The New York Herald Newspaper, January 17, 1873, Page 11

’ ' ‘ ’ HE COURTS. —-—_—__ THE GREAT TWEED TRIAL. Another Day After the Stolen Vouchers—Im- portant Point Gained by the Prosecution— Secondary Evidence To Be Admitted— Continuation of the Legal Tilt Be- tween Counsel—Deputy Comptrol- ler Storrs and Ex-County Audi- itor Lyons on the Stand. THE DEPUTY CHAMBERLAINSHIP. Thamberlain Palmer's Injunction Motion--- Argument of Counsel Going Over the Qld Ground---All the Parties in Court--- The Action of Yesterday Inde- cisive and the Fight To Be Resumed This Morning. ———-. THE JUMEL. ESTATE CASE, Continuation of Evidence for the Defence— Important Rulings Admitting An- cient Documents in Evidence— Further Interesting Devel- opments in the Case, IN THE OTHER COURTS, ——_+__— Bammaries—Trials, Convictions and Sentences in the General Sessions—Decisions. The Tweed case was continued yesterday, the most notable occurrence of the day's proceedings being the ruling of the Court admitting secondary evidence in the absence of the more direct or de- Birable testimony of witnesses who are not within the control of the Court. The testimony of Mr. Storrs, Mr. Lyons and Mr. Copeland, of the Comp- troller’s Department, was mainly explanatory of ‘the routine of the business in the Finance Depart- ment of the city government—the manner of sign- ‘ing and certifying voucners and as to their safe keeping. The case will be resumed to-day. All day yesterday was consumed in arguing, be- ‘fore Judge Barbour, of the Superior Court, the sub- ject matter ef the injunction asked for by Mr. Palmer, City Chamberlain, against John Foley, restraining him from attempting to assume the functions of Deputy Chamberlain or in any way interfering with the duties of the oftice by virtue of his appointment as Deputy Chamberlain by the Comptrolier. It was, in the main, a repetition of the argument previously advanced upon the prior application to the same effect made by Deputy Chamberlain Palmer. The argument, which was not finished at the adjournment of the Court, will be resumed this morning. In the United States Courts yesterday Commis- sioner Osborn rendered his decision in the case of E. 8. Goodwin, chef detective officer of the Erie Railroad, who had heen accused, under the law relating to piracy, of having run off with the steamer Hugh Bolton from the foot of Twenty- third street to Hoboken. The accused is held to await the action of the Grand Jury. Defendant rested his case upon the evidence presented on the part of the prosecution, alleging that no felonious | intent had been proved, and that in removing the steamer he acted under the full belief that she was the property of the Erie Railroad Company. Charles W. Jacobs, a sailor, who had deserted from the American schooner Hattie Sampson, has confessed to that offence, and was yesterday held by Commissioner Shields to await the action of the Grand Jury. ~* r Charles Sinnett has been held by Commissioner Shields to await the action of the Grand Jury ona charge of passing a $20 counterieit bill. The ac- cused had induced a young boy to endeavor to pro- cure good money for the bill in question. Notice is given to those election deputy marshals and supervisors who have not yet presented them- selves at the United States Marshal's office to re- ceive thelr pay that unless they do so before the Sist inst. they must make their application to Washington. In the United States Circuit Court yesterday the further hearing of the case of George Washington Bowen va. Nelson Chase was resumed before Judge Shipman and the special jury. A mags of docu- mentary evidence, consisting of public records from tae towns of Providence and Cumberland, R. L, was introduced on the part of the defendant for the purpose of impeaching the statement made by the plaintiff that he was born of Betsy Bowen, who afterwards became Madame Jumel. The case was adjourned till to-day, Yesterday Christopher Yetta and Frederick Gleenz, keepers of a distillery at the corner of ‘Thirty-ninth street and avenue A, were further ex- amined before Commissioner Shields on a charge of distilling whiskey and rum from molasses, while thetr license, it was claimed, authorized them only 10 distil apple whiskey. Mr. L. W. Emerson, late United States Assistant District Attorney, appeared for the defendants, and the Commissioner, having heard the defence, ordered the accused to be dis- charged. ° Yesterday the Grand Jury entered the United States Circuit Court, and presented to Judge Ship- man some bills of indictment. In reply to the Judge the jury said they had np other business be- fore them, and, having made an arrangement with the District Attorney for adjournment, the Judge Bald they might adjourn to such day as they saw it, THE GREAT TWEED TRIAL. tenia More About the Stolen Vouchers=A Great Point Gained by the Prosecution—Sec- ondary Evidence Ruled by the Court « Admissible—Deputy Comptroller Storrs and Ex-County Auditor Lyo on the Stand—The Legal Tilt Contin- ucs. Yesterday morning was ushered in by # dense fog, which for hours overhung the city, lay thick upon the rivers, darkened the way of the trains loaded with thousands from the outlying dis- tricts, and in a@ generally disagreeable manner impeded trafic and prevented to a very great extent the arrival of business men at the scenes of their dally vocations at their usual bours, The attendance of all whom it most concerned was not as punctual at the different law courts of the city yesterday morning as_on ordinary occasions, owing to the aforesaid fog, and most of those whose only incentive for putting in an appenrance at all in the courts from day to day is idle curiosity were notably and commendably absent, In the great Tweed case the Court reas- sembled, if not exactly up to time, stiliin good time, and the procoedings of the eignth day of the trial were commenced by the recall of Mr. Deputy Comptroller Storrs. There was nothing particu- Jarly interesting either in the testimony of this Witness or of the only other witness for the day, Mr. Lyons, ex-County Auditor, and the foggy air without had its counterpart within the courtroom, owing to the befogging nature of tne testimony 2S the hardly less clear atguments of ¢-iiascr apon the knotty and bewildering points of law from time to time raised on objections by defend- ant’s counsel and replied to in as an unintelligible manner by the “gentiomen’ on the other side. One half of the coliisions in the court room be- tween opposing counsel during this legal befog- ment, had they Occurred on the water, would bave sank or disabled all the ferryboats plying be- tween New Vork and the other side before the fog NEW ‘YORK HEKALD, FRIDAY, JANUARY 17, 1873.—TRIPLE SHEET. had lifted. The main point n the case, however, and which will materially aid the Court and jury in reaching a result, was the ruling of the Court, ad- mitting secondary testimony where first or princi- pal testimony, owing to the absence of parties beyond the control of the Court, cannot be pro- duced. As before stated only two witnesses were examined during the session, and the testimony was principally confined to the manner which pre- vailed in the Comptroller's department of trans- acting the business of the department, Yesterday’s Proceedings. Soon after the opening of the Oyer and Terminer yesterday, Judge Davis presiding, the examina- tion of witnesses in the case of the People against William M. Tweed was proceeded with, Mr. Storrs, Deputy Comptroller, recalled, ex- amined by the prosecution—The witness testified to the fact of the loss of the vouchers on the 10th or 11th of September, 1871; the doors of the pigean- holes had been closed and locked; he had looked for the vouchers; there were other vouchers in other parts of the office, CROSS-EXAMINATION, On the cross-examination witness testified that he was in the ofice the day previous, but had not examined the pigeonholes since about the middie of July; the pigeonholes were in a sort of closet, with closed doors; he had not seen them opened for two months previous; on the morning of the ith of September he looked at them and found the door open; he did not have charge of the apers; they were in the custody of the County Au- tor, Mr. ons; the closet was not marked. To Judge Davis—The vouchers were tied ap in bundles and Jabelled; the closet was kept locked an¢d on that morning he had found the locks broken and the pigeonholes empty, Cross-examination continued:—All the closets are locked, as itis the custom of the effice to keep them locked during the day; he could not state on his own knowledge that he had ever seen the doors locked or unlocked; he could only say that they must have been locked; he could not state but that the vouchers might have been taken to an- oer loa on the day or days before the loss was vered. By Mr. Peckham—Where is Comptroller Con- nolly? A. 1 don’t know; I have not seen him since 871, Q. Has the Comptroller absconded? A. It is un- derstood 80, To Judge Davis—The search for the missing vouchers was commenced on the next day, but he ‘Was not witness of any search, TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM N. COPELAND, William N. Copeland was the next witness. He tes- tified that he had been employed as assistant book- rin the County PP ag elo of the Com troller’s office; he hi charge of the books in which the accounts of habilities were kept a part of the time; he saw papers relating to the claims of bia jad Garvey, Keyser and others in closets, which were not locked when he was there; all the vouchers were not there when he leit, in February, 1871; some of them were kept in Watson's office; alter the claims were paid the vouchers should have been placed in the closets spoken of. Cross-examined by Mr. BurrilI—The papers were sent out of Mr. Watson’s office to go into the pigeon holes, but they did not always go in there; he had taken them out by Mr. Watson’s direction, and had given them to him; it was a very common occur- Tence; every person in the office had access to the pigeonholes; he could not tell whether all the pa- pers were there when he left the effice, as he had Made no examination, To Mr. Peckham—Could not say whether all the papers ven to Mr. Watson had been returned. ‘o Mr. Burrill—No memoranda of the papers taken out were kept, and when they were returned an occasional examination was made to see if they were the ones pre out; in some cases the papers were detached and separated; sometimes aoe were pinned together and sometimes stuck witl mucilage. TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN LYONS, JR. Stephen Lyons, Jr., late County Auditor, was now Korn. He’ testified that it was his duty to draw the-warrants; the papers of Ingersoll, Garvey and others were kept in the closets mentiened; it was the practice to keep them locked during the night, but they were accessible in the daytime; he had loeked for vhe vouchers alter they were miss- ing, but could not fina them, rosé-eXamined—He took possession of the office of County Auditor in May, 1871; he had frequently taken papers from the closets to get information from them, and then put them back; he had taken them to different persons in the office—to the Comptroller. Deputy Comptroller and perhaps a dozen others; these papers have been absent as long a8 @ month; the papers were returned by Mr, Connolly, at least they must have been retarned, for the papers were in Court; he could not, on his own knowledge, say that Mr, Connolly ever put back all of the papers. The papers were constantly being referred to, being taken out and returned by a dozen different clerks in the office; he has taken out a hundred or more of those papers relating to county Mabilities during the time he was in office; a great many of those had been given to Mr, orn g He merely saw the bundle marked “County Lia- bilities’ taken out and put back; he merely knew the bundle went eut in the shape it came back. MR. STORRS RECALLED. Mr. Storrs was recalled and asked a question as to the contents of the lost veuchers, Mr. Field at once objected. The Court intimated that the discussion ought not to be long. Mr. Field said that if the Court had already de- cided that secondary evidence was not admissible ae had no desire to prolong the discussien, ir. Justice Davis said that was not to be as- sumed, but, on the contrary, quite the reverse, After Recess. Mr. Storrs again took his seat on the witness stand, and the examination was proceeded with by Mr. Burrill. The witness testified :— Mr. Watson was appointed County Auditor by Mr. Brennan in 1864, and died in 1871, in January; witness has been in the Finance Department since 1857; the Auditor's office is a bureau of the depart- ment; all bills-pass through the Auditor's Depart- ment; Watson’s stamp as Auditor was on the out- side of the vouchers; Watson had custody of the stamp himself; 1 do not know in what part of the office it was Kept; the committee made frequent calls upon the Comp- troller for these veuchers; I do not know why the papers were not delivered when the committee called; do not know of any reason; do not know poli d rae the papers were there when they called or not. Mr. Peckham then examined the witness on the redirect as follows:—The bills were audited by the County Auditor since 1858. ‘as it the duty of the Auditor to see that the vouchers contained anything more than the proper vouching papers? Objected to, Counsel for defence claimed that the question was not competent, first, because the witness was Rot the Auditor, Q Aaah did the Auditor do in auditing these Ts noplected to by coumsel on the ground that County Auditor Watson was now defunct, but had left be- hind him a monument in this stamp which would show what he did. This stamp read:—‘Finance Department, county of New York. Examined by me and B found correct, James Watson, County Auaitor. ‘The question was modified so as to require from the witness a statement of THE ACTUAL FORM, 80 far as the witness had observed it, of auditing papers. The explanation was very dry to listen to and would make much dryer reading, so it is omitted from this report. At the close of the wit- ness’ statement Stephen ©. Lynes was recalled to the witness stand and examined by Mr. Peckham. ‘The latter gentleman has @ pecullarly rapid and by no means pleasant style of speaking, his articu- lation being rather indistinct, and the jury evi- dently did not at all times understand the ques- tions put. bY him, as they contracted their eye: opened their mouths, craned their necks an placed their hands to their ears to catch the sound of the lawyer’s voice. It was also noticeable that the counsel finds it much easier te examine a wit- ness by having his (the counsel's) foot on the seat of an adjacent chair. This is probably what some people would call “an eccentricity or enius,’’ if taking @ cha (i) ritable view of the counsel’s habit. ‘The witness testifed—It was my duty to fill in the warrants as County Auditor; I filled them in at the time the vouchers were given to me; I then prepared the warrants, Q. Explain the rputine of filling in those vonch- ers and warrants from the time they were received until they were completed, Objection was made by the defence, inasmuch as the question called on the witness to state what was the ROUTINE OF THE OFFICE itahelt G He might explain speciilcally what he id or what he saw done, but to describe the rou- tine was too general. Q. What did you do as to vouchers? Objection made and overruled, The defence excepted to the ruling. The witness then proceeded toa long and ex- tremely dry statement and illustration of the modus operand of auditing vouchers, certifying them and issuing warrants; also as to the mettiod of making entries in the audit books and voucner record, which were: produced, The witness sat with one large book open on his knee, and another ponderous tome lay open beside him on the corner of the Judge's bench. To judge from what followed, it is fair to assume that this as of the examination was not to be considered the jury, for Prosecutor Peckham and Defender eld surrounded the witness as nearly as two men could accomplish Mickey Free’s single-handed successful effort, The witness pointed to certain entries with his finger, and told the counsel how these tallied with certain other entries in the other book, but Ath eit Ht xy * ines ex! ind exhinited to witn STX WARRANTS, and asked, “Do you know whether at the time you Milled up these warrants there were vorresponding existing vouchers?” The defence at once objected, and after a short and rapid sotto voce consultation between Mesers. Field and Burrill, retterated their objection to the general character of the question, Mr. Peckham explained that these were Keyser warrants, the Vouchers pertaining to which had been lost. The question was. then divided so as to elicit from the Witness, uvon Lis insvection Of each war- rant, answers which showed in reference to two of them that at the time he drew the warrants there wee before him the vouchers and certificates of audit, In answer toa tion by Mr. Field, Mr. Peck- ham stated that the questions in reference to these two warrants were precisely the same as he should ask in reference to the remaining warrants singly, and the defence waived their objection and con- sented to a general question of the same form as covering the whole of the warrants. Mr. Peckham next exhibited thirty-four other warrants drawn in favor of A. J. Garvey, and put the same general questions, which Mr. Field temporarily terrupted by asking whetber Mr. Tweed’s name appeared upon any of these warrants, Reply was made that it did not. Mr. Peckham then offered THE WARRANTS IN EVIDENCE, Mr. Field and Mr. Burrill both objected to the offer, and Mr. Burrill asked whether they were offered as primary or secondary evidence! Mr. Peckham said they offered the warrants both as primary evidence and as secondary evidence. First, as evidence of payment, and second, as evi- dence of the contents of the lost vouchers. The defence then objected to their admission on both the grounds stated, and counsel asked if they were offered as evidence that Tweed’s name was written across the face of the lost vouchers. He asked this merely because Sey desired to avoid pleading surprise. at a later stage in the case. As the question stood it was simp whether they could make Tweed responsible for what Mayor Halt and Comptroller Connolly did, and this could not be done, for the indictment did not allege any combination. None could be proved where none was averred, After he signed that certificate of audit he had no further control over it, and if Mr. Hall or Mr. Connolly knew that THESE VOUCHERS WERE MERE BLINDS and were to be used as such, to cover the drawing of the money, they stole the onl money; it was nothing less than robbery, and their stealing of the puns money was no evidence against Mr. Tweed. ‘ne voucher would be the mere jorm and the feloni- ous act was the taking of the public money. How could Mr. Tweed have restrained these men from theiracts? The transfer by thenr of these warrants and the drawing of the yoblie money upon them were in no way chargeable to Mr, Tweed. Mr. Burrill then arose and stated that before making the objection more specific and finalehe would claim the privilege of cross-examining the witness to learn what he made up tne filling of his warrants from. The Court admitted Mr, Burrill’s request. The witness was then cross-examined and testi- fled as follows:—I received the papers from which I Billed up the warrants irom Mr. Watson; these papers were completed and endorsed and bore the stamp of the County Auditor; I drew the warrants from the endorsements on the backs of the vouch- ers, Without looking inside at the contents of the vouchers; Mr, Watson himself often wrote the en- dorsements on the vouchers; where THE VOUCHERS CAME TO ME with that endorsement I didn’t examine the vouchers any further, but simply filled up the war- rant from the endorsement; always supposed from the endorsement that there was @ corresponding bill inside; there is nothing in the books of the office or elsewhere to show whether the warrants were drawn from Watson’s mere endorsement of the vouchers or not; papers coming to me to have the warran' drawn did not always have the Auditor's stamp afiixed on the outside; there was no rule about that; I would not draw the warrants unless I had somethin; from Mr. Watson directing me to draw them; made no examination of the papera inside if there was an endorsement outside; when I examined the inside papers it was only when they came to me without any endorsement, and I merely looked at such papers inside as would give me the name of the creditor, the nature of the work performed, the amount of the bill and the date; Lalways looked at the original bill of the creditor only to learn these particulars; never ex- amined any of the other papers in the bundle; it was no part of my business to see that the bins were countersigned; Ihad nothing to do with the transactions except in a clerical way to fill out the warrants; I was examined in the trial of Mayor Hall and recollect testifying that I never did make examinations of contents of inside papers among the vouchers; I had to DRAW ALL THE WARRANTS for county expenditu,es which passed through.the Comptroller’s office, amounting to between six and seven thousand warrants per year; I also drew all the warrants that passed the Board of Audit; 1 enerally affixed the printed blanks for the Comp- roller and Auditor to sign; aiter I had prepared them I handed them to Mr. Watson; he handed me the bills and told me to affix the biank; I did not examine the bills to see whether they were certified by any one; that was no part of my business; I generally attacned the outside blanks myself with mucilage; some- times they came to me merely pinned tegether; I made my entries in the audit book from the war- rants, and also numbered and dated the warrants and peereeninding entriés; I countersigned the warral in To Mr. Tremain—Before my signature was at- tached the warrants had already been signed by the Mayor and Comptroller; my signature was the last one afMixed to the warrants; aiter I tacked the papers together it was sometimes a day, sometimes @ week before they were finally returned to me. Mr, Burrill here arose and objected that the war- rants were NOT COMPETENT EVIDENCE of the nature of the contenta of the bills or vouch- ers upon which the warrants purported to have been drawn. The witness testified that he gener- ally drew the warrants from the mere endorse- ment, without any knowledge whatever as to the contents of the vouchers contained in the wrapper on which the endorsement was written; they ob- jected that the warrants were not competent as they failed in any way to connect the de- fenaant with the vouchers or the warrants themselves, and the (edi was bound to prove the contents of the voucher more clearly than this witness had been able to do. This was not a civil suit, but a criminal prosecution, and the detendant was reasonably entitled to the benefit of the extreme limit of tne rule. They also objected to the cumulation of offences. It was not neces- sary in order to secure a conviction here to go into an examination of alleged burglary or any other offences in regurd to these papers. The Court intamated that the counsel seemed to redicate his argument altogether upon Mr. Lynes’ estimony and ignore Mr. Storrs’ testimony ajto- Sec, as to the signatures of the different officials, ‘he testimony of this witmess did not connect the defendant with these vouchers, but it was'a ques- tion for the jury whether Mr. Storrs’ testimony did connect him with those vouchers which are not now accessible. The evidence was admissible so far as it went to show that in the performance ofa public duty an official had transcribed from certain vouchers, when in existence, the names of credi- tors, the amouats due them and the nature of the work performed, &c. The papers must be ad- mitted as secondary evidence, so far as they go to show it, of the contents of the vouchers, Mr. Burrill said that even the witness Storrs was careful to state only that he saw some of these vouchers, f The Court replied that Mr. Storrs had testified, however, that WHAT PAPERS HE DID SEE were signed by Mr. Tweed, and therefore that tes- timony would go to show the custom or rule in reference to the si; of these papers. The pa- pers must be admitted as evidence. (Counsel ex- cepted to the ruling.) ir. Field asked whether the Court admitted them as evidence on all the counts, as to negli- gence, and so forth. The Court—Yes, Mr. Field—Then we beg to except to the recen- tion of this evidence under the several counts—a separate objection te its reception on each count. ir. Peckham then took all the warrants and read off to the jury the date, name of creditor on each warrant and the amount for which each war- rant was drawn. of course, Keyser and Garvey have the biggest fingers in the pecuniary pic, AS MR PECKHAM READ THE LIST he a te stumbled across items of $30,000 to $40,000 to Garvey, ‘for painting and decorating new County Court House,” and one of the counsel for the defence audibly, and with eyes raised to the bi walls and ceiling, exclaimed :— “If the prosecutien calls Mr. Garvey as a witness on this trial, to prove the quality of his work, we are going to impeach him in advance.” The reading of the warrants occupied about half an hour, and while it was progressing the sky, which had been murky all day, cleared a little and allowed a few rays ef sunlight ‘to fall into the room. The day’s proceedings had been very pros: and dull, and the lightening weather, together wit the fact that it was near the time of adjournment, made the venerable counsel for THR DEFENCE QUITE FRISKY. When the reading was concluded Mr. Field asked Mr. Peckham whether Mr. Tweed'gname appeared on the warrants, Mr. Peckham oe that it did not, but that the initials E, A, W, did appear on them, and that they stood for Mr. Tweed. (KE. A. Woodward), Mr. Burrill—What’s that ? Mr. Field—Oh, nothing; only that is the way they Spell Tweed on the prosecution side. (Laughter.) Mr. Fullerton rose very quietly and asked the Court something as to whether any farther evi- dence was to be taken, or as to whether another witness was to be called. Judge Davis answered that he was going to sit toe tarts Ta up “i fliteen rae’ Jost by is Of counsel in not appearing prompt! in their seats in the morning. red nected Mr. Fullerton looked up at the clock and said, “Your Honor has already made up seventeen out o! fifteen, It is now thirteen minutes of four.’’ The Court—Well, I mean to make it up fully. If we lose fifteen munutes every day we shail never get througi. Counsel must be prompt. Mr. Follerton (submissively and pleadingly)— we ie promt ps bes (Laughter.) ie Court—Weil, I might almost excuse counsel for delay this morving, as THE FOG made it Roh eg of some diMculty to find the Court. (Laughte: r Mr. Figid, after @ short pause, during which he had evidently been thinking up his joke, gaid:—“) feel inclined to ask wheter the Court could find its Way through the fog it has encountered ali day bince it arrived in tne building.’ (More laughter, Which the Judge obliterated with ome crack of the avel.) ¥ Mr. Peckham was very busy meanwhile (he seems to do most of the work, anyhow) counting and arranging the warrants, and when he had fin- ished he offered in evidence ‘ali the correspondin, entries in the book of audit to each of the wi rants.” Objected to, Objection overruled and evidence adinitted, Excepted to by the detence, ‘The entries contained in the voucher record on the same sui admitted and excepted to in quick order, and t day's proceedings were closed, THE DEPUTY CHAMBERLAINSHIP. ——_+ Anotner Day of Legal Scrambling in the Courtsa—Argument Upon the Injune- ton Applicd for by Chamberlain Palmer Against Foley—Fighting the Previous Battle Over Again—The Ar- gument To Be Continued To-Day. In the ight as to which shall be Deputy Cham- berlain—Walter B. Palmer or John Foley—there Was @ renewal of hostilities yesterday before Judge Barbour, of the Superior Court, or rather the former battle was fought over again, the opposing party being now, however, the Chamberlain him- self, Mr. Francis A, Palmer, instead of the “nephew of hia uncle,” Walter B. Palmer, who was s0 com- pletely routed the othes day, ‘foot, horse and dra- goons.’ On both sides the same weapons of war- fare were used as at the previous fight, Mr. Palmer backing up his claim to the right to appoint his deputy by the law of 1866, and his right to the injunction asked for prohibiting Mr. Foley from attempting to as- sume the functions of Deputy Chamberlain, and Mr. Foley insisting that the charter of 1870 legal- izes his appointment by the Comptroller, and that the injunction should therefore be denied. The Chamberlain was represented by A. R. Lawrence and Judge Edmonds and Mr. Foley by John Strahan and R. W. Townsend. An effort was made by the Chamberlain’s counsel to postpone the argument in order to allow time to submit additional amida- vits; but this proposition was opposed by the other side and overruled by the Judge. Mr. Lawrence, upon this decision, tried to cut the matter short by insisting that it was unnecessary to repeat the argument in the previous case, inasmuch as pre- cisely the same point was involved—the legality or otherwise. of the appointment of Mr. Foley as Deputy Chamberlain—and suggested that they submit their former briefs and let the Court decide upon these, Mr, Strahan and Mr. Townsend hav- ing come fresh into the case, the previous argu- ment on their side having been made by Mr. A. R. Dyott, Who was absent, were not to be put down In this way and their light hidden under a diminished bushel. There was no other alternative but to go over the argument again. FIGHTING THE OLD BATTLE, Nearly all day was consumed in the argument, and then it was notcompleted, After the very full report given in the HERALD of the previous argu- ment it ts unnecessary to repeat it at any length. First were read the complaint and answer, to- ether with an affidavit of Mr. Storrs, peruse omptroiler, setting forth the fact that on the 29¢l of May, 1872, Mr. Walter B. Palmer submitted to the Comptroller what purported to be his bond as Deputy Chamberlain, but which had never been accepted by the Comptroller. The reading of these documents finished Mr. Lawrence repeated his previous argument. He insisted that the charter of 1870 repealed all the previous charters except the Dongan and Montgomery charters, but that there was no repeal of the power given in the laws of 1866 to the City Chamberlain to appoint a deputy. He claimed that there was no inconsist- ency between the two if strued. In this connection he referred to the recent decision of the Court of Ap- | ete in the Riverside Park matter as showing OW a statute of 1813 was still in force. He dwelt at ye da upon the Legislative intent, and urged that there was nothing in the charter of 1870 that could be tortured into repealing the statute of 1866, giving speeial power to the Chamberlain to appoint a deputy—a power which was then exer- cised for the first time by this oficial. He cited as an analogous case the controversy over the Street Commuissionership between D. D. Conover and Charles Deviin. In the course of his remarks he stated the fact that the Chamberlain was under $1,200,000 bonds, “That's not so," interrupted Mr. Strahan. ematizing way of contradicting a state- ositively refreshing,” answered Mr. Law- at Ihappen to know what Iam talking properly con- about.’ “So do I,"’ persisted Mr. Strahan. ° “So do I,” persisted Mr, Lawrence. “It is a matter that does not bear on this case,’ broke in the Judge. Mr. Lawrence completed his argument without further interruption. In the course of remarks by Judge Edmonds Mr. Straban undertook to inter- rupt him. “You just wait till I up the ex-Judge, “an eternity for all | care.” “But I insist,” contfaued Mr. Strahan “I will hear’ no insisting. You sit down,” now savagely said the Judge. Mr. Strahan sat down for the nonce, but at length came the time for him to speak, and he occupied the time with speaking nearly two hours. He re- viewed the argument of Mr. Lawrence. He insisted that the charter of 1870 most poe svely repealed the statute of 1866, under which the Chamberlain claimed the right to appoint a deputy. On the sub- ject of legislative intent he hed he that the purpose of the charter of 1870 was to place the Comptroller at the head of the finance department of the city, and as such head to give him supreme control in the matter of the appointments and remoyals of all subordinates in the various bureaus of the depart- ment. “It is not supposable, of course,” interrupted the Judge, “that a man of Mr. Foley’s character would do anything wrong; but suppose the Comp- troller should appoint a rogue as Deputy Chamber- lain, who would be responsible for any trauds prac- tiged on the city 1” Mr. Strahan answered this gba aati by say- ing that the Comptroller would appoint no rogues. Judge Barbour sent for a dictionary to get the exact meaning of the word “deputy,’, as he wished, he said, to get all the light possible bearing on the case, Mr. Townsend made a brief argument, and then the case was adjourned till this morning, when the argument will doubtiess be completed, THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. The Suit of George W. Bowen vs. Nelson Chase—Further Evidence tor the De- fendant—Ruling of the Court with Re. spect te Ancient Documents. ‘The further hearing of the case of George Wash- ington Bowen vs. Nelson Chase was resumed yes- terday in the United States Circuit Court, before Judge Shipman and the spectal jury. Mr. Hoar, Mr, Chatfleld and Mr, Schaffer appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Charles O’Conor and Mr. J. C. Carter for the defendant, Benjamin M. Bosworth sworn—I reside in Ware ren, R. I.; 1am a farmer and mechanic; somewhat familiar with the town of Providence, R. I, for thirty-five or forty years; 1 am familiar with the tombstones in the North Burying Ground; there ts a tombstone there recording the death of Gideon Hull and Phoebe Hull, his wife; there is also a tombstone to Captain Gideon Hull and one to Thomas Hull and his children, Q. What was the appearance of the tombstone as to age? Objected to as immaterial and as hearsay. Mr, O'Conor said they had from Hull the fact that he and his brother, now deceased, had caused tombstones to be erected over their parents. The true time of the death of his parents was very ma- terial. On the first trial he swore that his parents died at the same time in 1791 or 1792, while on the resent trial his evidence was that his father died in 1797 and his mother in 1800. The question was whether the inscriptions upon tombstones reason- ably traced te Hull, and raised by him te the mother who bore him and to the father whom he learned to respect, should now be received in evi- acti. Hoar conceded the fact that Gideon Hull, Daniel Hull's father, died in 1797, and bis mother in 1800, Mr. O'Conor said it was impertant to show the day and date of the deaths in question. fhe Court said the dates were admitted in the records of the Town Council of Providence already given in evidence, and with the admission of plain- tifl’s counsel he did not think it was necessary to take the evidence offered. The witness was allowed to state the date of the death of Captain Gideon Hail, as it appears on the tombstone, and it was December 30, 1826, and the death of thomas C. Hull, August 26, 1864, in the seventy-second year of his age. In the tewn of Cumberland there is a tombstone recording the death of Major Reuben Ballou, September 19, 1803. ‘The witness further testified in relation to the geographical situation of the town of Providenve and some of its houses, for the purpose of contra- dictin, the evidence of Wituesses for the plaintir on that head, In cross-examination the witness said he had been employed by Mr. Chase .to make those in- quiries and had been paid for his services; witness was a faymer and mechamic and also acted as an attorney-at-law in the Probate Court and Court of Common Pleas M Khode Island, but he had net been admitted to the bar; he might hdve been ad- mitted but he declined to be bound by rules. Mr, Chatflela—That seems to be a reflection upon the Supreme Court of your State, The Witness—I am sorry jor it, but I cannot help it (Laugl te Horace A. Follett, sworn—I am Town Clerk ot Camberiand, R. I.; as such Ihave custody of some ancient papers, Witness rte several papers of ancient dgte signed with the signature ol Major Reuben Balu. Daniel K. Ballou sworn—I reside at Providence, R. 1; Lam Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas the {Witness produces papers from that Court, of ancient date, bearing the signature of Reuben Ballou.) Mr, Carter, Of counsel for defendant, said that all the ly produced from the town of Cumber- land and from the Cour} of Common Pleas in Provi- dence were now offered for the Fag sad of proving that the entry in the “King Henry Book” respect- t through,’ sharply spoke then you may talk to all ct Were next offered, objected 4 | ing the birth of George Washington Bowen was & Mr. Chatdeld objected to this evidence, No testt- mony had been offered to show that the signature of Ballou to those papers was genuine, Mr. O’Conor replied that the documents were ancient documents used in legal proceedings, and, in that point of view, there could be ne doubt about their authenticity. Shortly after 1854 thre Par- liament of Engiand enacted generally, without ref- erence to ancient or modern writings, that proof ol handwriting might be given by comparison. He said he was extremely doubtful whether any Court of this State, or whether any Court of the United States weuld reject this class of evidence, The jury ought to have an epportunity of judging whether the entry in the ing Henry book was genuine or not. Mr. Hoar having briefly replied, Judge Shipman pronounced an elaborate ruling, holding that owing to the exigency of this case he must regard the document as an ancient writing, and therefore admit it, To this ruling the plaintif’s counsel excepted, Judge Shipman asked Mr. O’Conor if he invended to follow up the evidence by calling experts. Mr, O'Conor replied that he had thought about that, but he had now come to the conclusion that the fury would be just as good experts as to hand- writing as any experts they might call. Experts on hapawaiting ifered sometimes, as lawyers did on matters of law. Stephen R. Weedon was the next witness. He deposed that his grandfather was a physician in Providence, and he produced an account book, in which was an entry in his grandfather's hand- writing, to the effect that persons named Polly and Betsy Bowen, daughters of Caleb Bowen, were customers of bis for medicines in 1791 and 1792. Mr. O'Conor offered this entry in evidence. Mr. Chatfield objected, Nae Judge asked for what purpose this entry was red. Mr. O’'Conor—For the purpose of showing that there was another Betsy Bowen living there, and to explain and contradict the evidence of a Betsy Bowen dying there. The Court allowed the ‘evidence, and the book Was submitted to the inspection of the jury, The witness pointed out other entries in the ac- count books referring to salts and emetics for Polly and Betsy owen, daughters of Caleb Bowen. The Court adjourned till eleven o’clock this morn- ra BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. SUPREME COURT—CKAMBERS. Decisions. By Judge Barrett. Fraser vs. Ogden et al.—Motion granted upon payment of $10 therefor, and $10 costs of opposing this motion, Fearing vs. Busse.—Motion to vacate order of arrest denied, with $10 costs, In the Matter of the Application of William W. Hewitt inthe Matter of Benjamin J, Cahoone, @ Lunatic.—Report confirmed and order granted. In the Matter of the Claim of the Guardian Sav- ings Institution vs. The Bowling Green Savings Bank.—The Pega. should be uniged before the or- der is served. Strasburger vs. William Belden et al.—Motion granted, with $10 costs, Barney et al. vs. Bray et al.—The applicants have leave to interpose an answer upon payment of the costs of entering judgment and $10 costs of this motion, SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERN. Decisions. By Judge Barbour, Grant vs. Gregory.—Order granted, Coddington ys, Dunham.—Order sustaining de- murrer. Grady vs. Coad.—Order granted, Anderson vs. West et al.—Same. McKeon vs. Lee.—Order on remittitur. Cort vs, Sun Mutual Insurance Company.—Or- der granted, By Judge Morrill. Fgelins vs. Egelins.—Findings settled, COMMON PLE, Decisions. By Judge J. F. Daly. Myers vs, Hoar.—Motion denied, with leave to renew. Collins vs. Stewart et. al.—Motion granted, un- less claimant awards complaint within five days, ig By Judge Larremore. Adams vs, Page et al.—Allowance of one per cent. CCURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. * Larceny. bs Before Judge Sutherland, The first case called by Assistant District Attor- ney Russell was that of John Rogers, who pleaded guilty to an attempt at grand larceny, On the 4th of December he stole two pieces of cassimere, valued at $60, from the store of Shriver & Co., No, 458 Broadway. In consequence of his youth and that being his first offence the punishment was modified to one year’s imprisonment in the State Prison. Bargliarv. Edward Barker and John Wright, who were in- dicted for burglariously entering the premises of Taylor & Vanderlip, No. 96 Bowery, on the 27th of December, and stealing $100 in money, pleaded ilty to an attempt at burglary in the third legree. As this was a bad case dis Honor imposed the severest penalty that could be inflicted upon the plea, which was two years and six months’ jn- carceration In the State Prison. A Car Pickpocket Sent to Sing Sing. George McGuire pleaded guilty to larceny from the person, he having on the 30th of December stole a pocketbook, containing $1078, from Cor nelius O'Keefe, while riding in a Third avenue car. The Court observed that in every case be would punish pickpockets to the full extent of the law. McGuire was sent to the State Prison for five years. Caroline Underhill was tried upon a charge of stealing $37 in money from Daniel Thompson, at a saloon in Thompson street on the 17th of Decem- ber. ‘fhe evidence was so conflicting that the jury were unable to agree. A plea of guilty of petty larceny was accepted. Alleged Forgery. The entire day was spent in the trial of an in- dictment against Edward P. Banning, Jr., who was employed by James Sutton & Co., proprietors of be Aldine, charging him with forging the following order :— New Yorx, Oct. 20, 1972, Messrs. James Sutton & Co., insert one’ advertisement in the Aldine one mouth; to decupy twenty lines, at $240 per month, payable monthly. FELLOWS, HOFFMAN & CO. The members of this firm testified that their signature was a forgery. Mr. Mott, the counsel for the defendant, examined him at great length, and his explanation of the affair was that he drew the order at Sutton’s request, so as to make it appear to @ certain party that the affairs of the Aldine were in @ prosperous condition, A great deal of extraneous testimony was given, and, in the course of the trial, Judge Sutherland intimated that the statements of the complainant and the prisoner were diametrically opposed to each other. The case will be finished to-day, YORKVILLE POLICE COURT. Pickpockets and Shoplifters In a Pickle. On Wednesday evening, as Mrs. A, J. Chatfleld was passing through Forty-sixth street on her way to her residence, 251 Fast Forty-eighth street, she was approached from behind by a young man named Dennis Shea, who threw her down upon the sidewalk and forcibly took possession of her pocket- book, which she held in her hands, He than ran away, but was subsequently arrested on the infor- mation of & young man who happened to witness the outrage and knew Shea by eyesight. Yester- day the prisoner was arraigned in Court and held in default of bail for trial. Another member of the Shea family, named Thomas, was sent down stairs to keep his sake company because he was (innocently, claimed), accused of robbing @ poor sailor watch and $20 in cash. The sallor, whose name was John Thompson, was being humbugged by the prisoner and others, he said, and to chastise them the better he threw off his jacket and pitched in, hammering right and left, The “boys” kept him busy while the prisoner (so a witness stated) took up the jacket ana rified it of its contents, John Morse and some other men visited Herman Houston's “sheep clothes’ store, No, 1,543 Third avenue, and, while some of them priced several pairs of pants, Morse walked of with a pair with- out even saying “thank you.’ He was arreated and arraigned in Court and committed for trial, thas making three as eligible candidates for the State Prison as ever looked through the barred door of a cell. COMMISSION OF APPEALS CALENDAR, me ALBANY, Jan. 16, 1973. The following is the calendar of the Commission of Appeals for Friday, the 17th inst. :—Nos. 20, 32, 30, 49, 52, BT, 77, 55, 84, 04, 95, 97, 99, 101, Phere will o further day calendar, except for such cases as have been especially set down for Saturday, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. WASHINGTON, D. C., Jan. 15, 1873. No. —.—New York Central Railroad vs. Lock- wood—Error to the Circuit Court for the Southern district of New York.—This was an action to re- cover for personal injuries to Lockwood, sustained in passing over the road from Buffalo to Albany, The plaintiff (below) Lockwood was a drover, and, taking his stock over the road, was given the usual “pass” to go himself.on the same train to take charge of his stock, “at his own risk.” On the trip, at night, the train was stopped on the track for some cause, and, in attempting to start it, some of the plaintiff's cattle were thrown down, and being anxious to have them on their feet to reserve their condition for the market, and the rain not yet being in motion he got off the train and went back to get catule up. In doing so he fellinto a “crossing” and was seriously injure, and sued to recover damages of the road. The de- fence was that the upon which Lockwood went over the road specially provided tiat its ac- ceptance ‘is to be considered as a waiver of all claims against the road for personal damages and injuries received while on the train.” The Court instructed the jury that such @ contract, absolving the company from its proper responsibility to pas- sengers, was void from reasons of public policy, and that it was no defence, and constitated no im- ediment in the way of recovery, The verdict was lor the plaintif, and the writ of error maintains that the Court erred in its instractions to the jury in not {cllowing the decisions of the State Courts a8 Wo the construction the law. Those decisions, It 13 said, must be regarded by the Federal Courts in such cases as conclusive evidence of the law. By the rule latd down in the State Courts it is claimed to be clear that the contract pleaded by the com- pany 18 valid, and is a perfect defence to the ac- tion. In regard to the question of public policy in- volved, it is contended that public policy and pub- lic law unite in sustaining contracts generally, and that to warrant the }olding of a contract. invalid as against public policy aclear, plain strong case of necessity for the p,otection and preservation of the public interest must be presented; and that no such necessity appears in this case, The defendant in error maintains the theory of the Court below. Strong an: Shepard for plaintitts in error, and Truman Swith and C, Brainard for Te OPPORTUNITIES. —__ BUSINESS A ~ADDITIONAL CAPITAL PROCURED for merchants, mannfacturers and others. Persons with Cupltal seeking business advised of approved opportun- Sa cae eiwcs, y> Lyon & Co., Importersof Fancy 3, 483 Broadway, &e y» ikraGs, CARLETON & CO., Financial and Busingss Agents, 98 Broadway, FINE OPPORTUNITY FOR A YOUNG MAN WITH $5,000 to secure a well established cash manuf turing business in full operation, West Eleventh street, near West. RARE CHANCE FOR ID advantage to call at Sweeney's Hotel, corner Chambers and Chatham. streets, and examine Wiley’s Revolyin Corn Popper; inducements offered; but little e: quired, MH. PARTNER WANTED—WITH $60, TO ASSIST i ji 100 per cent profit; no ris! No. allcash sales. Full particulars 5 Dey street, room 21, : A LADY GOING SOUTH WILL LET A COMPLETE- ly and handsomely furnished brown stone House, in pertect order, all improvements, until Ist ot May, or year rom May; toa good tenant it will be rented cheap." Ap- Rly. to B, FLANIGAN, corner of Twenty-eighth street and ‘ourth avenue, real estate oflice. N OPPORTUNITY SELDOM OFFERED, man with $500 can secure one-nalt it fectionery and Saloon business, long established and pay- ing well; Cavan iabtoitg « having other business will sell at a great sacrifice. aunle to J. W. MUDGETT, 15 Broadway, rear basement. NY RESPECTABLE, INTELLIGENT MAN, WiIO Will Honestly Investigate @ business opportunity ywith a view only of investing some capital with h tive services (If found entirely satisfactory), ma; for particulars to M. C. JEFFERS. oftice No, ) Bl street. AE in RARE OPPORTUNITY.—PARTIES HAVING $1,20, desiring to engage in a pleasant cash business, pay: ing 10) per cent, should not tail to call on MOODY & ©0., 183 Broadway, A PARTNER WANTED—A_ PRACTICAL, CRACKER, cake or bread baker, with from $500 to $1,000, to join advertiser in establishing'a business; advertiser will in vest like amount; is a thorough, practical man in all branches of cracker or biscuit baking, including im ed goods, Fall particulars at GEORGE B. TENNAN 254 Clinton street, New York. SPLENDID CHANCE FOR AN ENERGE' young, man.—For sale, the Stock and Lease of first class Dry Goods Store in the be: clty of Trenton, N.J. Reasons tor Address ©. L, B., Post oftice, Trenton, N. N ESTABLISHED CASH MANUFACTURING BUSI- ness wants a partner with capital to extend it; large rofts made and best references given, Address C. B., Herald ottice. A PUBLISHING AND IMPORTING HOUSE, DOING a safe and very successful business, desires an active man to take a $19,000 or $15,000 interest; copyrights, platen stock, &c., $50,000; one partner must in future ive in Europe. Address {MPORTER, Herald office. TTENTION! PATENTEES.—ADVERTISER a good Patent to sell by State and county rights. Address W. T., 79 John street, up stairs. A —A HALF INTEREST IN A LENDID PAY! + business, established in 1863; an energetic with good references, liberally dealt with; a tho investigation given. LLOYD, 29 Broad STABLISHED BANKING BUSINESS AND FIN Residence for sale in a growing manufactaring town in Southern Mlinois. Price $10,000, [nquire of NORTHRUP & CHICK, No. 6 Wall street, and E, 0 MIL. LER, 20 Cedar street. STABLISHED TWENTY YEARS.—JOB PRI Business, realizing sub: terest could be purchased rn for- mation of CHARLES G, 112 and lit Broadway. ‘OR SALE—HALF IN lished twine business particulars apply to . W. D. it by WET EOrAR. ail capital required. For iLT, 2 West Hrowdway. i Yk? SALE—AT A GREAT SAORIFICE, THE WHOL or part interest of a Business that pays 100 per cent. ‘Address 72 Bleecker street, in trunk store. JOR SALE—AT ONE-HALF ITS VALUE, A NEW Patent for fastening windows. Call on or addres9 G. E. FARMER, the Patentee, 48 and 9 East Twenty sixth street, New York. OR SALE—A HALF INTEREST IN A LONG-ES- tablished Book business. To an intelligent and en- terprising man, with $5,00, a business opportunity 1s offered. Address LIBER,’ Herald offic YREAT BARGAIN.—COST $5,000; WILL BE SOLD F for $300; @ first class fine corner Grocery and family Wine Store, on a leading avenue, west, side, wit es i Particulars of GRIGGS, CARLETON ay. [yA LONG ESTABLISUED HOUSE, DEALING IN 4+ pianos, organs and melodeons, and sole agents for a leading manutacturer. and having ample capital, se- sire an active partner, with $10,000 to 320,000, to increase a profitable, safe and ‘cash business. Apply to GRIGGS, CARLETON & CO,, 98 Broadway. ANTED—ANY PERSON HAVING $10,000 TO TN- vestin a valuable patent will do well to addresy PATENT, Herald office. ANTED—A MAN WITH A FEW HUNDRED DOL- lars, in a light manufacturing business; goods have an established reputation, large profits.’ Apply to MOODY & CO.,183 Broadway. WAXTEDIAN, ACTIVE, PARTNER, WITH A. CAPI- tal of $12,000 or $15,000, in an old established jobbing and manufacturing prug business in Baltimore, Md. Address, with real name, WHOLESALE DRUGGIST, Balti- more Post office. 0 WI ished trade. Broad | SECURE AN INTEREST IN A MANU- i business that will pay $40 to $70 per ated by addressing room 17, 599 ‘ork. 4. 000. —PARTNER WANTED, IN AN EXTRA A + profitable manufacturing business, To a party desiring a safe and permanent business this is a kare opportunity Full investigation desired, Address MAJOR, box M40 Herald office. K $5.000 tor short of money, or t made; no triflers need appl reference in New York, Pari answer MONOPOLY AND CRE, $10.00( manufacturing business, facturing to be increased ; red new and first class in quality; great Importance for the future supply; first class references required and given. Address for interview, with real name, PRODUCT, box Herald office. TO $200.0) SPECIAL $100.00 wanted to replace retired o extend business, which is first class in e Gobbing and commission) ; ely profitable and perfectly sat at $7,000; present assets, $95),000; indebtedness, W; present’ business, $65,00) per ‘month; can be in? * eased to $30,000 to $30,000 per month se has every facility and the trade to do it, with a me a large portion of their merchandise, exc!ust commission) of entire production of one of manufactories in the country, which has re; creased its facilities tor production to © annum, goods that the market. Wit condition of the business aiairs of the special can be nearly if not quite trebled k years’ partnership; an opportunity rarely it ever before bifered and worth investization, It investinent is desired in legitimate business, combining larger satety beyond questio ing of house Al, ences unexceptionable haine, WORKERS, box UT TWO WORKS TE! —TO FE: alize $2,000 in three months. Proprie- 8 unusual offer would not be 15 sonable jountry. the a five of sia “CIGARS AND TOBACCO, [ASPANOLAS OF HAVANA TOBACCO—FQUAL TO quality, at $55 per M. © 4 genuine In appear y Writ &'C0., 0 Malden 23 THIRD AVENUE, NEAR trect, ladies and gentlemen may obtain ful vaiue of cast off Clothing, Carpets, &ec., by calling or Addressing, Ladies attended to by Mrs. Rosenthal, AT Ninetec T 279 THIRD AVENUB, NEAR TWENTY-THIRD Ae OM LEON pave the highest price tor ladies ton Ladies on. and gentiemen’s Clothing, Carpets, ec. waited on by Mra. 246 SEVENTH AVENUE, NEAR TWENTY-FOURTIL ‘EO street.—The above establishme ees to pay e thag any Pw the city for ng Apparel, Ac, Call or address Mr. s RUSEN- RRIVAL EXTRAORDINARY. b ropean Business and Medical Clair ce 142 West Twenty-filth street, between Sixth and Seventh avenues; astonishing revelations concerning everything mysteriou: foretold; peer no L ited; names revealed; recalcitrant. husbands re- claimed ; lucky numbers (urnished,- Fees 5) ceute ait $1. Gentlemen inadmissale. dy! THY DESTINY.—POREWARNED TS FORE: wi J; those separated reunited: luck in love aut ena. 15) Forty first street, vear Broadway. MBDICAL Twenty-eighth stroct, t sens Iriviids wud luck v a Mi Giasrvoxant at business lysses, Herts,