same. John Schater vs. Ferdinand Flotow.—Same. Samuel H. Moore et al. vs, Philip Schafer.—Mo- tion dismissed, without costs. Eleanor T. Bishop vs. Nathaniel 0. Bishop.—Mo- tion dismissed, SUPREME COU3T--SHAMBERS. Decision. By Judge Leonard, Oertel et al. va. Jacony ot al.—Injunction dis- Solved, costs to abide the event; $10 costs. Dodge vs. Dodge.—Mem. for counsel. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM. Dectsions, Oppenheimer 2 Gaia tntarsoget ries ordered elmer vs. — rl tories ordere: to be filed. Middleton vs. Hill.—Reoeiver ordered. The Equitable Life Assurance Soctety of the United States vs. Buddensiet.—Judgment ordered Tooke ves Hart Appeal dismissed, with oche va. man. —. costs to plaintit. a, Hayward ys. Bui Angus vs. Winters.—App! Hauferon vs. Schwartz.—Same. The Royal Insurance Company vs. Noble.—Or- dered that commission issue. Schuyler vs. Norling.—Defendant allowed to come in and defend, judgment to stand as security. or ane igor (2 v8. be ra of he jendant pened on payment of costs of motion, ju ment to stand us ei ree Beg Watson vs, The People.—Judgment af- Annie E. Bell vs, James P. Spotts.—Judgment aftirmed, without costs on either appeal. dohn G. McKinley vs. Isabella Lane, et al.—Judg- ment affirmed, with costs. Henry Fibel ys. Johnston Livi n.—Judgment reversed and new trial ordere: event, uuléss plaintia stipulates dai to $58,with interest from commencement or within twenty days, in which case the Judgment is aMrmed for the balance, with costs of appeal to defendant. - wling Green Savings Bank vs. Lowis S, Todd.— Order modified by redueing amount to $529 81, and interest from demand by receiver July 1, 1872, with- out costs of appeal, The First National Bank of Jersey City vs. James L. Leach.—Judgment affirmed with costs, George H. Mutter vs. John Ponder.—New trial granted. Costs t ide event. Havid M. Day, et al. vs. Charles W. Rupricht et al.—Judgment ailirmed, with costs. dames W. Tucker vs. Edward Woolley.—Judgment set aside and new trial ordered, costs to abide oy unless defendant stipulates as stated in opinion. MARINE COURT—?ART 2. Decisions. By Judge Joachimsen. Leichtenstein vs. bach.—Action to recover the fet a vanes of tobacco, Decision for piaintif, 172 75, .. Eissner vs. Riss.—Action on a note; defence, re- lease. Judgment for defendant. Lowenthal vs. Schlesinger.—Action to recover the value of bags lost at de.endant’s hotel. Judgment for plaintiff, $75. Elis vs. Kemmey.—Judgment for plaintiff, $236. Levy vs. Stone.—Judgment for plaint i. Butterfleld vs. Werner.—Judgment for piaintif, $428. COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. Larcenies and Burglaries. Before Recorder Hackett. After the transaction of considerable routine business yesterday, Thomas Marvin pleaded guilty to an attempt at burglary in the third degree, the indictment charging that on the Ist mstant he attempted to enter the cigar store of Joseph Mc- Kay, 74Maidea lane. The prisoner was sent to Sing Sing Prison for two years and six months, William Ellsworth, who was charged with steal- ing, on the 13th inst., $78 from Alonzo B. Roge of the schooner Jenny Rogers, pleaded guilty rand larceny. His Honor, satisfied that Ellsworth ad never been charged with crime before, modi- fied the sentence to imprisonment in the State Prison for eighteen months. Richard Fleming, who was charged with bur- giartously entering the house of William I. Lon. don, 70 Lexington avenue, in the day time, pleaded guilty to an attempt to commit burglary in the sec- ond degree. takecey. Michael Fitzgerald was tried and convicted of robbery in the frst degree. James Bradley, the complainant, testified that on the night of the loth of August, about ton minutes to twelve, while walking through Hester street, the prisoner came up alongside of him and pretended he was drank. After walking a little way Fitzgerald grabbed Bradiey from oehind by the arms and put his knee to his(Bradley’s) back, whereupon two other mem- bers of the prisoner's gang lorcibly opened his rs, to cout and took $4 65 out of his pocket. tagerald then struck and knocked him in the gutter, saying he would blow his brains out. The young men went into @ corner liquor store and were watched by the complainant, who, five minutes after the occurrence, informed an officer, He went in and arrested Fitzgerald, who was posi- tively identified by Bradley. When the prisoner was being conveyed to the station house he was about handing a loaded single-barreled revolver to a friend, but before he succeeded in doing so an officer seized it. Fitzgerald swore in bia own be- halt that he was the driver of an ice wagon, and that the complainant made a mistake, for he had nothing to do with the robbery. ‘Tne jury rendered a verdict of guilty. At the request of the prisoner's counsel, who stated that certain material witnesses were ab- sent whose testimony he would like His Honor to hear, sentence Was postponed, Acquittals, John Smith was tried upon a charge of being in complicity with Thomas Kelly, who was caught in the act of stealing at Abrabam Katz's shoe store, 313 First avenue. The evidence failed to show that tan A vr acting together, and the jury acquitted i mith. John Gillen, 4 little boy, was tried for assaulting and knoc| ing down an old man named Charles Belore Judge Brady. In this suit, which was recently publisted in fall in the HeRaLD, aud which, it will be remembered, Biegner, In Thirtecnth street, near avenue C, on the 26th of November, at which time another youth stole bis silver watch. A number o: wi were cxamined, and the jury were ao well satieded of the boy's tanogence they rendered dict of ime guilty” without their seat, “tal A Musical Theft. Leonard Von Wallen, indicted for stealing @ Plano worth $250, on the 28th of November, the ty of Henry Schroeder, 54 Pleaded guitty 40 sh attempt at grand inroor y. As” ere Were mitigating circumstances the prisoner’ was seut to the Penitentiary for one year. JEFFERSON MAXKET POLICE COVAT. Bargiary. ‘The case of the brotbers Patrick, John and Michael Brown, of No,- 455 West Twenty-sixth street, charged with burglary in entering the remises of Henry J. Blanchard, No. 500 Washing- te street, and taking therefrom property to the value of $207, came up at Jefferson Market yestere day. Mr. Blanchard identified the property found on the premises of the prisoners, and they were held to answer. COURT CALENDARS—THIS DAY. Scrzriorn Count—TaiaL Tenm—Parts 1 and 2— Held Judges Freedman and Van Vorst.—Ad- Journed for the term, : SurreMe Court—SreciaL Term—Held by Judge Fancher.—Demurrers—Nos. 18, 17, 19. Law and fact—Nos. 5, 97, 99, 86, 28, 58, 10, 64,'101, 102, 103, 104, SurREME Count—Cincort—Part 1.—Adjourned for the term. Part 2—Adjourned to January 6, 1873. SUPREME CouRT—CUAMBERS—Held by Judge Leonard.—Nos. 5, 21, 74, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, Oh, 95, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112,'113, 114, 146, 117,118, 119, all’ Maning CovuRT—TRiAL TeERM—Part 1—Reld by Judge Shea.—Nos, 618, 1126, 1178, 1180, 1182, me 1186, 1188, 1190, 1192, 1194, 1196, 1198, 1202, 1204, 2—Held by Judge Joachims Motions for new trials and settlement of orders, Part 3-—Held by J Curtis.—Nos. 912, 943, 1341, bon ink 1344, 1347, 1348, 1349, 1478, 1479, 1508, 1669, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—TRIAL TaRM—Part 1— Held by Judge J. F. ‘NO. 170' CouRr or Hackett.—Homicide, Michael George Redmond, William Johnston; vany, Wil Craig, William Stone; Obeainiog ‘goods by false prevences, der, George H. ith, Henry 8. Bogart; decoying @ ae away, Annie laler;” embeaziement, David THE LATE EX-JUDGE SLOSSON. Adjournment of the Superior Court Out of Respect to His Momory—Compli- mentary Remarks by Various Members of the Bar, and by Judge Moncll. _ In the Special Term of the Superior Court— the only branch of this court in session—while Mr. Bulkley was engaged in the argument ofa cause yesterday, intelligence reached the Court of the death of ex-Judge Slosson. Mr. Bulkley, suspending his argument, moved the adjournment ofthe Court a8 atoken of respect for the memory of the decegsed, and in a feeling manner briefly alluded to his judicial carcer upon the bench ofthis Court and to his previous and subsequent practice at the bar. Mr. Bulkley was followed by Mr. E, W. Stoughten, ex-Jus J. Ky Porter and Mr. John E. Deviin,who each spoke of the high qualities of Judge Slosson, both at the bar and upon the bench, and gave feeling expressions of their sorrow for this great aMiction. Judge Monell responded with much feeling as follows:—The intelligence of the death of Judge Slosson, although it had filled me with unwonted sorrow, Was uot wholly unexpected. . I had severat days since been apprized of the dangerous con- didon of the decoased, and, therefore, was in some Measure prepared for this great bereavement. Nevertheless, the suddenness of this death has brought with it its sorrow, and should admonish all of the frail tenure we have to life. [had not the honor of occupying a seat upon this bench during the judicial ‘career of Judge Slosson. He had left the bench a few years betore my elevation to it, But that career was Sistas by great learning, dignity and useluineas, and his recor while & member of this Court in those respects will compare moat favorably with that of his ites, prede- cessors and successors. My intense with acq Judge Slosson was for more than @ quarter of a century, Guring all which time, whether at the bar or the bench, he has received warmest as now that he has he re- celves my for his memory. I can add noth- ing more to very fecling and eloquent remarks ich have been addressed to tne Court than to wi e gay that I fully concur in all that has been said, and to grant the motion that nas been made to adjourn this Court as a mark of respect to the memory of ourdeparted friend, COURT OF APPEALS CALENDAR. in ALBANY, Dec. 23, 1872. The iietien: 5 e Court of Appeals day colt dar for December 24:—Nos, 520, 521, 522, 523 an 624, All cases in which notices of argument have been filed for January, or any day in 1873, will be considered as noticed tor that year, and will be placed upon the caleudar without further notice. MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, More Carpets for Court Rooms—Sheriff Brennan Asking for More—Lawyer’s Bills Laid Over. A meeting of this board was held yesterday afternoon. Mayor Hall presided. Recorder Hackett was also present, COURT ROOM CARPETS. Billa were ordered to be paid amounting to $2,104 36 for carpets recently supplicd to Court rooms and Tax office. ARMORIES AND DRILL ROOMS. Supervisor Conover submitted a report from this committee recommending that a commission be appointed by the Legislature for the purpose of leasing land or buildings for armories and drill rooms, and that such report be submitted for the approval of the Board of Supervisors, ‘The report was laid over. A NEW COUNTY AND CITY OFFICER. Supervisor Conover presented a report from the Committce on County Offices, which closed with the following resolution :—“That the legal adviser of this Board be requested to prepare the draft of an act to be submitted tothe Legislature of tné State at tts next session authorizing the appoint- ment of a competent person, at an adequate sal- ary, to take charge of and distribute all supplies for the city and county buildings, and to be ac- countable to the proper authority; said person to receive and distribute all such supplies as may be required for public use, in accordance with the con- tracts made for the same. Said person also to have Placed at his disposal such office and storerooms aa may be designated in the most convenient toca- tion, in which shall be carefully kept all materials and supplies which may be entrusted to his supervision. Said person to be tn attendance at said office Seen ail seasonable hours to comply with any requisition which may be made, and which he may deem necessary. Sald person to have charge of all repairs which may be required for either city or county buildings, including armories and drill rooms, and to make such re- ports or the materials and supplies received and distributed to the work done under his supervision as may be required from time to time, and to give satisfactory security for tne proper and fal performance of any aud all duties with which he May be charged.” ‘The report was laid over, SHERIFY’S BILLS. Bills were submitted from:Sheriff Brennan for official services and were ordered to be laid over. ‘The bills were as follows :— ifs aC For quarter ending March, 31 7 For quarter ending June 20. For quarter ending Septembe: + 952,808 Bills were also submitted from Sheriff Brennan for fees on commitments and discharges from Jan- uary to November, 1872, amouuting to about $71,110. Bi, were laid over. The “bi is of ex-Sherif O’Brien, particulars of which have already been published, were ordered to be laid over. COUNSEL FERS, Supervisor COCHRANE brought up the report roe commending the payment of counsel fees ‘0 wee T. Curtis and John K. Porter—the former $10,000 and the latter $7,500—tor prosecuting suite on behalf of the city. He moved that these bills be ordered to be Vand The resolution was laid over on the motion of Supervisor Coman. CORONERS’ FRES. Supervisor ConovER moved that the Committee appointed to consider the payment for supplies to the Coroners’ offices and the furnishing of ofices for the Coroners be discharged, and supported thts motion by stating that the fees for each Coroner amounted to $19,000 per year, which he thougnt was suMcient to furnish themselves with ofices, van closed by submitting the following resolu. tlon:— Commissioner of Public Works be hereby ps to not jo ag ae wNitinw theyare bound to furnish their own oficos ‘Tho resolution waa adortcd, olution submitted the last meeting, by wieh the legal naviset of the board was nskelto id he is the prepare a dratt for placing Ludiow Street Jail an- CONTINUED ON NINTH PAGE.