The New York Herald Newspaper, January 15, 1873, Page 8

8 THE COURTS. TWEED’S TRIAL—SIXTH DA ‘Another Legal Tournament—Ohjections Raised to the Indictment—Was Tweed Responsible 9a Public Officer!—Able Argument of Counsel for the Prosecution and De- . fence—The Court Overrules All the Objections—Testimony To Be Taken To-Day. THE DEPUTY CHAMBERLAIN FIGHT. See Deputy Chamberlain Fails in His Injunction Suit Against Foley—The Court, on Mo- tion of Chamberlain Palmer, Grants an Injanction Against the Irre- pressible Foley—The Battle To Be Fought Over Again. THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. Madame Jumel’s Wills and Settlement of Her Property—Her Testamentary In- tentions—Evidence for the Defence. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. —-—— Suammaries—Decision in Bankruptcy—The Wood- hull-Claflin-Blood Case—Convictions and Sen- tences in the General Sessions—Decisions, In the Tweed case yesterday the sessions were consumed in an important argument by counsel on ® point raised by the defence that the prosecution shall select some particular count in the indic> ment to proceed upon, to the exclusion of all the other counts. The argument was confined to Mr. Field forthe defence and Mr. Tremain for the Prosecution. The Court ruled against the defence, and the examination of witnesses will be com- menced this merning. In the United States Circnit Court yesterday the hearing of the ease of George Washington Bowen ‘ws. Nelson Chase was resumed before Judge: Ship- man and the special jury. Mr. Charles O’Conor continued his address in making the opening state- ment ‘on behalf of the defendant. The learned gentleman having closed about three o’clock, evi- ence was offered on the part of Mr, Chase respect- ing the wills of Madame Jume}. The case was ad- fourned till to-day. Yesterday Samuel Foss, captain of the ship Paci- fic, from Scotland to this port, was charged before Dommissioner Shields with having smuggled an esorted cargo of copper, liquor, sugar, molasses, &o. He was held in $2,000 bail fer examination. Charles W. Jacobs, charged before Commissioner Bhields with a violation of the new Shipping act, by eserting trom the ship Hattie Sampson, was held $260 bait for examination. The members of the legal profession ract n in She Second Circuit of thé United Stated Olrealt Dourt will hold a meeting on Friday next, at two o'clock, for the purpose of taking some actien in regard to the retirement of the Hon. Samuel Nel- gon as one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of She United States. The call for this meeting is Signed by William M. Evarts, George T. Curtis, Charles O’Conor, Erastus C. Benedict and several other distinguished members of the Bar. Yesterday Commissioner Davenport heard the arguments of counsel in the case of Woodhull, Olaflin & Blood, who are charged with having for- warded obscene publications through the United | Btates mails. At the close of the arguments the Commissioner reserved his decision, Judge Barlow, of the Superior Court, refused yesterday to grant the injunction applied for by Deputy Chamberlain Palmer against John Foley, enjoining him from attempting to assume the fanctions of Deputy Chamberlain by virtue of his appointment to this office by the Comptroller. Directly after the Judge’s decision application Was made by Mr. Palmer to the Chamberlain for @ similar injunction, and granted. The injunction, however, is only temporary, continuing till to- morrow, when the subject matter will be discussed ‘upon an order to show cause why the same should met be made permanent. This leaveg the legal wattle as to this phase of the case to be fought over again. Meantime the temporary injunction ob- tained in the Supreme Court by Mr. Foley enjoin- ing the banks made depositories of public moneys from paying any money to the Chamberlain except upon warrants drawn by the Comptroller and wountersigned by the Mayor still holds good. This matter was to have been argued yesterday before Jadge Barrett at Supreme Court, Chambers, but the argument was postponed to allow the Cham- gerlain’s counsel further time for preparation. Motion was made yesterday before Judge Bar- ett, at Supreme Court, Chambers, for an order to show cause why three suits brought by Edward Jones against the city for corporation advertising should not be consolidated. The amount of the claim is some eight hundred thousand dollars. Three suits are pending in the matter, one in the Supreme Court, one in the Superior Court and one in the Common Pieas. The object of tie proposed | consolidation of the suits is to save costs to the City in case the latter is defeated in the suits, In the suit brought by David J. Detwiller against | he city for pay for fireworks furnished for the | Fourth of July, 1869, the facts of which have already been fully published in the Hera, and which was concluded yesterday before Judge Van | Brunt, holding Supreme Court Circuit, a verdict | was rendered for $27,472, being the full amount Claimed, with interest, TWEED'S TRIAL. The Proceedings Yesterday—Legal Onjec- | tions Raised and Discussed—Able Argu- ments of Counsel—The Ruling of the Court Denying the Motion of Defend- ant’s Counsel. very strentiouny that NEW YORK HERALD, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1873,—TRIPLE SHEET. | sata tnat ne wished to deny the trath of a ramor | which had appeared in some of the morning pa pers, to the effect that the District Attorney asked for ® consultation with his colleagues on the previous day, for the purpose of taking measures for the removal of one of the jurors, Mr. Williams, on the ground of his being a member of the Ameri- cusOlub, The prosecution were satisfied that Mr. Williams was @ fair and just man. THE EVIDENCE—MR. STORRS ON THE STAND-~AN IN- TERRUPTION. The first witness called was Mr. Richard A, Storrs, the Deputy Comptroller. The witness hav- ing answered an initiatory question, FIRST LEGAL OBJECTION. Mr. Field rose and moved that the people be re- quested, as a preliminary, to establish the omctal position which it is claimed in the indictment the accused held. The defence proposed to show that he never held the official position in question, Mr. Peckham offered the statute creating the Board of Audit in evidence to establish the posi- held by Mr. Tweed. bai Mi, FIELD'S OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENT, Mr. Field—Very well. We object. Now, chapter 382 of the laws of 1870 is an act entitled “An act to make further provision for the government of the county of New York,’’ passed April 6, 1870. At the beginning of the statute, as Your Honor knows, is an extract from the laws of 1847—"That there shall be prefixed to the statute laws the names of the Governor and other officials, including Sen- ators.” Here, then, is the name of William M. Tweed as Senator, the term to expire with the year 1870, and not before. Now, our position is this :—While it is very clear thats while there is in the statute book what ris to be a statute, the fourth section is to be treated as so much blank and to be stricken from the statute pol lena as. ree beyond the competeney of the Legislature to pass! orto give any Official position or trust under it, There are various objections to the statute in respect to its constitutionality or alleged uncon- stitutionaiity, and} think it proper for me now, and 1 think it due to the Court as well as to the counsel on the other side and to witnesses, that I should state them all, and 1 proceed, perhaps at the risk of wearying you. I shall be brief as pos- sible, however, but the number of questions, and, 1 may in some respects, their novelty, re- Fou) that I should iully develop the views counsel for the defendant entertain of them—the views to which they have come after very careful delibera- tion and consultation, It is of very little conse- quence in whiclr order I proceed, but I will for the sake of convenience first take that objection which goes to show that there was no such office ever created. We answer the objection that may be taken to this that the defendant could have held the omice de facto if he had not been at the time an ofticer dejure by showing that the Legislature never did create such an oitice, and then there is no difference between de jure and defacto. Our first position is that it isa two-thirds bill and that that fact should be certified, and without such certificate no bill or act can be deemed to have been so passed. The section to which I now refer is section 9 of the first article of the constitution, requiring a two-third vote upon every bill appro- Prato AT a for local or private purposes, ‘hen there is a section of the Revised Statutes which declares that no bill shall be deemed to have received a two-third vote, unless so certified by the presiding oficers of the two houses. We start, then, with the position and with the memorandum on the statute of 1870 of three-fifths being present, and there being nothing to indicate that there was a two-thirds vote; that this bill, on the fourth sec- tion of which this indictment is found, is not to be regarded as a two-third act. ‘The bill was a two- third bill, and if not passed by a vote of two-chirds of the members of each house it 1s no law accord- ing to the constitution and statutes, Then the only remaining gnestion is this, is the bill witiin the category of the ninth section ¢ Was the bill an act to appropriate property for local or private pur- poses? Now, luckily, we have a decision upon that very point in the third of Kernan. Now Your Honor knows hew often the question has arisen in the Court of Appeals respecting the powers of the Legislature for taxation, especially local taxation. It was one time held that the Legislature could not impose a tax on localities—no tax except what was eneral throughout the State; but it was held nally that the Legislature had the power of taxation to an unlimited extent, or to an extent which practically uniimited; that it was solely within their competence to determine whether the Legislature should ‘tax the city of New York, the State of New York or the county of Niagara; that they could tax any locality or the whole of the State; that no Courtcould inquire into the motive they had or the qupose for which the taxes were to be raised. It was objected to Lecislature could not impose taxation upon r iy Tocality éxcept fe ry the debt of treatrenne nt Chief suet i in the ¢ ‘eferres in the Your ppeais, ave the ‘opinlon oF fe Court ta ite fe isiature jad the power, and that there was no qualification or restriction upon it except this—that the bill must be passed by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to both houses. This is the argu- ment which we offer to show that the fourth section isnolaw. The constitution has declared that it is not, and that is tne end of the matter in our view, whatever may be said about expediency or any other consideration. The next objection is this—that it is in direct contravention of the seventh section of the third ar- ticle of the constitution:—“No member of the Legislature shall receive any civil appoint- ment within this State from the Governor, the Senate or from the Legislature during the time for which he shall be elected, and all and such appoint- ments and all votes given for any such member for any such office or appointment shali be void. ‘The policy of the Legislature was to prevent the in- fluence of its members being used in favor of themselves. Mr. Tweed is charged with exercising the power of Auditor, and if ne was not legally in- vested with the office the allegation is not con- sistent and THE INDICTMENT 19 GOOD FOR NOTHING. Tam simply considering the question whether, as in Ofticer, he expesed himself to this indictment, and if the section has any power at allitis to be applied to this case, where the counsel for the shh pe themselves charge the defendant with eng a public oficer, and as such charge him with neglect and misconduct. [refer you to two cases to establish the position | now take that this was an appointment by the Legislature to Mr. Tweed. There is the case of the People vs, Blake (Barbeur’s Reports, 49) and the United States vs. Morris, where Chief Justice Marshall States that the Legislature cannot place a person in a position like that held by the-defendant in office; if they do, they do exactly what is prohib- ited by the constitution. In the ¢ of the People of the State Onto vs. —. such an appoint- ment was declared absolutely void. Counsel also cited the opinions of Chie! Justice Hunt and Judges ‘Townsend ani Ingraham in support of his position, and submitted that the fourth section of t 4 was distinctly contrary to the constitution. sel also contended that this was an attempt of the Legislature to elect a tribunal not known to the constitution, The appointment of these three men as members of the Board of Audit was the establish- ment of a tribunal whose officers were not elected by the people, and from whose decision there was no appeal. In the case of the People vs. Pinkney it was decided that whenever there is an attempt, colorable or not, by the Legislature to appoint anybody to exercise an oflice Known at the time of the constitution of 1846, or the duties of the office then known, however much the name may be changed, that attempt will be frustrated by the courts. Now, here was a very palpable attempt—an attempt to place the tunc- tions of the Board of Supervisors in the hands of three men nominated in some caucus at Albany, If these objections were of any validity, and he be- heved they were all unanswerable; if they had Aan What then was the consequence ¥ Why, that MR. TWEED WAS NOT AN OFFICER DE JURE or de facto, That he was not an officer de jure no- body will deny; but was he an officer de sacto ? He took the ground that, being an officer de sacto uf he was such), he was not avte upon the indict- ment, which charged him with being an officer where there was really no ofice to fill, In the case of the Peopie vs. White, in 24th Wendell, it was de- cided that a person cannot be in oifice with a color of title agwinst an unconstitattonal act. The de- fendant was indicted for oMcial negligenc the loundation of the charge was that he public o under the laws of this State, contended that the DEFENDANT HELD NO OFFICE under the laws of the State, and therefore was not ida Counsel Yesterday, the sixth day of the proceedings in the trial of William M. Tweed in the Court of Oyer and Terminer, little progress was made, so far as | any case has been made out against the defendant | from the testimony to be adduced on the part of | the prosecution. Ag will be seen from the report | ‘of the day’s proceedings as given below, the whole | Of the seasion was consumed by counsel in argu- | ment in defending and controverting objections | faised by defendant's counsel. So much sublstan- tial work was performed, however, in this that counsel exhausted all the legal technicalities for | @nd against the objections within the compass of | their legal lore, and the question was decided by the Court. The ruling of Judge Davis was averse to the ground taken by the defence, and this will clear the way for the examination of witnesses to-day. ‘The arguments were ex. | haustive, and the points raised and so 7 Successfully combated very important to | the case atisene, There was a very large attend. ance in the court room throughout the day, and the greatest interest was manifested in the legal tournay, as the impression had got abroad that ‘the objections to be raised would be fatay to the continuance of the trial. [t was half-past three o'clock when Judge Davis closed his remarks over. ruhng the motion, and counsel for the prosecution Geemed it then too jate to call any witnesses, in this tf opposing counsel and the Court con. curred, and the Court was adjourned accordingly | ‘ty! this morning. ‘The Court opened at eleven o'clock, Judge Davis presiding, A DENIAL BY COUNSEL. My. Tromaun, rising aOd addzessing the Court, culpable. If he be gaa let some other law be found that he has violated. Me did not violate the jaw upon which the indictment is tramed, because he was not a public officer. He claimed that the section of the act of 187 8 futile, that it was waste paper as far as this was concerned, that it had no validity and that there was no office of auditor to fill. omce, he was not chargenbdle criminally for not having performed or fultiiied that office, and he maintained that he never was an oficer, cither de Jucto or de jure. MR, TREMAIN'S ARGUMENT, Mr. Tremain, in repiy for the prosecution, said that altuough the ob; jon: sumed the form of an attempt to arr idence it Was substan- tially a demurrer, or, in case there would be a ver- dict, would form the same matterthat would in that case be presented in the form of an arrest of judgment. ‘The Court had already determined be- tween the people ‘and the defe rer which had been at first interposed to the whole indictment, and atterwards to each count in the indictment, should be overruled,and that stands as settling the law of the case until reversed—that the in indictable offence against the defendant. im addi- tion to that a motion was made to quast the in- dictment itself, on the ground that there was no crime, and that also being overruled it was re- ceived as to each count separately, and on that motion judgment was pronounced. Now, he under- se v | stood the counsel for the defence to say that while | proceeding in the ordinary course of a trial under & plea of not guilty to prove every averment con- tained in the indictment, they should not be permitted to give evidence to prove it, because when proved one canse of action was a crimina! ovence, and would be thereby established. In other words, it Was proposed now, When there was he Opportunity to appeal, that the motion should prevail, and that the defendant thereby be acquit- ted, a he selemnly pronounced wea ment of Judge Jugranam be reversed, hat was the ground of the motion? That the Legislature Passed an act imposing upon the defendant grave and responsible public duties; that the act was un- Soda WoNS aud Void, aud that no legal obliga- Defendant was never at any such | dant that the demur- | ictment and each count of 1t contained an | tion or duty was created by it. In addition to that it was claimed that Tweed was a member of the Senate, and was, therefore, ineligible, under the constitution, to receive what was called an ap- | pointment, and for that reason no legal respon- sibility attached to him in entering upon and per- forming the duties of that office ot 80) intment. In other words, his position justifie im in re- ceiving and POCKBTING A SIXTH OF THOSE STOLEN MILLIO! and in the meantime no member of the boay politic has ever com) ed of the of such a law. The peoples who were the parties interested, on their side quietly acqi in the assumption of this authority and power, which the defencant as- sisted in passing, and so has pocketed $1,000,000 under the forms of this law, and he now asks a Court to arrest, substantially, ail further action upon this trial to hold that he was clothed with perfect immunity from punishment for these and abominable violations of his oficial position, and thag there was no law to punish him for his crime, It was @ proposition quite consistent with the character of the offences charged against the defendant, and which, these frivolous obstacles being removed, he posed to establish to the sat! ion of every honest man on the jury. If the motion of counsel for the defendant prevatied it struck at the root of the whole evidence, would necessitate the discharge of the deiendant and ‘would leave THE PUBLIC ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY REDRESS. He asserted in the first place that these questions were not proper to be used at this time—they should be brought before the Court after the case was submitted to the jury, when each side had the Tight of appeal. In the second place it in- volved & grave question as te the constitutionall of the act of the Legislature, and no matter thoug! these objections were even far more forcible it Would be the duty of the Court to say that for all purposés of tpis trial this act must be regarded as Constitutional and legal. The firat suet Pa bee pod no application to the case: The bill si me provided for a payment of the accounts of the city of New York. ‘it was true that the bill did not certify that two-thirds of the members of both houses voted for its passage, but the Court of Frrors decided that the journals of the houses could be examined to ascertain if the requisite number were present, He found upon the exami- nation of the journal that this very law was passed by 24to 7 in the Senate und 93 to 3 in the House, 80 that there was not only two-thirds, but three- fourths in the Senate and almost a unit in the House, for the defendant made things PREITY UNANIMOUS WHILE HE WAS IN THE LEGIS LATURE. 8o falleth the beautiful superstructures of the de- fence. The next objection was that no member of the Legislature should receive any appointment, &c., and that the act was altogether unconstitu- tional and void, What was that act? Ht conferred certain powers upon certain officers, among whom was the defendant, the present President of the Board of Supervisors. His office had already been created; he was elected president by the Board of Supervisors of which he was @ member, and among the functions of that office was the power of audit- ing accounts, The act simply reaffirmed the same powers he already possessed. He united it with other powers, and whatever question might arise in.regard to conferring the power of audit, so far as Tweed was concerned, he had the power by virtue of the office of auditing accounts as Super- visor. He submitted that this was in no sense an appointment under the meaning of the constitu. fonal provisions, and the defendant was stopped civilly and criminally from raising the question. Counsel called attention to Bishop’s Criminal Law, volume 2, page 325—The State vs. Celles, The Peo- ple vs. Cook, &c., in support of his argument. The public had acquiesced in the defendant's accept- ance of the functions of trust in the payment of money through this agency of the Auditer’s, and the Legislature made special provision for the pay- ment of these bonds, Everybody acquiesced. ‘he term expired, The defendant was now charged not merely with a wiltul neglect to audit, but also with a corrupt perversion of the duties oj his office by means of appropriating moneys to hfs own ac- count, Now, the argument was that he was abso- Antely exempt from reaponalbllity, but the Court and the public would see the utter falsity of that plea. As to the third and fourth objections, he claimed that no attempt was made to establish a tribunal unknown to the constitution, And what was done? Simply a provision for the payment of the city debts. Mr. Tremain, in conclusion, directea the atten- tion of the Court to numerous authorities, and submitted that the motion of counsel for the de- fence should be overruled, Mr. Field said that the journals of the house could not be received in evidence. RULING OF THE COURT, Jose Davis, in passing upon the motion, said the objection raised a most serious and important feature in the case, As to the suggestion made in reply to the objection—that it was sufficient that the defendant was an officer de_fucto, without ra. SALA LO fhe question whetsss Te was an officer de FuPERLE Gia not think that the objection was ‘ell taken as to the entire indictment. So faras the indictments charged neglect of duty or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by the law, I imag- ine it would be impossible to sustain inst an official under our statute for wilfully neglecting to eres an oMcial duty—tne grava- men of the indictment being neglect unless he was obliged by law to perform a duty, and unless he Was an officer de jure he would be by law under no obligation to perform such duty. The indictment divides itself into two branches—one charging neglect of duty, and the other charging an im- proper execution of his sole duties, to think, under the authorities before me, that he was AN ACTIVE OFFICER discharging these duties—that he discharged them proves no corruption or wilful intention to do what the law denounces as a crime. In this case it seems to me that he was an officer de jsacto, and the conclusions I have arrived at render it necessary that I should pass upon tke question. It was always a most delicate thing for a judge sitting jin Oyer and Terminer, to pass upon the constitutionality of a law, but if he was satistied beyond a reasonavie doubt that it was illegal he would have no hesitation in saying so. As to the first objection, it appeared prima Jacie under the statute that the bill was not passed by a two-thirds vote, but that did not be- come an important question here at ull. The ques- tion was simply a question whether the act of 1870 was within that provision of the constitutioi He | thought it was not. He did not think tnat ques- tion was within the true signification of the section of the constitution appropriating public moneys for local or private purposes. The question was before the Court of Errors in the case of the People vs. Morris; and it was held that the bill did not re- pa @ two-thirds vote. I am not, therefore, at liberty to hold that this bill appropriating public money for lecal and private purposes is within the meaning of the constitution, The next objec- tion was that the act was in direct contravention of the seventh section of the third article of the constitution, which provides that ne member of the Senate shall recelve any appointment during his term of office. That was a very salutary law and he wished it enforced; but that was different from transferring or adding to an official position. He held that the power of auditing was formatly vested in the Board of Supervisors, and its transter to the Board of Audit was no appointment and did | not create any new office. He disagreed entirely | With the third objection—that the fourth section Was an attempt toestablish a debt against the | city; it simply provided for existing debts, and the fourth objection was invoived tn his ruling of the second, He also differed from the last objection, and would, therefore, overrule the motion, The Court then adjourned, oT Deputy Chamberlain Palmer Fails in His Injunction Against Foley—Cham- berlain Palmer Takes Up the Gaunt- let and Gets Foley Cnjoincd=Judge Barbour’s Decision—The Battle To Be Fought Over Again—That Other In- junction. One phase of the legal controversy between be Deputy Chamberlain was decided yesterday by | Judge Barbour, of the Superior Court. It will be re- | membered that the former claims the office under appointment by the Chamberlain, pursuant te a statute of 1866, and the latter by appointment from | the Comptroller under the charter of 1870, ana Mr. | Foley, having assumed the right to enter upon the duties of the oMce, and presenting himself daily for that purpose, application was made by Mr. | Palmer for an injunction restraining him from his | attempt to assume the functions of the office, This application Judge Barbour has denied. The grounds of his denial are embodied in the following brief opinion :— | OPINION OF JUDGR BARBOUR, In the case of Pappon vs. Gray (9, Paige, 507) the \ Rocca alleged in his bill that he held the’ ofice of Flour Inspector, and as such officer was entitled to | perform certain duties, and have and receive {ces therefor, and that the defendant, under color of an illegal or invalid appointment from the Gov- ernor, claimed and was exercising the right to perform those duties and receive the fees to the injury of the Bah and therefore the com- plainant prayed for an injunction restraining the | defendant from acting as such Flour Inspector until _ the title to such office should be determined under the statute, On demurrer to the complaint, the Chan- cellor held that the Coart had no jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for, and that decision was unanimously aMrmed by the Court of Errors, (Le | C., 7 Hill, 259), Upon the authority of that case I | should therefore have been bound to deny this motion for a preliminary injunction, even ‘if the | plaintiff had established the fact that the claim of the defendant to the oMce of Deputy Chamberlain | was, in fact, working an injury to him. But 1 am unable to perceive that the complainant has any | such pecuniary Interest in the ofice as entitles him | to reliet by war of metion. If he continues to discharge the duties of the office or holds himseif In readiness to 4080 he may receive his salary as | falls due, notwithstanding any legal claim or ac of the defendant, and he has no interest whatever in the subject matter of the eult beyond the recely- ing of his salary. The motion for an injunction must, therefore, be denied with costs, THE CHAMBERLAIN WIMAKLY IN THE FIELD, Hardly had the above decision been announced Whgn appligation was made vo Judge Barbour, on be- Jain inclined | Walter B, Palmer and John Foley as to which shall | half of the Chamberlain, for an injanetion to the one previously asked for by Deputy Cham- berlain againet Mr, Foley. In other w: the Mr. Foley be prohibited fom incerferiag in any way ir. Fole; ry with the business ef his office. ‘The complaint upon com] which the application was based is substantially the same ‘as that presented by the Deputy Chamber- ‘ain and which hag already been ned. Jt Barbour granted an order direc! ag Foley show cause on the 16th instant why he should not be Bt ape ge enjoined from ieteriering with the business of the Chamberlain’s ofice, and he 1s 40 restrained until the case is heard and dec! ‘This reduces matters virtually to their original position and compels a fighting of the battle over THAT OTHER INJUNCTION. Yesterday was the day set down for fore Judge Barrett, at Supreme the argument in the case of the te! tion ‘ted on application of Mr. ai posited irom. ying t mM pa lain, except upon warrants drawn troller and countersigned by the itis hi peg | to directed to fang Gaeaoe as the continuan of the injunction or doing a with it altogether, There was a 33 of the opposin; — a] Lg cqunsel, but the Chamberlain’s counsel stated that fon # had not yet been able to prepare an answer to the allegation set forth in the lengthy affidavit of Mr. Foley, upon which the temporary injunction was granted, and for such preparation they desired more time. This request was granted, and in the imterim the temporary injunction continues in force. Itis probable nas the argument will take Place to-morrow or next day: THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. The Suit of Bowen vs. Chase—Continua- tion of Mr. O’Comor’s Opening State- ment for the Defendant—Madame Ja+ mel’s Willis and ttliement of Her Property—Her Testa: ary Inte: tions—Evidence for the Defence. The further hearing of the case of George Wash- ington Bowen vs. Nelson Chase was resumed yes- terday in the Unite@ States Circuit Court, before Judge Shipman and the special jury. lir. Hoar, Mr. Chatfield and Mr. Shaffer appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. CharlesO’Conor and Mr. J. C. Carter for the defendant. CONTINUATION OF MR. O’CONOR’S OPENING STATE- MENT FOR THB DEFENDANT. Mr. O'Conor said it might not be necessary to refer further to the fortunes of Mary Jumel, but he would refer to the period when Madame Jumel came to the settlement of her property. She had been at one time a woman of strong will and understanding; she may have been frivolous and vain, but she was a person who had great force of character. Her mind was undoubtedly affected, but inmaking a bargain, in buying and selling, one would say that she was not insane. She was a monomaniac, if insane at all, for she appeared to have abandoned all the early ideas of her life in re- gard to the settlement of her property and aifairs. When an aged person was about to depart from this world, with all its joys and pleasures, there occasionally arose in the mind, and such an one, @ morbid desire not to leave his er her property to expectants, and when wills of this character came up there was in them that forgetfulness of rela- tives and duties to friends which often, in the judg- ment of Courts, rendered them inoperative. This being so, Madame Jumel was not exactly in a condi- tion of mind to make a disinheriting will. She made @ will in'1863, On her death this will stood in the way of those who had a right to inherit her prop- erty, and a suit was instituted te set it aside, Madame Jumel’s family was of obscure origin. Mr. Devine, of the frm of Martin & Smith, of this city, andertook to find eut the relationship between Mrs. Jones and Madame Jumel. He went into Rhode Isiand and made the strictest in- quiries upon this subject, The first batch of heirs came on to New York’ and made an arrangement with a lawyer for one-fourth of the proceeds of the suit, They were got rid ol ihe reels Wovid be gL fulpcase, Others haa brought e PERE WOU case, FB roug Eng rule Mr. Cease could NOt IAY giv 3 single sixpence for blackmailing purposes, be- cause, if he did, he could not tell where that kind of thing would stop. He (Mr. O’Conor) would now consider how G, W. Bowen had been introduced into this suit. Mr. Devine found, upon examina- tion, that Phoebe Kelly, a young, unmarried wo- man, came into Providence at sixteen or seventeen ae When she is about thirty years of she sagain brought before the Town Council, and that examination states that ane was married at filteen or sixteen years of age; that her husband was John Bowen, @ foreigner that she had three children—Joan Bowen, her sen, who died early, aud ber two daughters, Betsy and Maria. Mr. Devine visited George . Bowen, who had been said to be so like George Wash- ington, and Madame Jumel. Mr. had got into his possessien the facts of the history of Betsy Bowen. He fellin with Daniel Hull and got his beni | and also the story of George W. Bowen, who stated that the names of Polly and Betsy Bowen were new to him; he had never heard of them before. There never was any pretence on the part of Bowen that he was the son of Madame Jumel, and not a shadow of pretence that he ever had the smallest communication with her. It was notorious in Providence that G. W. Bowen was ille- gitimate, yet he was married and had never coe municated the story of his illegitimacy to nis wife; and when he was with her at Saratoga and they saw Madame, draped in splendor, going to her car- riage, and the wife remarked that ,that was @ fine lady, Bowen never said one word— did not utter a syllable to show that Madame Jumel was his mother. Annie Eliza Van- dervoort planned with Bowen to carry on this case, and with a firm o1 lawyers in this city they brought a lot of suits; plaintiit fatied to appear, though an agreement actually in writing had been made that Bowen and Vandervoort were to have haif and the lawyers the other half. A suit was commenced in the State Courts by George W. Bowen to recover this property, but he thought that he could not get justice there, so he determined to bring his case into the Unived States Courts, and he (Mr. O’Conor) trusted justice would be done him. Mrs, Vander- voort was turned out of the case as plaintiff, and now it was brought in this Court mm the sole name of George W. Bowen. In the former trial of this case there was a leading counsel who had now abandoned the suit, But there wus a leading counsel now in_ the case (Mr, Hoar) who liad come trom another State; @ man of eminent distinction. But if there was to be a fourth trial he did not expect to see him in it, and his iriend, Mr. Chatfleid, might be left alone, orhe could go to Kilkenily, ot which they had heard, and there find some lawyer who would con- duct the case, like the cats, that fought until noth- ing was left of them but the tips of their tails, (Laughter.) Mr. O’Conor then adverted to engage- ments that had been entered into by G. W. Bowen with various lawyers in this city to conduct his case for him, he agreeing to give them a certain amount of the profits arising from the suit, and having no trouble whatever with the sum- moning of witnesses. He had placed the case in the hands of Judge Edmonds, but the Judge had finally abandoned it. Counsel then went onto refer to the statements of the wit- nesses for the plaintiff, one of them having been fished up by Mr. Starr, a juror om the last trial of this case. Those witnesses showed the utmost facility for shifting aud changing about. When Mr. Devine was down in Providence he ascertained from the statement of Bowen that his parents were dead; he did not state who they were, but certainly Betsy Bowen was not one of them, Hay- ing reierred to the contradictions made by the witness Hull in his statements on behalf of the laincitt, Mr. O'Conor said the defendant's counsel had examined him closely, and they found that his first statements were true, but he subsequently altered them, making two different statements. He (Mr. O’Conor) thought they had roved that this man Hull was not one day older than George W, Bowen, and that when he undertook to speak of Bowen as having been born in Providence the defendants would prove that Hull! had an older brother, who was born in 1792, The witnesses for the plaintitts were obliged to tell the most shocking stories about themselves. The testimony of Henry Nadine was utterly ridiculous. He tolda Ni? tear story about serving in the war of 1812. At that time he was a boy, incapable of serving—he was not able toserve. Nadine had statea that Colonel Bo- gardus was the colonel of the militia regiment in which he had served, but he (Mr. O’Conor) coula state that Colonel Bogardus, who was one of lis earliest friends, had been an officer in the regular army. He would now show the abominable and corrupt character of this prosecution. He adverted to the story of Joseph Perry, as told upon the last trial, to the various statements that Perr, had made about being in Providence, and as to his coming to New York by railways that did not exist at the time of his visit. G. W. Bowen went on the stand and backed up the story tnat he knew Perry in Providence, and, though he was called back, he did not explain how all this came to pass, Seventecn witnesses were produced on the part of the defence to contradict the evidence of Perry, when finally the plain- tif pave Perry up, but on the summing up counsel for the plaintiff had the modesty to sa: that 1t was Mr. Chase who had purchased this wil ness to damage the plaintii’s case, All through this case on the part of the plaintift there had been a change of base—a change of ground— SUBORNATION OF PERJURY marking the case all through ite sta with an absence of everything in the shape of modesty. The case of the plaintii! would go aown to posterity as one of THE MOST SHAMELESS that had ever been brought into a court of justice. Here was a person selling half his claim to wit- nesses and half to lawyers, In ancient law such a thing known as CHAMPRRTY was considered infamous. The statutes condemned it, and though there had beet some modification of this practice by statutes of this Sta: i the prac- tice should not be tolerated unless It was absolutely Madame Jumel had Jumer by'a deed; but tn 1 any Jumel returned from_ went to Mr. d she Cte @ final instru- ment of to that she was to have she onverment af ik 0. her life, and Mr. Jamel fo Dis life if he survived; and = the Sane OF ee instrument was put on record in the City Hall, and it made it pretty clear who was tobe ded a8 the helr of Madame Jumel, He put it to the jury to fay whether, if the property never originally be- longed to Madame Jumel, the plaintiff could inherit it, even if it was proved, which it was not, that he was Madame Jumel’s iliegitimat te son. At one o'clock @ recess waa taken for half an After the.recess Mr. O’Conor resumed his address to the jury. The m as to the heirship of G. W. Bowen was fer their consideration, and it would be the duty of the Court to give them such advice as it tht deem proper in regard to that matter. Droperty. was conveyed by Madame Jumel on the 13th of May, 1828, to bod Jumel, and later, for the considera- tion of $1, a Jumel conveyed the property to Michael Workmeister in trust for Madame Jumel, Madame reserved to herself complete porgt of revocation by will, She stated in the of appointment, that immediately after her death the sane was, in case her husband should not survive her, to go to Mary Jumel and her heirs. That was an equitable title, and it was said that the legal title vested in Workmeister, the trustee. It was law in the State of New York that the trustee, having the equitable title, couid re- cover GC the person having the cestut que trust. But Workmeister being dead could not bring the action, and no one hac brought it in his behalf, On that ground, therefore, there would not seem to be any difficulty. In 1834 a conveyance was made to Alexander Hamilton of part of this pi rey but he seemed not to have been atlated with ‘his title, and he reconveved the roperty back to the same parties on the same rust on which he had received it. In 1846 Madame took the property out of the hands of the trustee and ves: One of the deeds in-this transaction was a deed of conveyance by J Madame to Francis Phillippon of the pro $100,000, and on the same day and at the same moment Mr. EnUippon conveyed back the property to Madame for $1. In law and reason hat was a fraud upon the previous settlement. She was the trustee, the settlement was on recor and Mr. Phillippon knew it. Madame was entitle to the possession of the whole of the estate during her life, and by making a fraudulent conveyance an adverse title could not be set up against the remainderment. He contended that on the death of Madame Jumel the legal title vested in the heirs of Mary Jumel, she being dead. This property never directly belonged to Madame Jamel; she got it through her marriage with Mr. Jumel, but he had left her the power of disposing of it as she pleased. What did the counsel for the plaintiff mean by put- ting this man Bowen forward with a technical title to this property, to be put in possession of it one moment to be kicked out of it the next, as could be done by a bill in equity ne the party in possession? But todo thatit would be necessary for the defendant not only to allege but to prove that Bowen was an heir. But that was a thing the defendant could not do, and it, therefore, remained for Mr. Chase to fight out the case to the last. They had to fight A BLACKMAILING SUIT, He (Mr. 0’Conor) did not know but that he would have recommended his client to have settled this case, only that if he did so he might again have to fight another of the bastards who were setting up claims to this property. He had no doubt there were forty persons in Court who could make out a8 good a claim to this estate as Mr. Bowen. The de- fendant therefore was obliged to fight and would fight out the case to the end. He stated they would show by copious documents that the most intimate relations existed between the members of this family from the time Mary Jumel was admitted into it down to the period of the death of Madame Jumel.® He closed by impeaching the entry in the King Henry book respecting the birth of George Washington Bowen as an utter, rank and corrupt fraud, recently got up to hoodwink the Court. It was close upon three o’clock when Mr. O’Conor closed his address, Evidence was then given to show that Mr. Smith Barker, an attorney and counsellor at law, of this city, who was examined upon the last trial, and who had prepared a will for Madame Jumel, had recently died. Mr. Barker’s deposition respecting cae will, a8 given upon the last trial, was then Tread. ~ Mr. John M. Holland, a merchant, residing at Fort Washington, deposed that he was one of the subscriving witnesses to the will of Madame Jumel, dated April 15, 1863. The further hearing of the case was adjourned until this morning. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. UNITED. STATES DISTRICT COURT—IN BANKAUPTCY, Claims Against the Joint and Scparate Estate of the Bankrupts, Decision by Judge Blatchiord. Yesterday Judge Blatchford rendered a decision in the matter of John M. Berrian and Cornelius A. Berrian, bankrupts, pending before Mr. John Fitch, Register. The following question was certified to the Judge :— Claims against the joint and separate estate of John M. Berrian, including computation of interest paid to the date of adjudication only, e been roved at a meeting of the creditors, November 12, 872. It rl heess by the assignee’s account that he has collected sufiicient to pay all the debts roved against the separate estate of John i Berrian, after the payment of costs, fees and expenses, and leave asurplug. Joint creditors of the bankrupts have proved claims against the joint estate of the bankrupts to the amount of $49,712, which the surplus from J. M. Berrian’s separate es- tate is not sufficient to pay. A separate creditor of J. M. Berrian claims that before the surpius of his separate estate is applied to the payment of joint debts the interest on separate debts of J. M. Berrian shall be computed Jrom the day of adjudication and the sur- us it to the payment of such interest. he assignee claims that the surplus is to be ap- plied to tl enon of joint debts, and not to the payment of interest which has accrued since the adjudication on the separate estate of J. M. Berrian. Register Fitch recommended that the motion of the creditors of the separate estate of J. M. Berrian shouid be denied. Judge Blatchford decides that the surplus shall be applied to the pay- ment of joint debts before paying iutevest on separate debts. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT—IN ADMIRALTY. Calendar for This Day. Aumach vs. The Schooner Creole. Whitney va. The Ferryboat Sunswick. Earle vs. The Schooner Emeline. Brown vs. Lord. Benedict vs. The Steamtug Niagara, Nickerson vs. The Steamtug Echo, Johnsoa vs. The Steamtug Grant. UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS’ COURT. The Examination in the Case of Wood- hull, Claflin and Blood Resumed— Another Day of Quotations and Windy Oratory—Propositions Submitted by Defendants’ Counsel— Decision Re- served. Before Commissioner Davenport. The examination of the wayward sisters, Wood- hull & Claflin, and Celonel Blood, on the charge of sending obscene matter through the United States mail, wasresumed yesterday morning before Commissioner Davenport in the federal building in Chambers street. The Commissioner sat in the Grand Jury room, as usual, which was crowded to excess with well-dressed young men. During the examination Judge Dewling entered the court room and took # seat beside Commissiener Daven- port. Messrs. Howe & Hummel, Jourdan and McKinley appeared for the accused, Judge Dowling seemed to enjoy the fun im Mensely, and the frown which usually clouds his classic brow in his own court gave way to half. concealed smiles as the learned counsel quoted spicy extracts from “Hudibras” and Aristophanes’ — plays. The Juage seemed to know all about Mr, Jourdan made an address of an hour's duration to the Commissioner, and quoted “Hudt- bras” aud other anthers so extensively and thoroughly that the wayward sisters were fain to hold down their heads, and Mrs, Woodhuil blushed deeply. Counsel compared them to Galileo and Martin Luther, During the address of counsel @ tall, lank indl- vidual in black, with a white tie and shiny black hat, the counterpart of the Rev. Mr. Howler or the Rev. Mr. Stiggins, the friend of the elder Pickwick, came into court and took @ seat near the report. | ers’ table, facing the sisters, at whom le giared | solemnly for a few minutes and then piously threw ‘up his eyes to the ceiling. This gentleman seemed to be intensely amused at the broad passages joted. a AVTER RECESS. After recess Mr. McKinley addressed the Court and denounced Comstock, the witness for the prosecution, in the most unmeasured terms. He also indulged in a little at ag the As- sistant District Attorney, Mr. Purdy, whom he styled *‘a top sawyer,”” ir. Purdy replied and stated that he was never pefore so thoroughly persuaded that Billy Birch was an actual delimeator of a certain style of oratory. lite scene between counsel, Yue lam F, Howe submitted the following points :— First—That the prosecntion infringed upon the era of bay press, there being nothing obscene in the paper. Second—That if a decision were given against the prisoners the Holy Bible, Byron, Smollett &c., were indictable matter as a whole, Comstock should be arrested if the Commissioner's decison were adverse to the pris- oners, on the ground that he was the cause of hav. ing obscene matter transmitted through the United Btates mail, havin; Pui an z +f Paid for it. replied on behalf of the government in iresa, contending that the article com- of was Of a very vile, ebseene and scanda- 7 SUBMITTED. of Attorney Purdy’s pt Me . the leading counsed for the female brokers, submitted as matters of law wes follo propositions to Commissioner Davene Porirst—That it wil be a violation of the tion and destructive to that freedom of ranteed by the constitution to hold th fendants on this charge, there being nothing Obe scene on the face of the publication, Second—That if you, as Judge in this case, hol® this publication to be obscene, then you public declare and render it a8 your solemin j that the Holy Bible and Shakspeare are Third—That if you should, by the remotest possi- bility (but which result I do not apprehend), hold these defendants, then, as a matter of law and Perec you —_ He hold the complainant, Com- ‘stock, as a principal. The Commissioner reserved his decision. RETIREMENT OF JUDGE NELSON, The members of the Bar of the United States: Courts of the Second Circuit are requested to meet in the United States Court room, in tne city of New York, on Friday next, the 17th inst., at two o'clock P.M., to take action upon the retirement of Mr. Justice Nelson trom the Supreme Court of the United States, James W, Gerard. Edwards Pierrepont. George Ticknor Curtis, Theodore W. Dwight. George Gutford. Charles O’Conor. Mur) hoffman, E. W, Stoughton, E, C. Beneuict. Joshua M, Van Cott.. William M. Evarts, New YorK, Jan. 14, 1873, SUPREME COURT—TRIAL TEAM—PART 2. Retrial of an Old Suit—Liability of Come mon Carriers. ‘ Before Judge Fancher, eg ~In July, 1855, the Russell Manufacturing Com, pany shipped by the New Haven Steamboat Come pany six boxes of cutlery from New Haven to this city. The goods arrived safely and were trans- ferred from the steamer to the wharf, when 4 fire occurred during the night, destroying the wharf and the goods. Suit was brought to recover $2,471 76, the value of the goods. The case was tried before Judge Van Brunt and resulted in a verdict for the defendant, An appeal was taker from this verdict to the Genéral Term and the judg- ment aitirmed. It was then taken to the Courtos Appeals and a new trial ordered. The second trit was concluded yesterday. A verdict was given fo! $3,582, being the full amount claimed, with interest. SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS. Decisions. Ry Judge Barrett. yms et al. vs. Pabst et al.—Motion denied, with $10 costs and stay vacated, Hanson Bart vs. Kichards.—Motion denied, with $10 costs. Margaret Jordan vs. Cornelius Jordan.—Motion denied, with $10 costs, Thomas Fessenden et al. vs. Francis Vosé.— Same. Moritz Weinfeld vs. John Tracy et al.—Same. Huhn et al. vs. Dalton et al.—Same, Linn vs, Chardavoyne.—Same. Dorrington vs. Dorrington et al.—Motion granted in part and dented in part. No costs, Larned et al. vs. Hotchkiss et al.—Motion grante@ without. costs and without prejudice to the attach> ment. McKinley vs. Conover.—The trial was commence® with full Knowledge of plaintif’s non-residence, It ig not, therefore, within 14 Abb., part I, Motion denied, with $10 costs, SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM, By Judge Barbour. Reade vs. Waterhouse.—Order vacating stay. Rodrigres vs, East River Savings Bank (two cases).—Orcers for commission. Harnett vs, Gatvey.—Order denying motion for reference in both cies. i Wentworth. Jr., vs. Kobb & Corkies.—Order Vae cating judgment assignmcat defendant Corlies, Woolf vs. Jacobs.—Motion cenied, COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, ~*... > Barglaries and Larcenies. “ Before Judge Sutherland, . Assistant District Attorney Russell prosecuted for the people in this Court yesterday, Robert Fields pleaded guilty to grand larceny im stealing, on the 26th of November, a gold watch and chain, valued at $170, the property of Henry Bennett. He was sent to the State Prison for twa years and six months, William Clark and Thomas Dorsey, youths, charged with burglary in the second degree, pleaded guilty to the third grade of that ‘offence. On the 17th of December they effected’ an_ entrance into the dwelling of William Gidis, No. 29 Second street, and stole $20 worth of miscellaneous prop- erty. The sentence imposed was four years’ im- prisonment each in the State Prison. John Smith pleaded Ligh 3 to an attempt at bure glary in the third degree, the indic:sment char; that on the 18th of December he broke into liquor store of Thomas McMahon, 211 South street No property was taken. Smith was sent to the prison at Sing Sing for two years and six months. William Howard pleaded guilty to forgery in the third degree, in having forged an order on the 9th of December for $25, purporting to have been signed by Frederick North, captain of the boat Brodack. The paper was presented to Morris AK James, 105 Broad street, who gave the accused the money. There were strong mitigating circume stances in this case, and as the defendant ap- peared to be an honest boatman and was ied into the commission of the offence by being on @ “spree,” Judge Sutherland imposed the lowest sentence allowed by law, which Was one year’s ime prisonment in the State Prison. Edward Burns, @ carman, was tried npon an ine dictment charging that on the 2d of December, while carrying three loads of furniture and house. hold goods from Seventeenth to Seventh street, for Mrs, ryant, he stole a boy's overcoat, a roll of carpet, two umbrellas and # cane. The jury found Burns guilty of petit larceny and His Honor sen> tenced him to the Penitentiary for six months, An Insanc Forger Acquitted. Patrick O'Neill was tried upon an indictment for forgery, charging him with endorsing the name of William Sheridan, of Verplanck’s Point to a note fon $1,000, which he gave to Albert J, Smitn, in Decems ber, in payment for the liquor store 11 Park row, which he purchased from Smith & Thurber, Mr. Sheehan, counsel for 0’Neill, showed by Mn n, who ‘has been a friend of the prisoner for the last twenty years,and by a number of respectable witnesses, that in Noyember and December O’Neilb was crazy. Among other strange acts he committed he said he was going to get married, and Invited alk his friends to go to Stewart's and get camel’s hair shawls and bel apd ‘upon his order, that he owned all the city and carried checks {or millions of dol- lars in his pocket, ‘the sister of the prisoner was a witness, and tess tifled that she and another relative came from Call fornia in response to a telegram from O'Neill ta. the effect that he had property worth a million 0 dollars, He was arrested upon this charge of for- gery the day she arrived here. The jury ren 4 verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity. The City Judge consented to tho discharge of O'Neill, because {t satisfactorily appeared that he had reeovered from the delirium tremeus whic! occasioned his insanity. ‘ COURT CALENDARS—THIS DAY, ; SUPREME Cotmr—Crncvrt TAAL. cane i I~ ield by Judge Fancher.—Nos, Ly 144) 497, a1 1039, 747, 931, 1051, 1059, 142 Te, 759, var 763, 768, 767, 771, 777. Part 2—Held by Jud; Van Brunt.—Nos. 1641, 337, 530%, 504, 644, 422, 776, 640, ag a 743, 74d, 146, 754)4, 760, 762, 770, vee urMEME. COURT—CHAMBERS—Held by Judge Bare Tett.—Nos. 55, 79, 88, 97, 98, 99, 100, 122, 141, 199, 206, 207, 208, '209,'210, 211, 212, 231, 280, 284, 913, 315, 316, 318, 320, 347, 363, 357, 365, 377. Ci l. SUPKEME COURT—GENERAL TERM—Held by Judges Ingraham, Brady and Learned.—Nos. 143, 144, 146, 250, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166,'167, 168, 169, i70, 171, SvpeRion CouRT—TRIAL PeRM—Part 1—Held Judge Curtis.—Nos. 1827, 1340, 1985, 1003, 1457, 1815, 1825, 1990, 1605, 1871, 408, 1621, 41, 1830, 256, }, 1386, 234, pt 1 1600, 1602, 1004, ‘eben Court oF CoMMON PLEAS—TRIAL TeRM—Part 1— Held by Judge Robinson.—Nos. 1707, 1435, 1542, 1698, 1696, 2790, 129, 114%, 866, % 68, 1508, 1051, tose? Hey ioe’ aw a as ieee eae 11. A , 1760, 612, 61 Court OF COMMON PrEAS-OMNEWAL TERM HOIS by Judges Charles P. Daly, Larremore and Leew. Nos. 142, 4, 24, 28, 29, 30, 33, 48. MaRINk CourT—TriaL TERM—Part 1—Held oy Judge Spaulding.—Nos, 1604, 1180, 1194, 11 1260, 1806, 1214, 1756, 1074, 794, 1212, 1242, 1800, 1166. lt a Eling ta gh , y 283, 088,'i10s.” Part 2-Heta by Judge Gross, Ne 1268, = bg ime Bay 1116, 1873, 1875, 1379, 3381, oy OF GENERAL SRSStONS—Held by Jndge Sutherland.—Robvery, George H. Williams, James Ritchie and William Halon; felonious assanit and battery, James Maiony, gt ae H. Malony, Fred- ert ‘a Pinkie; burglary, ‘ard Barker and John an ht; Pi larceny, James Sheehan ani Jere. mi lurpliy; larceny ‘from the person, George McGui niel Mc! William Biair, Moe 'buehanan and Frederick Fosse ae COURT OF APPEALS CALENDAR, ALBANY, N, Y., Jan. 14, 1878. The following ts the calendar of the Comntecion of Appeals for Wednesday, January 16, instant :~ Saas fh ui alt homie ot o'clock A. Mi.