The New York Herald Newspaper, January 16, 1873, Page 5

THE COURTS. ~TWE GREAT TWEED TRIAL—SEVENTH DAY. Farther Objections on the Part of the Defence Overruled by the Court---Wide-Awake Coun- sel and a Somnolent Jury---Testimony of B. 8, Storrs---All About the Vouchers, bot Litthe Enlightenment--Contin- uation of the Case To-Day. THE RING REGIME---REMINISCENCES REVIVED A Legal Squabble Over Rent for an Ar- mory—An Alternative Writ of Man- , damus Against the Comptroller—The Oase To Be Disposed of To-Day. THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. ‘Testimony for the Defence—Impecaching the Evidence of the Plaintiff Bowen and the Witness Hall—A Lively Bout Between Counsel—The Court Called Upon to Interfere. - GRAND JURIES FOR FEBRUARY. Impanelling Grand Juries for the Oyer and Terminey and General Ses- sions—Names on the Panels. _ BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. —————— Summaries—A Bankruptey Decision—Suit Against, Secretary Boutwéll—A Collision Case in “Ad- miralty—Question of Salaries—Suit Upon a Letter of Administration—Action for Services Rendered—Trials and Con- victions in the General Sessions, ee eepen On RED The Tweed trial was resumed yesterday (seventh @ay) in the Court of Oyer and Terminer, before Judge Davis. Mr. Storrs, Deputy Comptroller, was ‘on the stand during the Whole of the session, and his examination was not concluded at the adjourn- ment. His testimony principally related to denti- fication of vouchers for work done on the County Court House and the signatures thereto. Counsel for the defence raised numerous objections to the admissibility of portions of the testimony, which were, however, all overruled by the Court. Mr. Storrs’ examination will be resumed this morning. In the United States Circuit Court yesterday one Bartholomew Clifford Galvin filed in person a @eciaration against Mr. Boutwell, Secretary of the Treasury, to recover damages to the extent of $2,000,000. Not long since the initiation of this suit was noticed in the columns of the H&RALD. Galvin claims that on July 9, 1869, Mr. Bout- well negotiated with him for a plan to equalize the value of gold coin and paper money, and that Mr. Boutwell adopted this pian, by which the Secretary of the Treasury was tobe sole dictator of the value of gold; that he could sell itin such quantities as he pleased and at such prices ag he desired to affix to it, and that people are to be compelled to buy it at those prices, which are to be on a decreasing scale until mreenbacks are at par. Importers are to be allowed to buy as much gold as will pay their customs du- ties. The plaintiff sets forth two millions of dol- Jars as the lowest amount he ought to charge Mr. Boutwell for putting him in the way of carrying eut this financial scheme. It is supposed that the suit will not be proceeded with. The plaintiff re- fuses to employ 2 lawyer. Yesterday the matter of Nathaniel Dole, a bank- rupt, came before Judge Woodruff, in the United States Circuit Court, on petition for review. The assignee sought toexamine the bankrupt to dis- cover property alleged to have been concealed by the latter. Judge Woodruff denied the motion asking fora stay of proceedings, holding that the bankrupt must be examined. The bankrupt was discharged in 1868. On behalf of the bankrupt it ‘was contended that the limitation in section 2 of the act prevented an examination being had, Judge Blatchford decided otherwise and Judge Woodruff backs up the decision of Judge Blatcniord. Charles Gordon, a French boy, was brought be- fore Commissioner Shields yesterday and charged with having smuggled into this port, by the Ger- man steamer Thorwaldsen, two dozen gold watches and four dozen gold rings. The accused had the articles concealed upon his person ; but it appeared that he received them on board from some un- known person, who desired him to take the goods ashore, By consent of the District Attorney the boy was discharged, but the valuables were turned over to the government. Christopher Yetta and Frederick Glang, distillers, doing business at Thirty-ninth street and First avenue, were brought before Commissioner Shields yesterday and charged with violating their license from the government by making whiskey and rum from molasses instead of only apple whiskey, to the manufacture of which they were, it is claimed, con- fined by the terms of their license. They were held in bail for examination. i The hearing of the case of George Washington Bowen vs. Nelson Chase was resumed yesterday in the United States Circuit Court, before Judge Ship- man and the special jury. Evidence was given on the part of the defendant, for the purpose of show- ing contradictions in the testimony of Daniel Hull, one of the witnesses for the plaintiff. The case was adjourned ttl! to-day. In the United States Circuit Court yesterday Judge Woodruff denied the motion for review of A. H. Rainey, assignee of Alfred Wild, who had been discharged as a bankrupt by the District Court. A matter came yesterday before Judge Barrett, at Supreme Court, Chambers, which gives a little insight into how ‘things were managed under the ring régime relative to renting premises to be used as armories. In this case the Comptroller has re- fused to pay $17,500 rent, on the ground that it is Jargely in excess of what the premises were worth. Application was made for a peremptory mandamus against the Comptroller, directing him to pay the amount claimed. It was finally agreed to accept an alternative writ, returnable this morning, when all the facts in the case will doubtless be thor- oughly ventilated. Grand juries for the February term of the Courts of Oyer and Terminer and General Sessions were drawn yesterday in the presence of Judge Barrett, at Supreme Court, Chambers. A Jist of the jurora drawn is printed in our legal columns, and they will be found to embrace some’of our prominent citizens, If these men can only be made to serve, and not be let off on the shallow pretence of busi- ness engagements, the work of criminal reform in ‘this city will be materially abetted. THE GREAT TWEED TRIAL—SEV- ENIH DAY. Proceedings Yesterday—Further Objec- Richard 8. Storre—All About the Burned Vouchers—Spicy Tilts Between Counsel—What the “Boss” Thinks of The proceedings in the great Tweed trial yester- , Gay Were conducted with an carnestness and sap! NEW: YORK HERALD, ‘THURSDAY, JANUARY (16, 1873.—TRIPLE SHEET, Doth om the part of coume! for the prosecution and the defence, which @ determination to fight the trial out on th¢ line taken to the end— no matter what time it consume. The exami- nation of Deputy Co! Storrs occupiéd the whole of the session, and { was not concluded at the hour of adjournment, Every fresh question and answer was fresh ground presented to fight the case inch by inch. Thus counsel got into fre- quent wrangles, which would have been inter- minable were it not for the prompt rulings of the Court, which exposed and rendered futile all the well-spun webs of objections and obstructions of defendant's counsel. There was very large ATTENDANCE OF SPECTATORS, from the beginning to the close, who seemed to enjoy with great zest the thrust and guard and counter thrust of the legal knights. The jury, however, were not so interested in the forensic warfare, and only pricked their ears or rubbed their eyes when the oracle on the bench opened his lips and pronounced his decision on some one or other of the obscure—to lay ears—points raised. ‘The testimony of Mr. Storrs, on the other hand, was as complex and perplexing to the said jury a8 the subtle or contusing argument of counsel, and 80 between testimony as to vouchers, certificates, warrants, signatures, pigeon-holes, Boards of Supervisors and Boards of Audit and the sounds of millions, four-fifths of the jury nodded the noon away, till waked up by the welcome atirin the court room which indicated the hour of recess. On the reassembling of the Court the same scene was re-enacted. Counsel had another “set to’’ and jurors another dose. Mr. Tweed and young Dick sat throughout the whole proceedings unmoved. The Boss, while pulling on his overshoes, waa asked by a casual acquaintance “how he felt.” “OH, 1 FEEL ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, and Pll feel better when \t comes to my tarn to put witnesses on the stand,” was the reply of the Boss. From present appearances the trial prom- iges to be one of the most protracted held in the Court of Oyer Terminer since the McFarland- Richardson case. Counsel are not likely to grow tired of the rich harvest they are reaping, and unless @ juror succumbs to a weariness of spirit, or id prostrated by ill-hegith, and eventually leaves his chair vacant for goo ¢ a result is arrived at, the dog days may be upon ue bolere that much- to-be desired event will come to 25 vf ings were resumed at the usual hour yes- terday morning ip the ‘Tweed case. W. M. Tweed, Dick Tweed, General Tweed and the array of counsel retained for the defence, as also the two leading spirits of the prosecution, the champions for the people—Messrs. Tremain and Peckham—were all early in attendance, Justice Davis took his seat on the bench at pre- cisely eleven o'clock. 1t was announced that owing to the decision of the Court yesterday on the ovjections raised by the Baa Wd witness first called, Deputy Comp- froilér 8, would be permitted to give his testi- mony in relation to the vouchers and other matters of audit. COUNSEL AGAIN AT LOGGERHEADS. After the j had been called and answered, a short wrangle took place between respective coun- Bel as to the reading of the statute, which reading was proposed by the prosecution, under which the indictment was drawn, and the constitutionality of which is disputed by the defence. Mr. Field stated that every count in the indict- ment called the defendant an officer, and he al- leged, therefore, that it was compulsory on the prosecution to prove him such before any testi- mony could be aie Te Coys dBelde ‘Saversely to this proposition. ‘ 8: ion was then called for, and granted, to every answer of the witness bearing on the ques- tions already passed upon by tne Court. TESTIMONY OF R- 8, STORRS. Richard 8. Storrs sworn—I am assistant in the Comptroller’s office; I know A. Oakey Hall; he was Mayor of this city in 1870; W, M. Tweed was Presi- dent of the Board of Supervisors; R. B. Connoily was Comptroller; ae @ searcn in the safe in the Comptroller’s office I found this pa (showing @ paper in the handwriting of Mayor i) OBJECTION TAKEN. The introduction in evidence of the paper was objected to, as it was claimed it was a resolution of the Board of Audit, and the resolution being in itself a crime alleged, it not being mentioned in the indictment, was not competent. The paper bore the signatures of Messrs. Hall, Tweed and Connoily, the Board of Audit. Under the decision of Judge Potter, it was claimed that the paper was not adinissible. The admissibility or inadmissibility of the docu- ment ag evidence was argued at some length. : anaes, Davis gave an extended decision and ad- mitted the document. ‘The paper was then read, EXAMINATION CONTINUED. Witness—I found other things in the Comptroi- ler’s office in September, 1871, relating to these matters; in the latter part of the Summer of 1871 I found some vouchers; the Mayor was with me when I found them. ‘The witness was asked what he found the second time, and was proceeding to describe their nature, when the defence objected. A number of vouchers then were shown the wit- ness, who was asked to state the atures on them. He did so. There were W. M. reed, R. B, Connolly and A. Pokey, Hall, as President of the Board of Supervisors, Comptroller and Mayor, re- spectively. The witness also described the marks onthe warrant made by the bank, certifying that the amount haa been paid, &c. The witness was asked a number of questions, by both counsel for the defence and prosecution, as to the handwriting appearing on one particular warrant and voucher shown, Witness—I first saw the Pekis shown me in the latter part of the Summer of 1871; at that time the; were all attached; they were also attached to eac! other—that is, the bill, voucher and warrant—at the time ofthe first trial of Mayor Hall; I was not charged with the custody of these papers, and was not responsible for their safe keeping. OTHER OBJECTIONS. Counsel for the defence said they now objected to the first sheet of the bill shown, as there was noth- ing on it connecting it with Mr. Tweed, and the only portion of the second page of the bill admissi- ble was that wierein was contained the signature of the defendant; they must show that the first page of the biil was attached to the second at the time Mr. Tweed signed his name to the latter, The question was thoroughly discussed, Judge Davis said the ingenious objections of counsel seemed to him ANTAGONISTIC TO ANY PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. The papers were admitted in evidence, and the objection declared not . A number of other objections were made to other portions of the papers, all of whicn objections were overruled and exceptions noted. The papers were then read to the jury by Mr. Peckham. ie bill was dated July, 1869, and gives items of charges for work of different kinds formed about the City Hall. The vouchers produced were signed by the Mayor, the Comptroller, by the defendant and by E. A. Woodward, The cut mark is evidence that the bank paid the money. The filling in of the cer- tificate of audit was in the handwriting of tie County Auditor, Stephen C. Lyons, Te Detendan:’s Counsel—There is nothing on the bill in Mr. Tweed’s handwriting except his name. The words “Chairman of Committee” were written under Tweed’s signature by Woodward. Voucher “No. 2” was then handed to witness, and the same set of questions were put and objec- tions made as to Voucher No. 1. This was a bill of Keyser & Co. for $27,887 96; the certificate of audit, signed by the three members of the Board of Audit, and the Comptroller's warrant and County Clerk’s certificate. Objection was made as before against accumulation of offences, The next (they were all Keyser’s), for $16,024 62, $19,870 14, $36,830 80 and $44,388 67. The last bill was spe objected to on account of Ge hgee alterations with a pen on the face of fe . which the witness could not tell anything about. The witness was next banded a bill and certifi- cate of audit, the bill beg dated July 1, 1870, and the certificate as issued or made July 8, 1870, ‘ Mr, Field raised the objection that it was inad- missible to putin evidence any act of the defendam alleged to have been executed by him after he had ceased to be an officer de jure. je defendant was here on trial tor acts alleged to have been done by him in his official capacity as President of the Board of Supervisors. This certificate bore date of July 8, when in fact the defendant had CEASED TO BE AN OFFICER several days before by virtue of an act of the Leg- islature, Which legisiated the Board of Supervisors out of office and provided for the creation of another body empowered to exercise the functions formerly exercised by thia Board. He held that such evidence was wholly inadmissible and understood the Court to have ruled to that effect on another objection taken on Wednesday. the Court explained that in the ruling referred toit held that when the defendant ceased to be President of the Board of Soper eae he ceased to be an officer de jure, but that the acocart might show that he was still an officer and an officer de , assuming to exercise his func- tions, is deemed liable for misfeasance, if com- mitted by him while so pane At this point the Court read the ruling in ques- tion the transcription of the steno; her's: notes (of the accuracy of which transcription some doubts were expressed by the Judge) to the effect that unless the defendant were an officer de jure he could not be compelled to discharge the func- tions of the office. It would be another question, however, where an officer no longer under the ob- ligation’ of his jurat takes upon himself the dis- charge of @ duty and in THE BXERCISE OF THAT FUNCTION Violates @ statute. In the first case the remedy against him would be for negiect to fulfil a duty, andin the other for an improper execution of an assumed duty. Mr. Field stated that he had not so understood the Court, but he would, however, claim the right to show that there was no such thing in this case as an officer de facto Cia for the office had ceased to exist from the first of July, and he had been dis- a from it, He would therefore ask the Court to allow a discussion of this question. The Judge suggested that counsel discuss first whether the office ceased to exist or whether the functions merely devolved upon some one else by the operation of the act of the ago Mr. Field claimed that the o! had actuall ‘ claim not having been awarded, it was that there was no necessity for this, asthe Board of Audit could not change the amount, it having ceased to exist, and read from the act to show that | already been fixed by contract. Aiter some further ot Supervisors “shall be abolished” from 1870, the duties heretofore performed by being conferred upon an entirely NEW SET OF OFFICERS, “Yudge Davis inquitfogly suggested, «W vi suge ‘as not that a mere succession?” ° “No more @ succession,” replied Mr. Field, “in this case than George Washington was the succes- sorof the President of Congress. soth in their times were the chief executives, and that wae all, the July 1, them ‘There was no succession, for Washington’s was an | ea new office.” - Mr. Bartlett—also for the defence—followed Mr, Field in maintaining the same point; after which Mr. Tremain, for the prosecution, addressed the Oours needy. and arenes, that Tweed was an officer de Jacto; that the gislature did not actually abolish the Board by the spirit of the law on July 1, 1870, but ‘that the functions of the Board were jumed to exist until all its duties in the audit- ing of certain accounts were discharged. It was competent for the Legisiature to conter power upon the persons named in the act making them Com- missioners of a-Board of Audit,and the defendant was not A MERE USURPER. He continued to fill tne office, and left it to his suc- cessor to try his rignt to oust him by quo warranto, The evidence, he thought, should be admitted, sub- ject to the charge of the Court. * Mr. Bartlett again rose and addressed the Court in @ ratner tame way, and everybody was by this time rather sleepy. as the day’s proceedings had been extremely dull. ‘Ihe discussion looked in- volved and “‘hair-splitting” to a layman, and a gentleman in Court expressed the situation ex- actly when he quoted Dundreary, sotto voce. by in- timating that this was “one of those things that no fella can find out.” Fight of THE JURORS HAD THEIR HEADS resting in various positions on their hands, a ninth was picking his ear, a tenth stroked his mustache leisurely down with both hands, and the remaining two looked excessively somnolent. Tremain turned in his chair and looked at Bartlett with a soft, well fed, leonine expression. Storrs, the wit- ness, looked as though he was in the stocks, and would like to walk around the room once or twice to stretch himself. Mr. Field wore ared necktie, and looked antte dignified as he rested patiently chair. . Tweed’s necktie was white, and there was no e ion of either fatigue or anxiety visible abou: . Mr. Fullerton, with his usual brasque, forcible menner, got up when his bower, Mr. Bartlett, sat down, and made the point that Tweed could not have been an officer either de jure or de facto on July 8, 1870, as he had already been superseded. He could no more be an officer then than Mayor Hall could assume to be Mayor now. Judge Davis said—The case is very different, be- cause we have a Mayor in Mr. Havemeyer. 4 CROWD OF KEEN ONES thought this was intended as a eee joke, though it wasn’t, and wheezed out a ee -f Then Mr. Bartlett got up again and the same thing over that himself and associates had been Saying for the last half hour—only, of course, like them, he put it in different words each time, and it sounded something like @ new point or an elabora- tion of an old oné. ir. Fielg felt that it was time to he at it again, and told the Court that there could not be a de fure and a de facto officer at the same time. The defacto officer might claim his right; but it was impossible that two could at the same time be in ion. The Court stated that in its opinion there was in this city at this time an instance showing that there might be two officers with but one office. We have two deputy chamberlains—one legal necessarily, and the other illegal; b@t there were two deputy chamberlains until it was determined which one was bss oe entitled to the office. Mr. Field regretted his inability to MAKE HIMSELF INTELLIGIBLE bra fh medium of the English language; but the point he desired to impress on the Court was that there could not be two In actual possession. ‘The Court satd there had been a time when. two Judges of the Supreme Court, each claiming to be entitled to one seat, sat on the bench together, and each discharging his duties at the same time, Mr. Field—Yes, one vacating orders as fast as the other granted them, (Another shuffling laugh from the crowd.) Judge Davis continued to state his illustration, and sald that each of those judges was in posses- sion of the office, and the illegal one was equally protected in his daties with the other. Mr, Field—No sir! no sir! ‘The Judge mildiy continued—each was protected until their rights were determined. Mr. Field (rapidly)—No sir! no sir! no sir! THE THING AT THIS TIME degenerated into a sort of promiscuous “jaw,” which the Court oiexty perceived and stopped by holding that the defendant was at the time in ques- tion on officer de facto; that the highest inte rests of the people required that the office should be con- nae and that one who discharged its functions even without right, but with color of right, was responsible. The evidence was ordered to be re- ceived, and exception was taken thereto by the defence. Several other “exhibits,” consisting of bills of “Keyser & Co.’ and other parties, were handed to witness, together with the certificates of audit of various dates, but all coming within the period ter- minated by July 1,1870. The witness was exam- ined only as to certain signatures, Mr. Peckham conducting the examination, Q. Are there any a:counts in the Comptroller's office in reference to the books of audit? A. The record of vouchers and the audit books are all that I know of; Mr. Watson’s room adjoined the room of Mr. Connolly, the Comptroller; there was a parti- tion separating the rooms; a private door from the Comptrolier’s room led into Mr. Watson’s room; Mr. Watson died in January, 1871. THE STOLEN VOUCHERS. Q. Do you know of anything being taken from the Comptroller’s office abouc the 11th or 12th of rat 1871? ne of the defendant's eight counsel here rose and objected to the question. He said this ques- tion brought up the consideration of the peint whether the Court was now going into the trial of A CASE OF IMAGINARY BURGLARY. There was no pretence that any burglary in fact had been committed. Mr. O’Conor, who drew the indictment in that case, does not and dare not take the ground that there was @ burglary. He merely alludes to it as though the persons who broke into the Comptroller’s office first broke out of it. Counsel’s theory always had been that the person who did that job was legally inside that office. The indictment merely charged that the papers in question were ‘‘wholly lost,’’ but did not allege how or in what way “lost,” nor even whether “lost”? in an extraordinary manner. It was incumbent on the prosecution here to show that the defendant had control of those papers. Mr. Tweed’s position here was a serious one and involved the question whether the prosecution could come in here and testify either from memory or by perjury as to whether certain papers of which they liad control and which they claimed to be now lost were of a certain character. The prosecution proposed to show that the defendant signed some sixty or seventy papers. Phey would come in and have their witnesses swear from their memory that those signatures of Mr. Tweed were genuine, and the defence would have no oppor- tunity of showing, in consequence of the ABSENCE OF THE PAPERS, whether the signatures were forgeries or not, It would be very different if the defendant had been in control of the papers when lost, but the prose- cution had been their custodians, had lost them and now proposed, at the risk of memory, or, per- haps, of perjury o! their witnesses, to show what those papers which they have lost contained, It was their duty to produce ba an ec Counsel then read extracts from the indictment in reference to the disappearance of the vouchers and a@ lengthy brief on the subject of parole evi dence, together with copious citations of authori- ties from the books. At the close of the argument the Court ruled against the defendant's objection and an exception was taken. The Court then, at four o’clock, adjourned until this morning. sepsis Legal Squabble on Rent for an Armory— Asking for a Peremptory Mandamus Against the Comptroller and Accepting an Alternation Writ [nstead—Dispos: tion of the Case To-Day. Mr. Alexander T. Compton, a brother-in-law of Henry J. Ingersoll, whose name has figured so prominently in connection with the alleged “Ring frauds,” leased to the city, through the Board of Supervisors, portions of the buildings Nos. 108 and 110 West Twenty-fourth street to be used as an armory. The rent agreed upon was $17,500 a year, and the same was to be paid by the Comptrol- ler qnarterly. On the first quarter day of last year the Comptroller was duly called upon for the quarter's rent, but he refused to pay. The same result followed every successive application during the year. At length the Comptroller as- signed the claim to Joseph N. Walton. The latter gentleman grew weary of importuning the Comp- troller, and thought he would see what virtue there was in stones, or, in other words, determined to bring the matter into the Courts. His initiative legal proceedings were of a very decisive character. He applied yesterday, or rather his coun- sel, Mr. Fullerton, did for him, to Judge Barrett, at Supreme Court, Chambers, tor @ peremptory mandamus against the Comptroller, directing him to pay the amount of the claim. The case was argued at considerable length, Mr. Strahan appearing as counsel for the Comptroller. He submitted two affidavits, one showing that there was no record in the Comptroller's office of any assignment of the claim, and the other of a gentleman, claimed to be a competent judge in the matter, that $7,000 would be ral rent for the remises. He urged further that the claim had fot yet been audited, as required by statute, The report was that it was too late now to complain of excessive rent, the mises having occupied under the conditions of the lease dw the term for which pay of rent 1s claimed. As to the asaign- ment, it was claitned that if the writ was incompe- tant this could be remedied in the weit, Ax to the argument it was final): upon between coun- sel that an alternative we tissue returnable to-day, and an order to this effect was given. THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. The Suit of Bowen vs. Chase—Testimony for the Defendant—Contradiction of the Evidence of G. W. Bowen and Daniel Hull—A Lively Time in Court, The further hearing of the case of George Wash- ington Bowen vs, Nelson Chase was resumed yesterday, in the United States Circuit Court, be- fore Judge Shipman and the special jury. Mr. Hoar and Mr. Chauncey Shaffer appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Chatfield being absent from iliness, and Mr. Charles O’Gonor and Mr. J. C. Carter for the defendant. DEPOSTSION PUT IN, Mr. O’Conor produced the deposition of Daniel Hull, taken before Mr. Danielson the the 12th, 13th, 14th and 16th days of January, 1871. The deposition had been read over to Hull, and he subscribed it with his mark on the last day of the examination named above. Counsel also produced the deposi- tion of the same witness, taken April 21, 1866, and signed by him. Hull had stated that he had not signed that deposition. TESTIMONY OF MR. L. 0. ASHLEY. Mr. Lucius ©. Ashley, a lawyer, at present resid- ing in this city, but who had lived in Providence in 1866, deposed that he had taken depositions in re- lation te the will of Madame Jume) under a com- mission, He identified a bundle of papers as the depositions he had so taken on that occasion, in connection with a Mr. Toby; he remembered the taking of the deposition of Daniel Hull at Hull’s own house in South Providence; nas no doubt Hull signed the deposition, because he (wit- ness) had put his jfurat to the paper that he had signed it; Mr. Toby was present when the deposi- tion was taken; great care was taken to write down just what the witness said. i rae Cereeg HG sa seeming oF the last rial, and have not looked at my dengsition gj nee; Ido not_ recollect Sardieutaciy Wane wie, ful waa sworn; I can only say that all the witnesses were sworn or afiirmed; I wrote down all that was ma- terial in the examination—all that was responsive to the questions. Q. Did any of the witnesses examined under that commission state that they had seen Madame Jumel in Providence with a little boy? Mr. O’Conor objected to the question. The Judge—What is the object of the question ? Mr. 8 r—To test the recollection of the wit- neas. Mr. Shaffer—We except. Counsel for plaintiff then moved that they have a right to cross-examine the witness in reference to the other depositions contained in the commission. ‘The Judge—When the deposition of any of those witnesses comes up before the Court I will rule upon it as a distinct matter. TESTIMONY OF JOHN F. TOBY, Mr. John F. Toby, a lawyer, residing at Provi- dence, R. I, deposed to taking the depositions un- der the commissions referred to by the previous witness, Mr. patter Daniel Hull was examined on that occasion at his own house in South Provi- dence; Hull signed his deposition, and he was either affirmed or sworn; has no recollection that at that time Hull was iu; has no recollection that he made any complaint to that effect; has no recol- lection that there were any lawyers present at the examination but Mr, Ashley and himself; possibly there might have been some members of Mr. Hull’s family present. ~ TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS A. DANIELS. Mr. Francis A. Daniels sworn—I am an attorney- at-law, residing at Providence, R. I.; Lacted ag \ commissioner in taking the deposition of Danie! Hull, about fifteen months ago, in Providence, in the office of Mr. Green, my associate; Hull either made his mark or signed the deposition (deposi- tion produced) ; that is the mark he made; the certificate to the deposition is mine ; the deposition is in my handwriting; I think Mr. Tucker and Mr. Chatfield appeared as counsel for the plainti(t, and Mr. ©’Conor and Mr, Carter for the defendant; the examination was conducted by Mr. Chatileld for the plaintiff and by Mr. O’Conor for the defendant; the evidence was taken down with great care; on the last day of the examination Mr. Hull appeared to be weak and fatigued; butin the course of the examination he was rather proud of his vigor. Q. Did you more than a year ago have some con- versation with George Washington Bowen about sp Joseph Perry? A. Yes, some little conversa- ion. Counse! for plaintiff objected. ‘The Judge—What is the object of the question? Mr. ©’Conor said that on the last trial Mr. Bowen, the platntii, identified Perry under oath as @ person with whom he was acquainted. They wished to show by this witness that Bowen had stated to him that he did not know who that wit- ness was; that he wes & person who was hunted up Le They desired, if the Court Thea to show this as @ specimen brick of the gen- erally character of — the evidence introduced into this case, to which His Honor had paid 80 much attention. The meant to show, by the evidence now offered, that Bowen proved an association with the wit- ness Perry and identified him as the friend of nis youth—a statement which was entirely false. His (Mr. O’Conor’s) object was to show thatthe getting up of such witnesses was to give a olor of truth and justice to the case, which was as unlawful as it was corrupt and dishonest, and calculated to mis- lead the Court and jury by dishonest testimony. This objection called up Mr. Chauncey Shaffer, who said there could be no doubt whatever that the evidence of Perry was as false as was ever given in any court of justice. Plaintif’s counsel had stated so on the previous trial, and they.had dropped Mr. Perry. Mr. Carter, of counsel for defendant—No such thing. You produced him and you did not drop him. We had to produce evidence at great length to contradict his Ce Mr. Shaffer reiterated the statement that they had dropped Perry and that he believed the de- fendant had foisted Perry upon them for the pur- pose of damaging the laerecanie casg. Counsel proceeded to make use of very strong language in reference to Mr. Chase, the defendant, alleging that he would not stop at any corrupt means to carry corrupt out his jurpose and that he was sur- rounded by persons who, he _ thonght, would not hesitate at accomplishing their purpose by violence. From this: point counsel launcheg out into an attack upon Mr. O’Conor, ad- verting to a former statement of his (Mr. Shaifer’s) in relation to an alleged interference of Mr. O’Conor in regard to the formation of the jury, and charging upon Mr, O’Conor unfaith!ulness to pro- fessional trust. He (counsel) did not know whether Mr, O’Conor had a right to use that name, Mr. O’Conor at once rose to his feet, and replying to the remarks just uttered, said that when the in- dividual who had spoken had previously made that charge against him respecting the jury the counsel had scowled at him like a demon, They had heard him blurt out a day or two ago an amount of violent vituperation and making a personal attack ba him (Mr. O’Conor) respecting the formation of the jury. If he had anything to do with a corrupt disposition of the jury it would have some relevancy to this case; but the statement was utterly and abominably false and’ unfoundea. His Honor had heard the learned counsel say that he (Mr. O’Conor), with the aid of Mr. Chase, had robbed a woman of $60,000. He submitted whether such language was proper in the Court, and whe- ther he was not at liberty tosay that those charges were oneny false and groundless—most aban- doned falsehoods and utterly scandalous. He trusted His Honor would rebuke the expression of such language. If any one made such a ch: as that against him nothing would please him better than @ trial before the Court and jury at once. As to his right to the name he bore, he wanted to know if it was meant to charge him, too, with illegitimacy? He had not wandered, around the world. He stood within a short dist&nce of the place where he was born; of the place where he was known for good o¢ evil; he had spent his youth here; he hi grown up with the city of New York, and he had now arrived atan age not to be exposed to attacks of this descrip- tion, He thought that this kind of thing ought to be stopp’ Counsel ought to proceed in some condition that they could try the case without the personal assaults upon character, His (Mr. O’Conor’s) reputation was no better than his character, and if his character was not free from reproach, in God’s name let counsel bring his charges; but those irrelevant speeches all on one side were grossly and infamously false, and ought not tobe permitted unless they were to have a trial. Mr. Shaffer was going on to say that they had been placed under a load of obloquy, and made other statements in a loud and rapid manner, when Judge Shipman said he must stop this discussion, which was painful to him. The question now before the Court was whether he would admit the evi- dence offered by Mr. O’Conor. He would admit it. The witness went on to state that in the Jatter part of December, 1871, George W. Bowen came into his office, and their conversation turned upon Joseph Perry. Bowen made @ statement—and witness thinks he volunteered it—that he did not know Perry; that he was somebody Judge Tucker found, but that, may be, when he came to see he might know him. The Rev. Mr. Stone, of Providence, and Secretary of the Historical Society of that city, produced copies of the Providence Journal for the years 1707 and 1800, and showed therein announcements of the deaths of Gideon Hull and Mrs. Hull, The further hearing of the case was adjourned till to-day. GRAND JURIES FOR FEBRUARY. Who Are to Gonsticate. the Next Grand Jaries in the Courts of Oyer and Ter- Sesstons—Names on There probably was never a time in our munici- pal history when such grave importance attached to the character of the men comprising the Grand Juries of our criminal Courts as at present. The Grand Jurors for the next terms of the Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Sessions were drawn yesterday by Douglas Taylor, Commissioner af Jurors, in the presence of Judge Barrett, of the upreme Court. Mr. Timbieton, Deputy Coun’ Clerk, turned the wheel from which the 735) ard panels were drawn. It will be seen from the list of names as published below that some of our chief citizens are included in the number. ‘The following is @ list of the names drawn :— j OYER AND TERMINER GRAND JURY. John Campbell, Edward A. Baldwin, Cornelins W. Timpson, Asher F. Meyer, Syivester W. Com- stock, Myer Were: Bernard Smythe, Robert ©. Livingston, John F, Zebley, Justus L. Bulkley, Leopold Hoar, William Appleton, Jr.; Albert De- or Alexander Brendon, James H. Join, Gilbert Kilty, William F. Andrews, Samuel 5. Sands, William ‘J. Merrall, David W. Bruce, Charies Hal: lock Mount, Robert Squires, William H. Phillips, James H, Pinckney, Isaac F, Duckworth, Jeremiah uinlan, Jacob Goldsmith, Lazarus Rosenfeld, avid Ackerson, John J. Sinclair, William H, Knoetfel, Alexander R. Chisholm, William K. Mead, Alexander Turnbull, John L. Deer, Edward D. Bassford, Birdseye Biakeman, George Law, Jr.; Jerome . Benson, Henry 8, Leavitt, Blaize Loril- lard Harsell, John H. Van Etten, John Endicott, William P, Bi odgett, Jacob Capron, Charles H. Kes- ner, Robert M. Tunkhauser, Hugh Auchincloss, Samuel L. Herrman, Charles A. Lambard, GENERAL SESSIONS GRAND JURY. John D. Wing. Cipharly Thompson, William Turn- bull, Richard Hee! fohes, dr.; John C, McCarthy, Henry Hughes, William Astor, Matthew Clinton, Peter Gilsey, William H. Gray, Samuel Thomson, Robert Morrison, George G, Williams, David Quack- enbush, William 6 Henry 8. ‘gurvell, Mere. dith Howland, Pierre V. Duflor, Edward Anthony, sam, Charles Hollis, William Shute, Henry W. Gray, Theodore ferome B. Fellows, George W. Browne, Isaac H. Reed, Joseph N. Gimbrede, Albert S. Hatfleld, Henry R, Morgan, Benjamin J. Wenberg, John McKesson, Edward Phelan, Henr Marks, C. Koppel, George B. Roys, James W. Westerfield, Charies H. Delevan, John Babcock, Henry H. Crocker, Horatio D. Von Syckel, George A. Osgood, Harris Boners Calvin KE. Knox, Hovace H. Brockway, Edward Livingston, Jacob Freund, Thomas H. Haskell. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, Important Decision on the Question of Habeas Corpus. By Judge Blateh ford, James H. Nord, Ni ge ir Moller, Benj. A. Kis- J if On the 18th of December last Radolph Seligman and August Seligman, bankrupts, were arrested by the United States Marshal under a warrant issued by Commissioner Betts, under the forty- fourth sectbon of the Bankrupt act, upon the afl- davit of Emil Magnus, their assignee in bank- Tuptcy, charging them, among other things, with having secreted and concealed from their assigneé merchandise, or the proceeds thereof in cash, amounting to upwards of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which they had bought on credit within three months before their failure in May, 1869. On being brought before the Com- missioner the defendants, through their coun- sel, moved to dismiss the complaints and discharge the warrant, on the ground that neither affidavit charged nor the war- rant recited any specific offence under said sec- tion, the defendants claiming to be protected by the statute of limitation. ‘This motion was denied and the defendants then gave bail and were dis- charged frém custody. Subsequently an order was issued requiring tle District Attorney and the complainant interested to show cause why the writ of habeas corpus should not issue in defend- ants? behalf, After argument, the question was yesterday decided, the Judge retusing to issue the writ, on the grounds that the defendants were not re- strained of their liberty at the time the motion was heard, 4 Institution of a Suit Against Secretary Boutwell—A Curious Document—Dam. ages Laid at $2,000,000. Bartholomew Clifford Galvin appeared in the Clerk’s office of tue United States Circuit Court yesterday morning and flied a declaration, drawn up by himself, saying he intended to act as his own attorney in a suit which he wished to begin against Secretary Boutwell, to recover $2,000,000, which amount he alleges the Secretary owes him for having instructed him how to make the paper currency of the United States equal m value to gold. ‘the deciaration, which is @ Strange document, recites that plaintiff presented to the Secretary plang by which the latter could, without the necessity of any legis- lation whatever, make sales of gold im such a way as to control the gold market and regulate the price, gold to be sold by the Secretary on a de- scending scale of prices until it reached par. The declaration concludes by reciting that the Secre- tary has acted to a great extent in accordance with the plans of plaintit, and that as the Secretary, ac- cording to plaintiff's allegations, had promised to make adequate compensation if he used the plans, he should be compelled to do so by lawand pay plaintit’ $2,000,000, which, according to plaintiff, is about an adequate compensation for the plans di- vulged. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT—IN ADMIRALTY. Collision Case—Decision. Yesterday Judge Blatchford rendered a decision in the case of Thomas Kelly vs. the ferryboat Man- hassett, her tackle, &c.,and the stearmtug Hiram Perry, her tackle, &c. This suit was brought by the owners of a coal barge against the ferryboat and the tug. The tug not having been arrested, on the trial counsel for the ferryboat moved to dis- miss the proceeding until the tug was brought in. The Judge denied the motion, and directed the rayer for process against the tug to be struck out. ‘he canalboat claimed that the ferryboat had turned out of her slip after the tug, which she was in tow of, was headed up the Kast River, and the ferryboat following ran into her. The ferryboat claimed that after she had got out of her slip and headed up the river, the tug and this canalboat, which had been going in op- posite directions, suddenly sheered and came across the ferryboat’s bows. The Judge held that the testimony was diametrically opposite, but that the story told by the ferryboat was an impossi- bility, and that, by her own showing, she might have avoided the collision by stopping earlier, One of the witnesses for the canalboat stated that he thought the ferryboat did it wilfully, and on that ground the ferryboat’s counsel moved to dismiss the libel. The Court held that there was no allega- tion on their side in the pleadings that the damage was wilful, nor did the statement of the witness amount to what was called in law a “wilful wrong.” Therefore the Court directed that there should be a decree for the libellant. Beebe, Dean & Cook for the libellant; B. D. Silman for the claimants, SUPREME COURT—CIRCUIT. Officers of the Court of Common Pleas Looking After Their Salaries. Before Judge Fancher. Suits were brought in this Court yesterday against the city by John Brener, James Coogan and Michael Dolan, for payment of salaries alleged to be due them as officers, in 1871, of the Court of Common Pleas. After hearing testimony the Court ordered verdicts for the full amount clatmed, sub- ect, however, to the decision of the General Term. ‘he verdicts were $1,000 for Brener and $730 09 each for Coogan and Dolan. SUPERIOR COURT—TRIAL TERM—PART |. Important Points Con: ted with Suits Under Letters of Administration. Before Judge Curtis. Henry Rheinberger, some time since, came to his death, it is alleged, throngh injuries sustained by @ defective elevator on the premises of Patrick Riley. Suit was brought by his widow inst Mr. Riley for damages on account of her husband’s death. It was claimed that she could not bring the suit, as she took out letters of administration ‘in the city of New York, though her husband, at the time of his death, and she also resided in Brookly: It was further contended that letters of administr: tion should have been taken out in Brooklyn, and that those taken out in New York, ander authority of which the suit was brought, were invalid, the Sur- rogate being without jurisdiction, as the husband died in New York. The Court held that the objec- tion was well taken, and ordered dismissal of the complaint. SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS, Decisions. By Judge Barrett. Lathrop vs. God rey et al—Tho defendants may take a commission they desire it, but a stay of the trial is denied, The People ex rel. W. H. Bell vs. Francis A. Palmer.—This order must stand. Marsen vs. Nichols.—Motion granted. Kelly, Administrator, &c., vs. The New York Rail- road and ‘1 tation Company.—Same. Dennett vs. Dennett et al.—Motion denied, with $10 costs, SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM Becisions. By Judge Barbour. Christy ve. Dolon.—Motion granted. Jacobs vs. The Greenwich Insurance Company.— Order granted. Cohen vs. Lynch.—Order granted, By Judge Sedgwick. O’Brien ys. O'Nell.—Motion granted as against Rosell by default; allowance $200, decided against de Oystaron. In the Matter of Solomon Jacobs.—See Clerk at cial Term. hati > Van Vorst, By Jud; Harvey va. The Rubber Tip Pencil Company.— Motion denied, * 5 Bedell va. Hittrich—Onee ordered to be filed. Popham vs, Wiicox Moti 4 Junction granted, Sn eee MARINE COURT—PART 2. How Our Madison Avenue Houses Are Painted and Paid for. Before Judge Gross. Charles Allen vs. Catherine Mears.—The plaintia sued the defendant to recover the sum of $240 for services rendered and materials furnished in the painting of the defendant’s house in Madison ave- nue, The suit originated on the following facts:—It appeared that the plaintiff purchased the interest and stock of a paint shop belonging to aman named Frank Bird, who, for nine years, did paint- ing for the defendant. Shortly after the purchase of Bird’s paint shop by the plaintiff the defendant sent for Bird to perform some painting. Bird, who, it appeared, was doing job work for plaintiff, called upon the defendant and undertook to perform the services, without informing her that he was an employé of the piaintiifY and was to do them through him. The services were rendered (the plaintif? having furnished the men and materials), and some money paid on account to Bird, who was engaged upon the job, with others, which amount was handed over to the plaintiff. In the meantime @ mechanics’ lien was filed against Bird by some of his creditors, and the detendant was notified to appear in Court and toatity ag to the amount of her indebtedness to him. Sue did appear, and gave testimony to the amount she thought she owed him, and tifé Court ordered her to apply the amount to the satisfaction of the lien, whivh she did, It appeared, though, that the plain- tif notified her of her indebtedness to him by pre- senting a memorandum of the services rendered and the materials furnished on painting her house, but which notice she did not acknowledge, main- taining that she did not employ the laintiff, ‘The Court charged the ge that should they find the work was performed by the plaintiff, through his ent, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, Ver- dict for plaintiff, For plaintiff, David McAdam; for defendant, William Q. Judge. MARINE COURT—CHAMBERS. Decisions. By Judge Tracy. Lindsay vs. McNien.—Motion to strike out an+ swer as sham denied, oe vs, Symons.—Motion to vacate order de- nied. Jacobs vs. Sherman.—Motion granted. Faran vs. Smith.—Defendant may amend his an- swer, COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, Before Judge Sutherland. Before any case had been presented to the jury yesterday in this Court counsel for prisoners in a number of cases urgently moved for a postpone- ment of the trials, Assistant District Attorney Russell politely but firmly resisted each application unless the counsel could show by affidavits the ma- teriality of the testimony of the alleged absent wit- nesses. His Honor, the City Judge, in refusing to grant these applications, intimated that in his adminis- tration of justice, while he would give accused porous every chance to establish their innocence, e should feel it to be his duty to sustain the District ee and his assistants in their efforts to ex- edite the disposition of the trial of criminal cases in this Court. Heretofore witnesses have becn compelled by the summons of the Court to attend day after day on the trials of prisoners whose cases were frequently postponed upon the flimsy pre- texts of counsel, and in numerous instances the witnesses for the prosecution being discouraged, the criminals escaped punishment. Under the new régime this abuse is going to be remedied in the future, Alleged Bobbery=—The Prisoner Pleads Gullty to Larceny from the Person. Most of the day was spent in the trial of an ine dictment for robbery preferred against George W. Williams, who was cllarged with being in com- plicity with others in assaulting Join M. Hayes on the’ afternoon of the s0th of October, while in a drinking saloon at the corner of Thirtieth street and Sixth avenue. He was beaten and robbed of a watch worth $25, The prisoner was arrested the same eventng in a saloon near by t ne of the robbery, and identified by Hayes as one of the party, although he could not swear that he participated physically in the robbery. ‘The accused, when ex- amined in his own bepalf, admitted that he was there, and that the young men who had an alterc tion with Hayes were acquaintances ol his, bat d nied that there was any preconcert of action be- tween him and them to rob the complainant. The father of the accused, a resident of Bridge- ort, Conn., and Judge Lockwood, his brother-in, few, testified to having sworn the complainant Hayes, who went to Bridgeport as head waiter in the City Hotel, to an affidavit, wherein he stated that Williams took no part in the attack. deliberating for some hours the jury we! into Court Jate in the evening and stated they were unable to agree. Eleven were for conviction and one for acquittal. ; Mr. Russell consented to take a plea of guilty of petty larceny from the person, which the prisoner, through his counsel, Mr. McClelland, tendered. His Honor sentenced him to the State Prison for five years. a Acquittals. Frederick H. Pinkle, charged with perpetrating a felonious assault upon Frederick Baurlen, on New Year's night, opposite his lager beer saloon, in Wil- liam street, by striking him with a club on the head, satisfactorily proved to the jury that he was assaulted by the complainant, and, without leaving their seats, they rendered a verdict of not gatity, William Blair was tried upon an indictment charging him with being concerned with another arty in stealing a watch from Michael J. Smith, at the corner of Spring and Sullivan strects, on Sun- day, the 16th oF December. The defendant proved by witnesses who saw the occlirrence that Blair Was not there, and having established a goud char- acter by his employer, a boiler manufacturer, the | jury rendered a verdict of not guilty withvut leav- ing their seats. Petty Larceny. t Catharine Buchanan, charged with stealing @ pocketbook containing $6 from Jacob Ganter, pleaded guilty to petty larceny, and was sent to the Penitentiary for six months, COURT CALENDARS—THIS DAY. Supreme Courr—Crrovir—Part f-Held by Juage Fancher.—Nos. 931, 1059, 1423, 709, 1281, 77734, 783, 787, 789, 791, 795, 809, S11, 815, 819, 82334, 825, 827, 829. Part 2—Held by Judge Van Brunt.--Case on. Scpkeme CourT—GENERAL TERM—Held by Judges Ingraham, Brady and Learned.—Nos, 150, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 174, 126, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, Supenion Covrt—TRIAL TeRmM—Part 1—Held by Judge Curtis.—Nos, 1349, 1885, 1903, 1457, 1815, 1899, 493, 1435, 1231, 631, 959,’ 1665, 1103, 1753. Part 2— Held by Judge Freedman,—'Nos. 854, 1486, 1256, 1384, 1386, 1140, 234, 1466, 1360, 1158, 1606, 1608, 1612, 1614, 1616, COURT OF APPEALS CALENDAR. ALBANY, N. Y., Jan, 15, 1873. The calendar of the Commission of Appea's for Thursday, January 16, is as 1ollows:—89, 90, 90):, 91, 305, 324, 17, 48, 50, 61, 65, 79, 16, 29, 32 The Court will open at ten o'clock A. M. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. WASHINGTON, Jan. 15, 1873. No. 00. Kennicott et al. vs, Board of Supervisors of Wayne County, Illinois—Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Southern District.—This bill was filed by the appellants, claiming to be holders of certain bonds issued by the Mount Vernon Railroad Corm- pany, to forecioge a mortgage alleged to have been ex@cuted by the county upon 100,000 acres oi swamp and overflowed Jands of the county, to secure the payment of the bonds. The defence was that the road dia not run through the county, nor did it connect with any road running through the coanty, and that such a road or @ road so connecting was the only ground upon which the county was authorized to assist in railroad construction. The Court below sustained the defence, and the case {s brought here, the appel- lants insisting that the Court erred in ita construction of the statute, and that in any case @ negotiable security of @ corporation which, upon its face, appears to have been duly issued and in conformity with the provisions of law, is valid in the hands of bona fide howers with- out notice of its illegal issue, though such be the fact. ‘Scates, McClernand ‘and Goodwin for appel- lants; Robinson, Freeman and for ap- pellees. No. 100. Morgan vs, Parham—Error to the Cir- cuit Court for Alabama.—This was an action of trespass brought by Morgan, a citizen of New York, for the seizure and detention of the steamer Francis, owned by him, by Parham, @ collector of Mobile. The defendant fustitied the act as being In discharge of his duties as tax collector, there — bei due on this and other steamers owned by Morgan about $7,000, It is here claimed that the tax is a duty on ual and as sucti it {s prohibited by the federal constitution as being a reculation of commerce. which power is exclusively with Congress. It is besides said that if the State law Nmposing the tax constitutional as fixing a tax on property its situs within the city Itmits, still this roperty is not liable for its position at the whart flor temporary purposes and does not brin itwithin the terms of the statute. The relation of the boat “18 having vo the city was that of contact only, as Se termini in the promotion of the owner's ae steamer did net, abide wie the ecome incorporated with, and jorm a ersonal property, ‘and | "t Hab thevelore farisatetion of the Coart. P. Philippa fer in errar: ©, F. Moulton for defendant, \