The New York Herald Newspaper, January 22, 1873, Page 8

ae > a a — 8, THE ‘HE GREAT TWEED-RING TRIAL. COURTS. ————— “Apleventh Day’s Proceedings---Garvey Still at «the Front---How Checks Were Endorsed--- Delving Into Bank Accounts---More Le- i gal Sparring---Continued Public In- y terest---The Case Adjourned Till To-Morrow on Account of IIl- ness of Mr. Tremain. HE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. ‘Reading of Depositions—Interesting Legal Argu- ment—Mme. Jumel and the Plaintiff Bowen— Denial of any Knowledge on the Part of - Deceased in Her Lifetinte of Her Alleged Son Bowen—The Case Adjourned Till To-Morrow, THE DEPSTY CHAMBERLAINSHIP FIGHT. Judge Barbour’s Decision—The Temporary Injunction Against Foley Made Perma- nent—The Fight To Be Continued by Quo Warranto Proceedings, REMINISCENCE OF THE LATE WAR. How the Boys in Blue Were Uniformed— Selling by Sample—Judgment for Plaintiff in $24,000. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. Bummaries—Decisions—Sentences and Convic- tions in the General Sessions. The eleventh day of the Tweed trial (yesterday) showed no abatement in the public anxiety to Jearn all the details of the ring rule and rascalities in New York, Andrew J. Garvey was on the wit- ness stand all day again, and gave some remark- able testimony in reference to the way in which his own as well as some other bank accounts were managed. In consequence of the illness of Mr. Tremain the case stands adjourned until to-mor- row. The hearing of the case of George Washington Bowen vs. Nelson Chase was resumed yesterday in the United States Circuit Court before Judge Shipman and the special jury. A considerable portion of the day was taken up with an interest- ing law argument on the admission of ancient documents, for the purpose of proving handwriting by comparison. Evidence was given. on the part of the defendant to show that Madame Jumel, in her wills, had entirely ignored the existence of the plaintiff by not mentioning his name in those documents or leaving him any property. The case NEW . YORK an equal yercentage of the bills true, or did it . Peckham—You are asking the witness to per- form the functions of a mathematician, seanet for defence—Phat is precisely what I am Alter some argument the question was allowed, Q. What proportion of each of those bills was true? A. re were none entirely true, Q. That is not it, but what part of each bill was true? A. There was no propertion of auy of them true—ol any of them. COUNSEL APPEARED GREATLY MYSTIFIED at this answer, and took him on the other tack. Q. What proportion or percentage of any one of these bills waa entirely untrue? A. ‘There was no proportion 01 any of them entirely untrue. (Laugh- ter, Counsel—Is that an answer, may it please Your Hener? Judge Davis—Yes, a very direct answer—no pro- Portion entirely true or falee. Counsel—We must try you as Mr. Field suggests, Now, here is a warrant for $45,097 06, claiming to Teproeene a cor onding bill. nee Peckbam—What document are you read- “Counsel—It Iwas as amiable as you I would tell you. (Laughter.) Weil, it is exhibit 60, Mr. Burriil—It is exhibit 61, Mr. Peckham—One says 60 and another 61; I will take it at 6034. Counsel—How much of that bill was true ? Garvey—I don’t know. . Was $10? A. Yes, sir, Was $10,000? A, I don’t know; it would be impossible for me to tell now. Q. Then I must go back and ask you my original question, What proportion of any of those bills was ue tr Judge—He has answered that question. Counsel—I put it again, What proportion was true or false ? A. Let me explain— Q. No; now answer me directly. Judge—He says he wants to explain, plied to you already, Go on. Counsel—Then, if the question is excluded, Your Honor will please let me have the benefit of an ex- ception, (Laughter.) judge Davis nodded assent, and the exception was formally entered and duly recorded, HOW THE UILLS WERE MADE UP. The witness testified that his bills were made out, according to Mr. Watson's directien, from memorandums; sometimes the memorandums were brought to him by Ingersoll, and sometimes he took them down himseif from Ingersoil; the memorandums are all torn up; he sometimes got his warrant the day he put in his bill; he did not look at the warrant to see if it corresponded with the bill. Q. Will you undertake to say that you saw Mr. Tweed’s name om each of the bills you rendered? A. No, but I saw it on some. Q. How many? A. I don't know. Q. What did you see? A. W, M. Tweed across the face 01 it. Q. How often? A. I can’t say. Q. Did you see it elsewhere? A, On the certifi- cate of audit, Q. Inhow many instances? A. I don’t remem- ber, Q. Did you assume it to be nis handwriting? A. Yes, 1 assumed it to be such. Q. And there was nothing specially to call you to examine it? A. That was so, Q. I believe in the bills you rendered you put in for a certain number of days’ work, I suppose, which was due, and you enlarged the number? A, Yes, sir, Q. So that there was always some portion of the item really true? A. There was, sir. TAKING IT FOR GRANTED. Q. When you were signing the certificate you were obliged to sign, before receiving your war- rant.from Mr. Watson, in the Supervisors’ Cham- ber, the bank, or wherever else it was, did you ex- amine the bills parHeaany enough to be sure that in every instance it was the identical bill you had rendered? A, No, I did not; I took it tor granted it was all right; 1 knew my writing; it is very pe- culiar, Q. But you did not examine the bills atall? A.I did not, sir. Q. The items were truthful items, and the falsity was in running out these items? A. That is pre- cisely it, sir. Q. What amount was due to you when you com- menced making out these bills? A. That Idon’t know, sir. . Q How much do you claim for work to be dene? A. I can’t tell that either, Q. How much of the $110,000 or $78,000 or $75,000 items was for work actually done? A, That I can’t He has re- tell. Q. Was there any compulsion, Mr. Garvey, to make you enter the item of $5,000 in the $395,0U0 to cover election expenses? A. Ne, sir. Q. Then you did that om your own hook? A. I did, sir; 1 Was under great expeuse. Q. Why did you deposit the teurteen checks which you say cover the sixty-five per cent stopped out of your bills—why did you deposit them pay- able to your own order?’ A, By Woodward's di- rection. ‘was adjourned until to-morrow, to enable one of the jurors (Mr. C. H. Mount) to attend to-day at ‘the funeral of his father-in-law, Mr. Isaac N. Sey- mour. Areport will be found elsewhere of the retrial | before Judge Van Brunt, holding Supreme Court Circuit, of an old suit between commission mer- chants, growing out of the sale of “sky blue kerseys.” The goods were intended to be con- verted into aniforms for soldiers during the late war, and the claim was that they did not come up to the samples. The case came to trial in 1865, ‘when a verdict was given for the plaintiffs. The defendants, failing to obtain a new trial at Special and General Term, carried the case to the Court of Appeals, where anew tial was ordered. The re- sult of this new trial, which was concluded, was a verdict for $23,711 88, being the full amount claimed, with interest. Judge Barbour, of the Superior Court, yesterday gendered his decision in the Palmer-Foley injunc- tion case, granting the injunction. ‘This leaves as the only remedy to Mr. Foley a resort to quo warranto proceedings, and this course it is Said will be speedily taken. THE TWEED TRIAL—YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. Garvey’s Third Day on the Witness si d—A Wonderfal Exnibit of In- famy—More About the Trip to Europe— Trath and Falsehood in a Jumble. There was the same large attendance yesterday at the Tweed trial, before Judge Davis, in the Court of Oyer and Terminer, that has been rotice- avle ever since Andrew J, Garvey has been en the Witness stand, and the proceedings were of an ex- ceedingly interesting, in fact, lively description. There appears to be a strange fascination in the public for the details of any crime—the greater tue offence the higher the degree of interest—and it is true, even of this case, though the proceed- ings, embracing ag they do, overhaul- fogs of very dry accounts, are some times correspondingly dry. Among = the audience it is fair to assume that there are not less than one-third of the whole number eld attachés and employ¢s ef the Tammany Ring, ‘Who come to look at and listen to the proceedings against their old and now troubled chief. Garvey ‘was on the stand the whole of yesterday, and will | continue hia testimony to-morrow on the redirect examination. The following are the PROCEEDINGS OF YESTERDAY :— Mr. Garvey, continuing to reply te the cross-ex- aminer, said he had not in his possession any notes from persons representing the people in reterence to this case; he does not remember telling on the Hall trial about Mr. Tweed telling him to fix it with Woodward. Q. Now, Mr. Garvey, if there was a crime to be. gone through to obtain payment you needn't have worked for the eouniy? A, (Laughing) Oh, there's ‘where I done wrong. Q. Your necessities weren't such as to compel you to enter into any such arrangement? A. Well, you sec, human nature is such— (laughter) —well, ‘Uiey Were always in my debt. Q Do you remember having @ conversation with Mayor Hallabont your claims in the Presence of Mr. Tyler, a gentieman_eonnected with the insur- ance business, and did you then represent to Mr’ Hall that your claims were just? A, What else ‘would Isay’ (Laughter.) What would you have me say? WORKING FoR EFFECT. Q But, did you? A. 1did; that was for effect, yeu know (aughter) ; 1 was not going to say any- thing to disgrace Mayor Hall. (Langhter,) Counsel—i ask Your Honor to restrain the wit- ness. Garvey (not to be restrained)—What would you fa ‘Ve me say? Q’. You never said to Mr. all that there was any- thimt improper in yourclaims? A. Would you have me sa,¥ there was? (Laughter.) Finai'y Garvey ws compelled to answer the question directly in the negative. His arra."gements with Ingersoll and tne manner fm which th'e Witness made up his bills were next gone into, All the thirty-seven bills of which they ‘were speaking”, 4nd which were the basis of his arran @ partially just. ™ . nat "was ithe lowest proportion of any of those bills that "Vas tne? A. Out of $296,000 1 Q. Had you any personal motive of your own for so acting? Az No, sir, hin ae | statedin reply to further questions that Ingersoll toid J. Garvey there was money in the packet sent to eigen to Mr. Tweed, and which John carried to him; there were instances in 1867, 1868 and 1869 in whlch he did not swear to and verify the bills he rendered against the county. Q. Do you remember how many bills you ren- dered in 1867% A, No, sir. Q. Were there forty? A. There were. Q. Were there as many as half a dozen of these which you did not verify ? Judge Davis—What is the object of this? Counsel—That I don’t wish to state in presence of the witness, Judge Davis—I don’t see the relevancy of this. Counsel—He says there were bills which he didn’t verily in 1867, Yesterday I saw a hali-dozen of his bills for that year which he did verity, and lam given to understand there is not a single bill which he didn’t verity that year, umless the signature of the notary is a forgery. Question excluded. Counsel (producing a bil!)—Now, here is a bill of 1867; do you recognize your signature to that ¢ DID TWEED SAY 80? Judge Davis—W hat has that te do with it? Counsel—He swore that Mr, Tweed put on fifteen er cent; he asked him what that was for, and Mr. weed said, “That is for me; put it on, and [ll take care of your bills.” Now we offer nere proof that he swore the biils were true which he says were false, and that, in other words, he was not only a thief, but @ perjurer, Judge Davis—The Court cannot sit nere till doomsday to try side issues. You want to go into every case where he made an afidavit and prove that there was perjury in each case, Counsel—These are my facts; 1 want to put in my facts, and then I can fire off what I please. (Laughter.) ' Judge Davis (smiling)—Yes, I know you can— (laughter)—fire off blank cartridges. “(Laughter and applause for the Judicia: joke.) If he com- mitted perjury in swearing to that bill, it is an in- dependent transaction, which I cannot sit to try here. The defence here offered to put in the bills for 1867 and 1868, and show that they were verified in each case, Mr. Burrill—He swears the bills were enlarged fifteen per cent for Mr. Tweed ; we offer the verified bills to prove that there was no such arrangement. Mr. Fullerton—He swears there was fifteen per cent put on; we offer to prove thathe swore the bills were not enlarged. Judge Davis didn't see how it would serve the defence to prove that the witness perjured himself on another occasion, “t Counsel said His Honor was mistaken—the 1lo- cality of the perjury was that Court—he swore truly when putting in the bilis, Judge Davis said there was something in the offer if they proposed to follow it up with proof that the fifteen per cent was not put on, WOODWARD AS NOTARY PUBLIC. Counsel showed the witness a number of bills of 1867, with certificates, waich were signed “K. A. Woodward, Notary Public,” and some of them signed \. H. Tucker, Garvey identified the signa- ture of Woodward. Mr. Peckham (handing the bills back to wit- ness) —Lvok over them and tell me if you swore to those bills, Wituess (tossing them over)—No, sir; I never swore except to one of them. Mr. Fullerton—New, whether sworn to or not, they are all signed by the witness as correct, and we offer them in evidence. + Judge Davis—I can't receive them, Mr. Fullerton—Then we propose to ask him whether the fifteen per cent was added there, Judge Davis—You can ask him as much as you like about that, Counsel—Now, Mr. Garvey, here is one of your bills, verified by you January 10, 1868, Was fifteen per cent put on there? A, No, sir, it was for the Work on the new Court House the fifteen per cent was pnt on. Q. What is that bill for? A, For work on tne county offices. Q. Do you recollect an instance in 1868 in which you rendered a bill which you didn’t verify? A. I verified this first bill in 1867, and no other billafter; I verigied no bill of any kind in 1868; the only pill t [i verily was the first bill ior plastering this Court jouse, Two bills of 1867, one for $6,728 and another for $5,000, each signed S. R. Wakefield, C. H. Tucker eared ie of the building) and A, J. Garvey, ere handed to the witness, and he said these were bilis on which the fliteen per cent was added and paki by the county, but he was unable to point out where it was added. The items were then gone through. First he said there might be some- thin, Nise 4 in the items—there probably was—he couldn't tell. On coming to the item for oil, he said it was charged more than cest price. Counsel here proposed to interrogate the wit- ness seriatim as to whether he swore to the amdavits amxed to the various bills of 1867, but Judge Davis said it wouid be wasting time, as the witness had sworn distinctly that ne only swore to one aMdavit—is first bill. A bill with an affidavit purporting to have been sworn to before Eugene Durnin was produced, and Garvey was asked whether he denied having Sworn to the oath certified to there. Garvey an- Swered that he had no recollection of it whatever. The Court then took @ recess. After Recess. The counsel for the defence were promptly in their seats at half-past one o'clock, the time at the proceedings should have commenced, ut Judge Davis was five minutes ate, a grievous | Jault for so scrupulous a gentleman, but he made it up by sitting wil five minutes past four. ‘ine id say $240,000, Which I got. ot mean bow muh was (xpe in each bill: was counsel jor the prasecntion did not make their ap- pearapce till auite a Dumber of auestions had been HERALD, WEDNESDAY, put by the defence and wered by the witness. Garvey took his place awfal witness stand with a look of qujet resignation, and the only danger seems to be that he will become 90 accus- tomed to sitting in that particular chair that his health may suffer unless it is presented to him at the close of the trial, In that case it would be pre- Served probably in the Garvey family as an heir- loom, and a Ces ofa century hence he might say (or sing, i! he has a good voice), Liove tt, Uove it, and who shall dare Yo chide me for loving that old arm chair? Of course no ene would attempt to “chide” him for it; but he has endured any amount of chiding in that chair in the three consecutive days he has sat in it, and, as he will occupy it again to-morrow, goodness knows what livelier recollections of the Seat may yet be in store for him, The cross-ex- amination was as follows:— Q. Have you ever received from the county war- Tants in the name of Fillippe Donnarumma, paya- *ble to his order; also warrants payable te a man named Cashman, and others payabie to an individ- ual named Hemnessey, on which you have endorsed their names and drawn and appropriated the money? A. The name of Donnarumma is not endorsed on the warrants; I never endorsed his name. The Court suggested that it would be better, per- haps, to question him as to each of the alleged en- dorsements singly. Q. Have you ever received similar warrants in the name of a Mr. Cashman? A. Yes, sir; but Cashman is an imaginary man; there is no such rson as that Mr. Cashman; I know of no person aving that identical name. At this stage oi the examination the counsel for the prosecution entered and took their seats. Mr. Peckham appeared quite well, and was nibbling a toothpick, which gave a good presumptive idea of how fare had been enjoying Limself during the re- cess, ia Tremain was evidently not in good health, and appeared to be suffering from acute pain, which he afterwards stated to be lumbago. Q. Did you have a man named Cashman in your service? A. Yes, : . What was hisname? A, Cornelius Cashman. Q. (Exbibiting to witness some papers) Are these the warrants you understood me to refer to as en- dorsed by Filippo Donnarumma? A, Yes, sir. Q. What is the name of the payee in these war- rants? A. Fillippo Dennarumma, Q. Is there such a person? A. Yes, sir; he is an ornamental painter, and lives in Third avenue; he was lormeriy my foreman; I received these war- rants from the county, but did not cause his name to be inserted in them as payee; I accepted them with Donnarumma’s name in after I had had acon- versation with Mr, Watson about it. Counsel for defence—Never mind Watson, now, because he is not here. He is in heaven, or some other place; at least he isa dead man, Mr. Garvey, who endorsed that warrant, “Phiiip F, Dummer ? A. I did, and I endorsed the other in the same name, but | wrote my own name under It also, The witness was then shown a warrant for $24,792, dated September 7, 1869, in which R. J. Henn is named as the payee. Witness con- tinued :—That is a fictitious name also, Q. Do you know a Mr, Hennessey at all? A, Tam sorry to say that Ido; his name is J. R. Hennessey, not R, J. Hennessey; I don’t know this Hennessey at all. Q. Is there any difference between them, except this reversal of initials? A, Ido not know this R, J. Hennessey at all; you may think that this is the only difference if you want to, Q. (Another warrant shown.) Look at this war- rant, of the same date and to the same payee, tor $82,695 63; Was the name in that when you re- ceived it? A, Yes, sir; I endorsed both of them R. J, Hennessey and wrote my ewn name under those endorsements; Lendorsed them to deposit them in my bank, Warrants of the following description were also exhibited to witness:—One dated October 28, 1869, for $38,704, T. C, Cashman as payee and endorser; one October 17, 1869, same payee, for $30,386 08; one, October 13, 1869, for $37,418, to J. G, Penchard ; one, October 29, 1869, same payee, for $34,584 69. Witness testified that the onlv Cashman he knew was Cor- nelius Cashman, and the only Penchard of his ac- quaintance was George J. (not J. G.) Penchard. Vitness signed the names of the payees named in the warra id wrote his own name under each, q. Mr. Gary ‘ou received from the bank the proceeds of th ous Warrants or your propor- tion of them? A, Yes; but it was a very small proportien. Q. Did you render te the county bills as the bases of all these warrants and on which the war- ranis purport to have been issued? Objected to by the prosecution, Counsel for the defence claimed the right to show the entire transaction of the witness and his motive in using the fictitious names, or rather names of persons whose names he thought he could use on account of their rela- tions in any way he pleased, and that he meant the warrants to receive char- acter from their names, aad that the slight varia- tion irom the real names was intended as a protec- tion to himself in case at any time they should disavow his right to uso their names; also that the endorsement ef these warraats vy him was for- gery, and aisy to show that, instead of the witness being coerced into this system of pecuiation, as he alleged, in order to obtain the money actually due him, he was engaged independently in peculating by these devices for his own benefit. Mr. ‘remain said that the only object the prose- cution had in this objeciion was for fear that, in the event of their not now interposing an objection counsel on the other side might ata later stage claim that the prosecution had no right to follow up the same line of proof. If the deience would agree to make no objection to the whole history of this transaction in rejerence to these war- rants being adduced, and to the prose- cution showing that Mr. Tweed had re- ceived twenty-leur per cent of the amount of these very claims, then he would withdraw the ovjection which the prosecution iad interposed. The indictmeut did not embrace these claims and the whole subject was a collateral one and not in- volved in the present case. The testimony showed that as early as 1867, when Tweed was a supervi- sor, he regularly participated in these bills tor fif- teen percent o/ their face, mereasing regularly from. that time until the ‘ante,’ as they called it, amounted vo sixty-five per cent. These bil:s all went through the Board of Supervisors, and were subject to the tribute that was levied by Mr. Tweed, and twenty-lour percent went to Mr. ‘Tweed’s private account. Uniess the gentiemen on the other side would consent to open the doors to admit the whole history of tue transaction he would insist on the objection; but if they yielded he wouid withdraw it, Counsel for the defence said—We consent to nothing—(laughter)—for it would be novel to fol- low any such course in a criminal case unless it be authorized. Counsel addressed the Court for some time and at its close Judge Davis announced his decision to the effect that the subject matter here sought to be intro- duced was purely collateral; that he would allow questions to be asked as to whether the witness Presented accounts, obtained warrants, received Money upon them and so forth, but if it was done he would allow the witness to give his {ull explana- tion of the transaction, so ag to exonerate himgelf from any imputed wrong if he could so exonerate himself. THE DEFENCE BACKED DOWN on the proposed ventilation and excepted to the ruling of the Court “in the broadest manner?— (laughter) —so as to cover every question. ‘The Court ordered the whoie of the testimony taken irom the recess up to this time to be stricken out—i, ¢, all testimony relating to the Donna- rumma, Cashman, Hennessey and Penchard war- rants. Q. By the defence—Im reference to this receipt for $60,000 a8 to which you claim to bave told us the circumstances, did Mr. !'weed simply take a hott of paper out of the drawer when you handed hima the receipt? Is that all he did, simply take a piece of paper and ask you vo put your name on it? A. He took it out of the drawer and turned it face downward—I never saw the face of it. Q. How do you know which was the face of it? How do you know but that the side turned down was the same as the side that wasup’ A. That might be. Q. You assumed that there was something differ- ent on the face of the paper fromthe back? A, L did irom the expression Tweed made use ef. He said, “Endorse that,” and when | endorsed it he | put it back tn the drawer; I never saw Mr. Tweed | use a check book; whenever I endorsed checks for him he had them loose; 1 think I receipted the bill I presented, but | am not certain about it, % Why didn’t you include that amount of $60,000 in the action you brougit against Mr, Tweed to’ re- cover $20,000? A. Because | considered it paid; I considered it settled, Q. Do you suppose that if you have got your money under the circumstances which you Say you govit you can hold on to it? A. (alter some hesi- tancy) I don’tcare whether I hold on toit or not. Q. You don’t think if you had been paid your bill against Mr. Tweed with the money in the county of New York you had been paid an honest billy ra I regret to say I didn’t think much about it at the tin Counsel—Ah! but your regrets come late, Q. You have not returued the $5,000 you re ceived ior your election expenses’ A, I gaye it to Ingersoll and he gave it to Tweed. (Laughter.) ‘The counsel didn’t like this, and insisted on the witness giving responsive answers, Q. Did you return the $5,000 to the county? A, I did not return it to the county, nor did [ return the money I received for work on Walter Roche's house, but I gave it to Woodward; I did the work for that money, though Ihave not returned the $10,000, nor the $40,000, nor the $6,000 of which L have testified, Q. Had you any cause for fear at the time you understood the Senate Commitiee was coming to this clty to investigate?’ A. Well, I felt for Mr. Tweed more than for myself, (Léughter.) Counsei (sharply) —W you have got bravely over that feeling since then, (More laughter, feank The question was repeated, A. To be with you, Lmay have nad some little uneasiness about it. Q Why? A. You can imagine yourself, from what you have seen, Coubsel—Can 1? Well, that is shut out. a ‘aha {sotto voce)—Oh, no. They can’t shut out your imagination no more than yo shut out the light of day. alin Q. After he told you that “the committee would have to be bought up” and that you would “have up’ tor it," was your anxiety allayed? Ay 5 r I shortly after had to put up for it. (Laugh- OT.) : Counsel—I object to the witness saying he had to “pat up" for it. Question repeated. me afterward in that conversa Q. Io erence to your con ition with Mr, Tweed in September, 187), when you say Mr. Tweed told you, “anybody a 1 you, Say you paid no woney to anybody but Watson.” how jong before A. It was, by what he said to ‘JANUARY 7, I873—TRIPLE SHEET. that had you seen Mi detinitely; 1t was dim see it was about ten or eleven days before I sailed. Q. Was it before you gave this birth ” rift to your wife, on the 12th ‘of September y A. [think it Was alter that, a day or two; I think my ticket ‘was bought three or four days before | sailed, Q. The vouchers were supposed to be taken on the 11th of September, How long alter that was it you bud the conversation with Mr. Tweed? A. About two or three days; not longer. Dicin’t it look absurd to yeu for “Mr. Tweed to make such @ remark as that about Watson? A. It looked to me as though the plan was to throw the whole thing upon Watson, 2. Did you take into your hands these papers which you thought were certificates and which you thought woedward took to Tweed to get signed? A, No; butI saw enough of them to see that they were blank forms of audit; 1 knew the form pretty well; Woodward told me that he was going over to get Tweed’s signature, so as to get some money. Q. Then they might have been ed by others for all you knew when Woodward brought them back? A. Yes, sir; they might. Counsel for the defence here announced that they kad concluded the croas-examination of the witness; in reference to the check for $60,000 which was given for the $60,000 receipt, counsel also stated that it had been mislaid and was fot now in Court, but would be produced and offered in evidence. THE RE-DIRECT was then begun by Mr. Peckham, and the witness testified :—I had no definite idea as to whether Mr. O’Conor was acting for the Attorney General on behalf of the people when I had those interviews with him; I had seen by the papers in Europe that Governor Hoffman had authorized him to assist the Attorney General to prosecute these cases, & You were interrogated as to the property you had in 1867 or 1868, Have you, since that imterro- gation, made a more definite investigation as to your property? A. I have; I was worth at that time between $100,000 and $200,000, Q. What kind of a business had you? A. [hada very respectable business; I had had contracts for work on the Tontine Building, for Jay Cooke, on the Olympic Theatre, the Latarge House, the old Exchange (now the Custom House), Church of St. Vincent de Paul, Vassar College at Poughkeepsie and scores of other good contracts, Counsel for defence interrupted the witness as he was about to name some other contracts by saying, “No, no; you have been blowing your horn long enough about your business,’* Mr. Tremain (to counsel for defence)—Well, you should not expect to have the monopoly of horn- blowing (laughter). Witness resumed—I was worth over $500,000, but under $600,000, when I went to Europe—with all debts paid. Q. From 1868 to 1871 did you do any work for other parties than the city and county of New York? A. Idid. Q. About what proportion of the difference be- tween your means in 1868, from the time it was $100,000 to $200,000, until it became nearly six hun- dred thousand dollars, did you make on private con- tracts? A, I made a good deal of it by the rise in real estate; the balance, to be candid, I made out .of the city and county; [had nothing te do with the agreement by which the item of $2,000 was struck out of the bill for work at Greenwich; my brother managed that business, Q. Was that the same or different work from that embraced in the $60,000 billy (Objection exciuded and exception taken.) A, I believe it was a little mixed up in it; I believe there was some of it that should properly have been included in the $60,000 bill; Lhad nothing to do with putting it into this last mentioned bill, Mr. Peckham then asked the defence for their ex- hibits “A” and ‘B” of Monday's evidence. Q. Did you actually receive the money referred to in this warrant? A, Not a dollar. Exhibits “C,” “D” and “E” were next shown to yan “EY being a check for $20,330 for bills “C”? and “D, Witness continued—I never received a dollar of this; Lendorsed the check but never had it in my possession, Q. State the transaction under which you en- dorsed it, A, Mr, Tweed filled out this check and handea it to me fer endorsement, and then he re- tained the check as well as the bills and receipt. Mr. Tremain—You never, had the check in your hands? A. I swear I never had it in my hands, Exhibits “F" and “G’’ were a bill and check for $22,500, Witness said:—I gave the receipt to Woodward and he took it away; when he came back again he gave me this check and I endorsed it; ne took it away again and took it to Tweed; I don’t know whether he took 1t to Tweed, exactly— 1 bar that. Witness then identified his own bank books on the Broadway Bank and the Bowery Bank. A transcript trom the books of the East River Bank, in which he had an account, was also produced, his book being mislaid, Witness testified that these showed all the deal- ings had by him during part of 1868, 1869, 1870 and part of 1871;, he deposited almost all his own checks, sometimes his brother did it for him, and once Ingersoll haa made a deposit to witness’ account. Mr. Fullerton, for the defence, rose to discuss a minor question at this stage and the witness inter- polated some remark which led Mr. Fullerton to say ey he was not addressing the witness but the Court. Witness—Pardon me, sir. Mr. Fullerton (sharply, almost savagely)—You will require a pardon from some one else than me before you are through with this, (sensation.) By Mr. Fullerton—Who made the deposits in this bark, the book of which is now offered in evidence? A. Myselt and my brother. Q. Did you always deposit the checks you re- ceived in this or some other of tne three banks? A. Yes, sir; except some small checks, The books and transcript were offered in evi- dence and objected to. the books were admitted, but the transcript was excluded, as there was nothing to show its accuracy or authenticity. One of the clerks of the East River Bank will be called on to verity it. Mr. Peckham to witness—I call your attention to this item of deposit, $33,704 41, under date October 28, 1869, in the Broadway Bank. Was that a depo- sit of any check of Mr. ‘'weed’s or mot? A. No, sir, it was not; that was a warrant (the Cashman warrant). Mr. Peckham then read the items of deposit in the book up to October 28; and, when he had concluded, Mr. Fullerton asked to be allowed to read also. He was handed the book and read eff a dozen or more of deposits—some of them for very large amounts—and then handed the book back. Mr. Peckham (to Mr. Fullerton) —Well, I suppose bey ci looking for that $20,000 check. Did you vi Mr. Fullerton—Yes, I found it; it is there, Mr. Peckham—Do you say there fs any $20,000 check deposit, then ¥ Mr. Fullerton—Yes, it is in there somewhere, ‘That's all right, Mr. Peckham then read from the Bowery Bank book, and having finished reading turned and offered it to Mr, Fullerton, saying :— “Here, do you want te finish reading this? Per- haps you may find that check deposited here."* “Oh, no,” retorted Mr. Fullerton, “f don’t want to finish that. I found the check im the other book. It is somewhere in there.” It was now four o'clock, and, after a brief con- sultation, Mr. Field rose and said that the gentlemen en- ‘aged im the defence understood that their friend g neral Tremain was quite ill, and in such a con- dition that it would be perhaps dangerous to over- task him toe severely, While the defence was desirous of pushing the case throngh as rapidly as circumstances would permit they were perfectly willing that the Courtishould adjourn jor such time as might be necessary for his health. Mr, Tremain thanked the defence for their courtesy, and said he would only ask ior a singie day of rest, and thought that he would be ready to proceed on Thursday. Judge Davis then directed that the Court be ad- journed until Thursday morning, at half-past ten o'clock, and the day’s proceedings were thus brought to a close. THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. The Suit of Bowen vs. Chase—Further Reading of Depositions—Rulings of the Court in Reference to the Admission of Ancient Documents—Interesting Legal Argument—The Defendant Claims that Madame Jumel Never Recognized and Never Exhibited Any Interest in the Plaintiff. The hearing of the suit of George Washington Bowen vs. Netson Chase was resumed yesterday in the United States Circuit Court, before Judge Ship- man and the special jury, Mr. Hoar, Mr. Chatfleld, Mr. Chauncey Shaffer and Mr. Sawyer appeared as counsel for the plain- tiff, and Mr. Charles O’Conor and Mr. J, 0. Carter for the defendant. Mr. Carter continued at considerable length to read to the Court and jury the deposition of Joseph Perry, referred to in our report of this case yes- terday. TESTIMONY OF JASON PERRY. Jason Perry sworn—I live at Woodstock, Conn. ; Tam sixty-seven years of age; I have resided there all my life; my father's name was Henry Perry, and my mother’s name Sarah; I had two brothers and five sisters; one of my brothers is dead. This testimony was objected to by the plaintif’s counsel; Defendant had used the deposition of |, Perry, and counsel now claimed that defendant could not impeach it, Mr. O'Conor said they could not contradict the testimony of Perry when he stated that he had met Madame Jumel in New York, because Madame Jumel was dead; but he offered the evidence now proposed to be given to show that the whole story ‘ol Perry was faise. Mr, Hoar, in order to save time, was willing to admit that Perry's evidence was ialse. He was in- aoean to say that Perry was palined off on the plaintitt. Mr. O'Conor again denied this statement, adding thatthe plaintit stack to Perry’s testimony, and closely cross-examined all the witnesses who were brought forward by the defendant to contradict Perry's statement, , of New York to justify t After some further discussion between counss! On both sides, Mr. O’Conor read a paper in relation to the tes- timony of Perry. This paper stated that mamy of ae anne in Perry’s evidence were false and uniounded, ‘With the consent of counsel for the plaintiff this paper was marked as an extibit In the case. THE LAW OF EVIDENCE ON ANCIENT DOCUMENTS, ‘The defendant's counsel was about offering some evidence as tb a comparison of the handwriting of Major Reuben Ballon, by comparing tue signature o1 that person with his teustare on some ancient arsed ae an rend ir. Chatfleld made a short argument, contend- ing that there was nothing in tie law of the State ia description of testi- mony. He cited some guthorities to the Court. Mr. O’Conor said that if this case were ever to come belore the Suprenge Court of the United States that Court would net tie themselves down to the decisions of States on this question, which seemed to vary considerably, In this State there seemed to be a good deal of hostility to the use of experts as to handwriting, founded upon the very good reason that an intelligent jury was quite competent to act as experts themselves, hat could they dof’ Ancient documents, presumably authentic, brought not from 5 Detvate source, but from a public office, were taken inte Court, and they propesed to submit them to comparison be- fore the jury. The papers were dated, and the presumption of truth rather than falsehood allowed them to be brought into evidence. It seemed to him that it would be cruel te reject them, espe- cially as there could be noexpert evidence. If these ancient papers, offered for th pprnes of compari- son, were rejected, the defendant could have no defence on this peint, Mr. Carter followed on the same side with Mr. O’Conor, and centended that in England, under the common law, in the case of ancient documents it was the constant, uniform and unquestioned peacpcn to admit, where there was a dispute as to ‘writing, other documents proved to the satis- faction of the Court to be in the handwriting of the party in question, to have the disputed writing proved by comparison, The learned counsel then cited te the Court a case in fifth Adolphus and Ellis, page 514, to support his argument. Mr. Hoar replied, stating that they ceuld not prove one contested fact by another. Where an ancient document was put in without any proofs of its authenticity except its antiquity, the law did not allow them to presume it was a test by which comparison as to handwriting could be made un- less there was no living witness by which the hand- writing could be proved, Mr. Chatfield said that in order to qualify a party to put in this class of evidence the first thing neces- Sary was that the writing effered for the purpose of comparison should be a genuine writing. Judge Shipman said he believed that, in the English cases, the anaes, and the lawyers recog- nized the distinction favor of ancient docu- ments. Mr. Chatfield did not believe that there was a case in this State favoring the admission of this class of evidence; nor did he believe there was one in England, however progressive his learned friend, Mr. O’Conor, supposed the law to be there. If this case went to the Supreme Court that Court would ae this question on the law of the State of New ‘ork. Mr. O’Conor—They will not make half a dozen de- cisions on a common law rule of evidence, Mr. Chatfleld—I think you will find they have done so. Mr, Carter—Not on @ question as to @ common law rule of evidence. Judge Shipman said his impression was, after a carelul and diligent examination of this case, that there was a distinction, even in the State of New York, in favor of admitting ancient documents for the purpose of comparison. By getting PEOuOe materials they could, by a comparison of hands, determine the genuineness of ancient documents. It was said that the documents propane to be put in were not ancient writings. It was mow seventy years since the alleged author of those writings died, That was a lapse of time during which no erson could have seen this individual write, and in all essential particulars he must regard the pa- pers as ancient documents, The most embarrass- ing feature of this case was the statement of de- fendant’s counsel that he did not propose to call any experts. Buthe (Judge Shipman) wished to say that a book had been recently published in England in which it was laid down as the law that not only should ancient documents be received for the purpose of bales handwriting by compari- son, but that the examination oi experts would tol- low as a hecessary consequence, He would admit the evidence, Counsei for plaintiff excepted. Mr. Carter then proceeded to put in evidence the documents referred to. They are papers contain- ing the signatures of Maior Reuben Ballou, who 18 claimed to be the father of George Washington Bowen by Betsy Bowen, and they are admitted for the purpose of comparing the signatures ef Major Ballou, as ey appear thereon, with the alleged signature of the same person to the entry in the “King Henry Beok,” recording the birth of George Washington, ‘The defendant claims that this last- named entry {8 a forgery, and the opposite is main- tained by the plaintit, All these papers were submitted to the inspection of Hishind wha closely examined them, Mr. Hoar—We have a powerful mic: oscope, and shall offer it to the jury if they think it will aid them in the examination and inspection of these papers. Mr, O’Conor—By all means, sir, let the jury have the microscope. The microscope was handed to the jury, and, with its aid, they put the signatures to the papers through a ciose and rigid inspection, TESTIMONY OF EFFINGHAM W. WALLGROVE, Effingham W. Waligrove sworn—I reside in thig ey) Tam ere ight years of age; Iam a native of New York;lam an attorney and counsellor at- law; I was igh eet with the late Hon. Willian Inglis, once a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas; he died in May, 1863; 1 studied law with him when 1 was a boy; | remained with him to the end of his life; his papers came into my possession ; I resided in the same house with him jor a time; I was ac- juainted with the handwriting of Mr. Inglis, (Paper shown witness, and he was asked in whose hanuwriting it was.) Mr. Hear objected to the testimony as irrelevant and as going to prove declarations... He supposed it was intended to show that this was in reference to one of the wills of Madame Jumel, by which the defendant claimed there was negative evidence to the effect that Madame Jumel never made any pro- vision for the plaintiff, and he supposed, upon that ground, an inference might be drawn by the de- Jendant that Madame Jumel haa no interest in the plaintiff, Such testimony was, in his opinion, irrel- evant. Mr. O’Conor said the evidence was offered for the purpose of showing utter and absoiute non-recog- nition of the plaintii! by Madame Jumel. This would not be in the way of declaration on the part of Madume Jumel; but was in coniormity with all the acts ef her life for she had never recognized this plaintiff as her son,When she made a willshe never spoke of George W. Bowen. She never did any act to recognize him in any way, and the words of the will only came in as ueclarations taken in connec- tion with acts. Lord Coke had said that declara- tions iacked the noteriety o/ facts, for facts could not be denied. Formeriy a piece of land might be conveyed to another by word of mouth, but there was something mere than that required. It would not do for a party to say to another, “I enjeoff you with this land ;" but there must be an act done to show what was intended; and so it had been the custom to give possession of laid by handing over a twig and a piece of the soil to the party taking possession. This was something done that gave notoriety to the act. And #0, with regard to Madame Jumel’s wills; it was notorious that she had never, in any of them, made the slightest allu- sion to the plaintit, Bowen, Mr. Hoar replied that they would save a great deal of time if he would admit, as he now did, that Madame Jumel never left any property, by will or otherwise, to Bowen, the plaintiff, and, so far as this went, if amounted only to a negative deciara- tion that she had no such son, contradiction of anything that the plaintiff had been allowed to putin. Ifthe other side was al- lowed to put in those wills they might be take: declarations against the plaintiff who was no party to the wills, and who was never consulted in rela- tion to them. The Judge said that he had excluded evidence respecting the deciarations of Madame Jumel. But she had made a wiil, and the making of a will was an act —a very solemn act of one’s life. If Madame Jumel had taken the plaintiff to ber home and edu- cated him; ifshe had purchased‘an estate for him at Providence and given it to him it would be competent to prove that act. He must admit the evidence. Mr. Wallgrove then, in reply to Mr. O*Conor’s questions, recognized several papers purporting to be wilis or drafts of wills of Madame dumel drawn in the handwriting of Mr. Inglis. These papers were given by the witness to Mr. Charles O'Conor, counsel tor Mr. Chase, Witness had seen Madame Jumei at Judge Inglis’ oMce, at Mr, Chase’s house and also at her own house. {have (contin ued the witness) seen Judge Inglis drawing a will tor her; he gave it to her and she took it ry; 1 cannot say that I saw her sign the will; during those interviews I belleve Madame provers papers to the Judge; i Inglis called for the names of the members of Madame Jumel’s family; from a memorandum I made in Judge Inglis’ books | can State that this transaction about the will took place on the 23d of July, 1851; the memerandum is in ny Landwriting; it is a charge against Madame Jumel for drawing the will. Cross-examined by Mr. Chatfleld—I recollect that Madame Jumel Lair @ paper to the office, but as to seeing her put itinto Judge Inglis’ hands | cannot now remember; I have no doubt she brought a paper to the office; | heard Judge Inglis ask her to bring him the names of her family, so that he might have the names right in the will. Mr. Wallgrove was cross-examined as to the testimony he hac given in this case on the last TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH PRINDLE. Elizabeth Prindle sworn—l reside at 222 DeKalb avenue, Brooklyn; I knew Madame Jumel by sight; I knew every member of the jamily of Mrs, Maria Jones; Iwas at the house of Mrs. Jones when Madame called there for certain information; she came there to get the names of every member of the Jones amily; I think Mr. Stephen Jones wrote Ag the names for her; that occurred im July, 851. ‘The witness, an exceedingly intelligent lady, was briefly cross-examined by Mr. Shaffer, but she did not deviate from her statements on her direct ex- amination, Mr. Carter then read the deposition of Dexter Thurber. Alter the reading of this paper had been con- cluded the Court adjourned until eleven o'clock to-morrow (Thursday) morning, to enable Mr. Charles H, Mount, one of the jurors, to attend to- day at the funeral of his father-in-law, Mr. Isaac N. his Was not a- Palmer Proudly Bears Away the Palnr and Foley Files for Another Fight—The Injunction Against Foley Made Perma= nent—Resorting to Quo Warranto Pro- ceedings as the Final Test, i Judge Barbour, ofthe Superior Coprt, having taken time to digest the long-drawn-out argument and read over the voluminous papers the opposing counsel in the matter of the Palmer- | Foley injunction, yesterday gave his decision in the case. This decision was simply making per- manent the temporary injunction granted several days since upon application of Mr, Palmer, City Chamberlain, restraint Mr. Foley from meddling with the-affairs of the office or in any way assum~ ing to act as Deputy Chamberlain by virtue of his appointment as such deputy by the Comptroller. it was supposed that Judge Barbour would embody; his decision in @ written Sbinien, Puy the grounds upon which his decision is based. He did) not, however, think this worth while, it seems, but took the “most sharp and decisive” course of simply directing the Clerk to enter on the Court bulletin the title of the case with the addenda, “Injunction granted.” “This and nothing more.’ It told the: whole sory, and tiie counsel, as wellas the parties now immediately interested, understood its pur- Port atonce. it put @ stop to the continuous fu- Silade of inquiries on the subject, of which the Judge was the victim. Here, by the way, is how he settled one of the inquiries :— “Have you given your decision yet in the Foley: case?”.one of the counsel ‘asked him on Monday,. directly after he had taken his seat on the bench. “Do you wish to know decision!’ asked thé Judge in his turn, and with a biandness of man- ner unusual to him, “1 would like to know it most certainly, as every- body 1s asking me about it.” “And you want to know what to tell them?” “Yes, Your Honor,’? ‘ “Well, [have no objection to telling your —anal here the Judge paused a moment, aud the counsel's eyes fairly danced with delight in anticipation of the revealed decision, and the Judge then slowly added, “what to tellthem, del them you know nothing about it.” That counsel did not seek to interrogate the Judge further. The story got noised about, and the Judge was given a rest, till yesterday he an- nounced his decision in his own chosen way, a8 ex- plained above, It is needless to state that the decision was @ ood deal talked about in the various Ceurts, Mr. Foley was pretty well taken aback, a8 he confl- dently expected a reverse decision. He, however, does not give up the boat yet, but means to fight it out on this line if it takes all Winter. Steps will at once be taken through quo warranto proceed- ings to test his claim to the office he evidently so Strongly courts. The end is not, therefore, yet im tle Courts, BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS.. SUPREME COURT—TRIAL TERM. “Reminiscence of the Late War—Retrial: of an Old Case, Before Judge Van Brunt. Suits having their origin in transactions growing) out of the late war—although this so-called lata war dates back now nearly a decade of years—ar@ of quite frequent occurrence in the courts. Thq latest in the list is one concluded yesterday in th! court, with the facts of which, it having been trie before and gone to the Court oi Appeals, the pub- licare familiar, This suit was brought by Messrs, Stone, Bliss & Fay, commission merchants of thisi city, against the firm of brownings, Button & Kimball to recover the value or sixty-tive cases of sky-blue kerseys, gold in Marcn,. 1863, to the litter firm. This was the tima when this class of gooas found ready sale to the government for conversion into clothing for the: “Boys in Blue,” The plaintitis claimed that the de fendants agreed to pay tuem $1 20a yard for the goods, to be paid for in notes given at four month: ‘The detence was that the goods did not come up q the samples, were uot uniform in color and were interior quality. After sowe two years of motiona and counter-motions, rejoinders and counter-re< joinders, the case came to a trial, before Judge Clerke, and resulted in a verdict for $15,791 88, tha full amount claimed. Upon this verdict the defend. ants made application to the Special Term for a new trial, which was denied. An pecan was taken from this decision to the General Term, and the judgment of the lower Court and denial o! the application fer a new trial sustained. Still dissatisfied, the defendants carried the case to the Court of Appeals, wuere a new trial was ordered. The new trial began several days ago, and, ag stated above, was concluded yesterday. The testi< mony, of course, was simply a repetition of tha revious evidence. ‘The only ieature of additionad interest was the appearance in the case of William M. Evarts, The result of this secon i trial was an- other verdict for the plaintifis, this time the totah figures swelling up to $23,711 72. SUPREME COURT—CIAMBERS. Pa a spd By Judge Barrett. Hooley vs. Johnson.—The surety, Brown, is tn- sufficient and must be rejected. Dougias vs. Gilug.—bxtra allowance of $2,000 granted. The Qnaissaick Bank vs. Waddell.—Motion for extra allowance denied, Carpeuter vs. Newman.—Motion granted. Bryan vs. The Mayor, &c.—Same, Frohbison vs. Kau/er.—same. Wheaton vs. Williams,—Same, De Jonge vs. Smith.—Same. Winchester vs. Allen.—same. Knox et al. vs. Dwyer et al._—Same- Dwyer vs. Dwyer.—Judgment granted and allows- ances granted, Harrington et al. vs. Hall.—Motion granted, Indtanapolis, Pennsyivania and Chicago Railroa® Company vs. Tyng.—Allewance of three per cent upon the meney granted, Continental Insurance Company vs. Schedel et al.—Motion grante:l. McClellan vs, Augur et al.—Same. a] va. Dodge et al.—Motion for judgment. granted, Hurd vs, Katz.—Motion granted, Clitrord vs. Heagland.—Same. McFarland vs, Lydecker.—\fotion denied. Gregory vs. McGinness.—Report confirmed and. order granted, SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions. By Judge Barbour. Paimer vs. Foley.—Injunction granted, Squire vs, Depaun.—Oruer granted, y Judge Van Vorst, Sretials va. Gillies.—Case tiled. COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions. By Judge Loew. Henry Coolidge, a lunutic.—Application denied, because the default was prematurely taken. Lewis vs. Lockey.—Motion granted, Fuchtwanger vs. Mckvally,—Motion to place case on short calendar granted. Fitch vs. Rider.—Motion granted. Ross Mes Breivogel.—Motion to dismiss appeat. granted. Frineil vs, Kearney.—Metion granted. Cohen vs, Ruyenstein.—Reference ordered. Gambling vs, Jones.—Motion to place cause om spectal calendar for short causes granted, Reese vs. Ratherford.—Memorandum for coun- sel. Ruf vs. Obert.—Same. Smith vs, Bennett.—Motion to vacate and set. aside execution denied. MARINE COURT—PART 3, Decisions. ' By Judge Joachimsen, Jessup vs. Wiener—Action to recover price of housepainting. Judgment for plaintut, $225 and costs and $25 allowance. Klinker vs. Cohen.—Action on promissory note. Judgment tor plaintim tor $243 and costs and $25 allowance. Herschstein vs. Zink.—Action to recover pos- session of personal property. Judgment for plain- til; value of property assessed at $126; damages $10 and costs and $% allowance, Meyer vs. Van Dringetew.—Action to recover fee for professional service, Judgment on verdict for plaintiff $50 and costs, Shumway vs. Salomon.—Action to_ recover balance ior goods sold and delivered. Judgment for plaintity, $379 11 and costs and $26 allowance. Kahn vs. Mentz.—Action to recover balance of money lent. Judgment for plaintit, $246 37 and costs and $25 allowance. Atwater vs, Fuller, President of the New York and Boston Express Company.—Action to recover value of trunk lost. Judgment for plaintimt for $79 20 and costs and $25 allowance. Kamping vs, O'Brien, late Sherif—Action for taking and conversion of onal property. Judg- ment for deiendant for costs and $25 allowance. Gil va. Long.—Action for price of goods soid and delivered, Judgment for plaintul lor $408 97 and Costs and $26 allowauce. Hendersep vs. Cummins,—Action on @ promis- sory note by endorsee against maker. Judgment for plaintiff for $1,179 42 and costs and $25 aliow- ance. Smith vs, Mack.—Action on contract, Judgment for plaintiff ier $290 3i and costs and $25 allow- ance. Decker vs. Brown.—Action on promissory note, Judgment for plaintiff for $261 70 and costs and 25 allowance. McCreery vse Youn; Ment for plaintiff tor allowance, Schiele vs. Olberman.—Judgment for plaintiff for $350 60 and costs and $25 allowance, COURT CF GENERAL SESSIONS, Larcenies and Burglarics, Before Judge Sutherland, The first case called yesterday was an indict —Action on tract,—Jndg- 272 94, with costs, and $25.