The New York Herald Newspaper, January 28, 1873, Page 8

8 ° THE COURTS. THE GREAT TWEED TRIAL. Another Day with Mr. Tilden on the Stand. ° How the Voteran Reformer Stood the Fire of @ Oross-Examination-Tho Young De- mocracy and the Twcod Charter—Tilt Between the Witness and Counsel for the Defence—The Court to the Rescue Further Inexpli- cable Statistics of Figures. APPEAL. or STOKES’ LAST ABill of Exceptions To Be Submitted and Argued—Afiidavits to Sustain the Bili— Alleged Irregularities on the Part of Jurors, on the Part of the Prisouer and Judge Boardman Him- self—The Whole Caso To Be Heard on Friday Next. THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE, —+———— The Case for the Defence Still Progressing-~ The Son-in-Law of Mr, Chase on the Stand---The Beeds of the Jumel Prop- erty---Testimony of Witnesses for the Plaintiff Impeached. THE BOWLING GR ohutiad EEN SAVINGS BANK. - us Application to the Supreme Court by the Receiver of the Guardian Savings Bank—A Sum of $58,000 at Issue—Opinion Reserved. FV VM BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. pracba vessudlou weal Summaries—Convictions and Sentences in the General Sessions—Decisions—Death of Judge Tracy—His Eulogy in the Marine Court. e In the Court of Oyer and Terminer yesterday, after the recess taken in the Tweed trial, Mr. Tre- main, principal counsel for Edward S. Stokes, under sentence of death for the murder of James Fisk, Jr., presented a bundle of aMdavits to the Court, with a bill of exceptions and an affidavit te ‘the effect that it was a true record of the prdceed- ings in the case. The whole was put in with intent ‘to set asiae the verdict against Stokes for certain irregularities disclosed by the affidavits. The al- leged irregularities are set forth in the report of the proceedings in another column. The case was get down for hearing on Friday next before Judge Boardman, he having presided at the trial. In the Tweed tral yesterday tne whole of the sexsion, With ashort intervai, the brief examina- tion of a clerk of the Broadway Bank, was taken ap with the examination of Samuel J. Tilden. The venerable reformer, lawyer as he is, cannet well stand a legal cross-examination. A tilt between himself aud Mr. Field, weich the former provoked, was in the earlier part oi the session laughed away by the latter, Later in the day, on his cross-ex- | amination, Mr. Tilden got more restive, causing | Mr. Field some trouble in keeping him to his figures and paces. But the witness would get the legal bit between his teeth, stirring up the temper of counsel, till the Court interfered. Mr. Tilden only left the stand at the adjournment to reappear again this morning. Application was made yesterday before Judge | Barrett at Supreme Court, Chambers, on behal! of Jeremiah Quinian, Receiver of the Guardian Savings Bank, against Sheppard Kuapp, Receiver of the Bowling Green Savings Bank, to compel him to re- | for a clatm for $58,000, which it is alleged the for- | mer bank has against the latter, There was quite | an argument on tbe case, which resulted in the Court taking the papers aud reserving its decision. j In the United States Court yesterday Benjamin Schuman was charged before Commissioner Shields with alleged participation in a conspiracy to de- fraud the government of the tax on whiskey mann- factured ata distillery in Spring Valley, Rockland | county. He gave bail in $5,000 to await an exam- ination. We stated in a recent number of the HERaLp that the case of Magnus Ahlander, who had been charged with having, while acting in the capacity -of Chamberlain in the prison of Landskrona, Sweden, embezziead about tour thousand rix dollars, the property of the Swedish government, and who had been held by Commissioner Osborn to await the President’s warrant of extradition, was brought before Judge Blatchford, on certiorari, in the United States Circuit Court, the defendant's counsel, Mr. J. D. Reymert, alleging certain errors im the decision arrived at by the Commissioner, Yesterday Judge Biatchford rendered his decision, sustaining the action of Commissioner Osborn, Ablander will, therefore, be sent back to Sweden under the extradition treaty. ‘The hearing of the case of George W. Bowen vs. | Nelson Chase was resumed yesterday inthe United States Circuit Court, before Judge Shipman and the special jury. Mr, Paul Pery, son-in-law of Mr. Chase, was further examined in relation to his marriage with Miss Eliza Jumel Chase, Testimony | ‘was offered to contradict the evidence of Henr Nodine, one of the witnesses who had heen exa 4med on the part of the plaintit, The trial wiil resumed to-day. rt be THE GREAT TWEED TRIAL | en Continued Examination of the Books of | the Broadway Bank—Further Insight Into the Financial Workings of the | Court House Ring—Samuel J. Tilden | Again on the Stand—His Satire and His Humor—A Tilt Between Witness and Counsel for Defence. Yesterday was the fifteenth day of the trial of William M. Tweed, and was, like many previous days, consumed in a wearisome examination of Witnesses upon entries of figures, of deposits, of debits and credits, of checks and warrants, of items and totals, the sum total of the whole being as un- , iMtelugibie to tue jury as it was to the counsel for the defence, who could make nothing of it, and Who only threw in an objection here and there to sim- | niate @ legal quality, perspicacity, which, under the circumstances, they might be well excused of pos- sessing. Between two men, counsel and witness, i ordinary plain utterance, something might have been made of the testimony, but as between Mr. Peckham and Mr. Tilden, tuey had it all to them- gelves, and alter various futile attempts on the part of the oficial stenographer to get his figures right all interruption was abandoned, and Field, Burrill and Fullerton listened in despair to a jar- gon of numerals, of thousands, tens of thous: and bundreds of thousands, checks and debit deposita, without having the heart to check coun. sel or witness, Mr. Tilden was in excelient trim for & “set to,” and when he threw out a@ feeler to gee what stuff Mr. Field was made of, that usually NEW YORK HERALD, TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1873.—TRIPLE SHEET. dove, and he seemed rather to enjoy ‘Tilden’s pinek than to indulge in his favorite legal pastime of “Co thrust, to strike, to feint, to guard” with any ad- versary thit would dare to “bite his thumb” at tim, There was considerable merriment in couri—a change from grave to gay—when, within a few mimutes of the hour of recess, Mr. ‘Tilden repeated his ruse of & previous day. Taking upa fresh point of departure on his statement of figures, Mr, Peckham was putting a question to the witness when the latter, turning again to the clock, said, “Let as have a recess here.” General Jaughter followed, which was kept up when Mr, Field, rising gravely, asked, “To what bour, Mr, Tilden? Seeing the joke and smiling ius best Tilden replied, “Till hali-past one.” Judge Davis, entering into the spirtt of the moment, added to the good humoy of all, and clinched the matter by saying, ‘So be it, gentlemen. The Court will take a recess for haif an hour.” After the recess the entente cordiale between the venerable witness and counsel] was broken. Jn the course of his cross-examination by Mr. Field the irate temper of Mr, Tilden was aroused, and a ra- ther unseemly tilt took place, which the Court fnally took occasion to terminate by adjourning the Court, The scene referred to will be found in ata ABN 4 the subjoined report of the proceed- ages. TESTIMONY FOR THE PROSRCUTION CONTINUED. At (he opening ot tire Court of Oyer anu Terminer yesterday, Jadge Davis presiding, the examination ‘Ol witnesses for Lokeglhy in the great Tweed case Wasrcsumed, The frst witness was— SAMUEL d. TILDEN, RECALLED, By Mr. Peckham.—Q. Look at warrant 3,506 to the order of Andrew J, Garvey, to the amount of 48,869 58, and warrant 3,507, amounting to 19,491 75, and emdorsed by Ingersoll & Co.’ A. L find similar sums to the credit of Ingersoll & Co. as deposited by them on the same day. 1 find on tae same day a debit to Ingersoll & Co. of $227,170 93; on the same day there is a debit to Woodward of $35,849 35: on the same day there is 2 credit lor that exact amount to Mr. Tweed’s ac- coun ant No. 3,783 is for $42,224 93, a Keyser war- War rant, which appears directly in Woodward's ai count; there is a debit that day to Woodward's a count of $26,589 98, which amount appears as a credit on Mr, Tweed’s account. Warrant No. 3,789 is a Garvey warrant for $72,075 08, appearing to his credit; he is debited that day with $47,744 68, which appears on Wood- Ward’s account; on tie same day Jngersoll’s ac- count is debited with $21,963 81, which sum appears as a credit to Woodward; the same day tlere is a debit to Woodward’s ount of $17,378 85, which amount appears in Mr. Tweed’s account as a credit, Garvey Warrant No. 3,793 appears as a deposit in Ingersoll’s account for $66,115 31; there are other deposits of that day to Ingerso:t & Co.; they are debited with $121,471 67, which sum appears as a credit in Woodward's account; Woodward is debited with $45,145 51, a sum which appears on that date credited to Mr. Tweed. Warrant 3,801 is a Garvey warrant endorsed to Ingersoll & Co, for $67,068 89, and Warrant 3,504 is a Keyser warrant endorsed to the same firm for $53,665 06, They both appear in Ingersoll & Co.’s bank account, That day Ingersoll and Co. are debited with $65,731 21, $1,120 90 and amounts appearing in Mr. Woodward's account on the credit side. Mr. Woodward’s account of that Which appear as credits on Mr. Tweed’s account, Examination of the witness was here suspended. A. E. SMITH RECALLED. Mr. Smith, entry clerk of the Broadway Bank, Was re-examined as to the meaning of entries on the debit cash book, He explained that from them he could tell whether a check on their bank was paid on check over the counter by the paying teller, or a check received from a custoiner of the bank by the receiving teller as a deposit, presuma- for some other customer's account, itness went over quite a number of the items already named, and declared them to be checks of Woodward depositea with the receiving teller without any equivalent items paid by the paying teller; he also testified that he examined the de- posit tickets with Mr. Tilden, Yo Mr. Field—He did not receive the deposit tickets himself, but his assistant handed them to him; he did not know but what deposit tickets were lorged betore they came to him; he saw the checks, but did not know the signatures to them; that was the teller’s business; no complaint was ever made to him of a torgery. MR. TILDEN RESUMES THE STAND. Mr. Tilden having again taken the stand, his di- rect examination Was continued, By Mr. Peckham—You received a series or ques- tions upon which you were notified you would be mterrogated here’ A. Yes, I got a series of ques- tions on Saturday night. Q. Are you prepared to answer them? A. There was one item which escaped my attention. I don’t know whether I will be able to answer all of them; I can answer the most of them, Mr. Peckhiam—What was the sum total of Mr. Tweed’s deposits in the Broadway Bank from the bth of May to the Istof September, 1870, inclusive + Mr. Ficid objected, that this was calling Jor the contents of unproved papers. The Court—He can answer the question and you can cross-examine afterwards, Mr. F ‘This is asking for the knowledge of the witness as to the several deposits, and the Court has not yet admitted secondary testimony as to the deposit tickets, The Court—That has been ruled on long since. ‘The question was admitted, Mr. ‘iiden—The question is too complicated to answer. Mr. Peckham—t! will put the question as sug gested by counsel on the other side:—Q. What 1s the sum total of the deposits of Mr. Tweed in the Broadway Bank from the 6th of Mav to the Ist of September’ A. ‘There is some dificulty in answer- ing the question without explaining the sources of information, because I did not receive these de- posits myself, Q. Is that footing up taken from the ledger in the bank? A. Lean only state that the primary source of my information were the deposit tickeis; then the results were compared with the ledger and | sundry papers; after L received the list of ques- tions and alter looking through my papers I found from handwriting in pencil marks evidence of the deposits made by Tweed for that year, and which ment by careful examination with the deposit tickets; I made two copies of it; one in my own ting; the other is in the handwriting of tary; this paper was entirely written by m if, and is Original, and from this paper I made up the statement Mr. Peckham fequires; the re- suit was made up by adding—that is to say, each deposit was added and compared with the addi- tions to see that there was the same aggregate containing all the items, and the entry in the jedger contained the same aggregate; aiter I had examined the ledger mysell, with the statement of the contents of the deposit tickets, I had it care- fully revised by Mesers. Smith and Rhodes, and I took @ periect transcript of the items; from this statement and the contents of the deposit tickets, and the memorandum in the ledger, 1 made up this paper I hold in my hand, and of which Mr. Peckham has a copy. Mr. Peckham (impatiently)—Well, state what it is. A. It makes the aggregate of Mr. Tweed’s de- posits between May and September $1,255,453 ¢ and no mistake about the computation; of this the portion corresponding to Woodward's debits 1s $932,858 60, Mr. Barrili—These are not the figures that are mentioned in the indictinent. I want this to be borne in mind. credits as proved? A. Yes. Mr. Burrul—Not only that, but of figures not proved. The Court—Every one of Mr. Tweed’s deposits and LS hed as between iweed and Ingersoll, has been proved. Witness—This amount embraces the whole, After a jumble of unintelligible words and sound of figures between Mr. Peckham and the witness, Mr. Field objected to this unintelligible viva voce mode of question and answer. Let the witness listen to # question and then answer. We cannot understand a word, Witness (qaickly)—Certainly. But I have a right to state how T made up these amounts, Mr. Ficld—I doa’t object. I misunderstood your observation, Mr. Tilden (sharply)—I had not finished my answer, I intend to give testimony in my own W und Leare not w be interrupted by imperti- . Field (childlike and bland)—I hope Mr. Til- den will observe tat he has been treated with all sy, and wiil be by myself, anyway. Tilden then resumed—When 1 was asked to - computation mysel! to ascertain the amount of credits and debits there was between that time, and Ldid so, Witness then proceeded to enume: rate the diferent amounts. He stated that the debits on Ingersoli & Co.'s account was $1,817,- 476 495 Ub Garvey's 5 ,871 61; the total trans- ferred from county liabilities was 532,005 06; the other items are $14,092 20. Mr. ‘Tilden here gave eaM@ Woodward deposit from May 6 separately, and each other deposit in Mr. Tweed's accouut, making up the aggregate above mentioned, Subtracting the four items which were not proved in his previous examination, the Woodward credits to Mr. Tweed are $871,566 17, The total deposits to Mr. Woedward's account for the Same same period is $5,639,618 ¢ total of his deposits corresponding county liability Warrants is $1,03: . Mr. Peckham—What was the sura total of Gar- vey's deposits duging the same period ¢ r. Tilden (ooking atthe clock) —It is too late to fo into that now; it is time to take a recess, (Laughter,) Mr. Field—Mr. Tilden's usual hour for refreshing himseif is come. ‘Vo What hour do you adjourn the Court, Mr. Tilden? (Laughter.) Mr. Tilden—To half-past one. (Great langhter.) ‘Vhe Court indulging, adjourned the Court tor half an hour, After Recess, Mr. Tilden resumed and stated that he found the items which composed the statement made by him from the books in the Comptrolier’s office and the Broadway Bank books were gener- ally trom warrants; from May 6, 1870, to June 2 irectly pugnacious gentleman was ax mild as a sucking ‘ey appeared to be all Warrants; on pis Jatter $8,468 45, | day shows debits for $51,987 76 and $4,613 70, sums | I have in Court; I have separated that por- | tion which relates to the period from May to September; IL made out this state- ‘The Court—This amount is made up of Tweea’s | State the amount of deposits between the 7th of | May and ist oF September, 1870, I had to make a | esponding to debits on | . ‘the sum | to | date there appeared to be an item of $12,000 which was not from warrants; on July 20 an item of £20,000; July 18, $13,000; August i, $17,946 82; also items of $ $4 and $6,000, of which he had no mmformation ; at that date the total amount of these warrants WAS $3,549,229 18, all of which appeared as entries, in addition t the other items just pamed. Mr. Burrill—That ine!udes also the smounts of warrants not yet in evidence and not inciuded in the indictment, Mr. Peckhaim—Yes. ‘The witness was then examined at some length as to the items in the accounts respectively of Garvey, Ingersoll, Keyser and Davidson, on the debit ‘side of their resfective accounts, which showed that on the same day that the warrants were drawn and deposited the payees had also drawn checks, payable to Woodward, 1b amount equalling CERTAIN FIXED PERCENTAGES of the amount of each warrant, that on the same date Woodward's deposit account showed precisely sitailar amounts, and that debit side of Woodward’s account showed entries for checks drawn lor percentages, the exact figures of which, even to cents, were invariably de- orited to Tweed’s bank account, From May 3, 868, up to September 5, 1870, the amount de- posited by Garvey .amounted in ali to about, in round numbers, $1,474,000, The prosecution was about to close their examl- nation of the witness at this stage, when The Court suggested that it would perhaps be Dest to dispose of the question whicn had been re- served os to the admission as evidence of the array of warrants concerning which the witness had tes- tified, but which were not embraced in the indict- ment, ‘The question was then argued. Counsel (or defence claimed that these additional warrants were inadmissible whether they were offered to show the existence of a standard scale of distribution of profits by the parties or whether they were sought to be troduced to show actual guilt on the part of the defendant. THE OBJECT | appeared to be to show that because Mr. Tweet is | claimed to be guilty of one offence he is actually guilty of anotner; it was not showing that he was guilty, as charged in the indictment, but that he was habitually guilty in other cases of what is sought to be proved against him here, and that he was even pruriently addicted to it. The pretence ‘was that this evidence was offered to show scientur, but it was inadmissible to bring forward evidence of any act cominitted of the subject of the offence as constituting proof of the guilty Knowledge. If this evidence was to be admitted the defence would be far worse of than they would have been if the whole 190 warrants had been embraced in the in- dictinent, instead of fitty-tive merely; for this reason, that, after this evidence is mn, it they 1ail by its aid in convicting him of the offences actually covered by the existing indictment, they can then indict him upon these additional warrants. Surely iiity-five selected warrants ought to answer the present purposes of the prosecution without, at the same time, dragging in the whole 190 war- rants. Besides, to admit these warrants at this stage would be to necessitate a retrial of the whole case at once as to all the warrants between Nos. 65 and 190, ‘the Court asked whether all the warrants now offered in evidence were contained in the tebuar ; Statement from which the witness had testitica. Mr, Peckham replied that they were, with a single exception. ‘The Court then said :—So far as this evidence will go to explain the tabular statements before me— that is, to show by the production of THE WARRANDS THEMSELVES that fhe statements already made by the witness are correct—it seems to me it 1s Glearly admissible. He has stated that of each account cer- tain items of the credits are made up upon Warrants issned by the county anthorities and passing into these several accounts, and that certain other credits.appear to be from diferent items; for instance, that of the $3,632,618 30 that went into the bank to Woodward's credit $3,581,224 26 was derived from warrants and credits based uvon warrants set forth in this tabuiur statement, 1 don’t see on what ground Tcan prevent the production of the warrants to substantiate the statements already made in refer ence to this matter, With that view L must admit these warrants to be proved; but the question whether they shail be allowed’ to follow it up by showing that these additional warrants are based upon fraudulent accounts raises the other question | whether they are at liberty to prove tie fraudulent intent in granting fraudulent certificates of audit. ‘That question will then fairly arise. by the defence). Mr, Peckham then offered in evidence the NEW OR ADDITIONAL PABEEAD TS, i also the entries regarding them in the county liabilities account, the corresponding entries in books of audit Nos, 9and 10, and the schedule prepared by Mr. Tilden, all of which were admitted and excepted to by the defence separately, Witness (resuming)—I Jhink the statement in the schedule of the endorsements upon the war- rants is correct, and’ that it was proved by me; so far as witness had pstigated the accounts as to the proportions thi vore to the other he had (excepted to taken for example the credits to Woodward and computed the percentage they formed of the war- rants. In ali, the itews stated under the head "' in Garvey’s account was avout ent of the pmount of the warrants arvey; whehever Garvey deposited | a warrant he drew a check for somebody for about. SiXty-SiX per cent of it, and in ail such instances } tere ap "Ss account a credit of | the identic rvey’s chec! in ail cases Wiere Ingersoll deposited a warrant he paid over— Mr, Field sald he objected to the witness stating what he could not know, Mr. Tilden—he wiiness won't state anything he doesn’t kno COULD HE, OR COULDN'T WE? Mr. Ficld—The witness could nei kuow what Mr. Ingersoll paid over unless he had some spiritual power that enabled him to be cognizant of it. The Court —Why spiritual » Mr. Field—It cannot be temporal, Witness contunued—Whenever Ingersoll depos- ited u warrant there appeered on the other side of his account & payment to somebody, (Inquiringly) There is nothing objectionable in that, so far ? Mr. Field—We object to witness proposing ideas in this manner, Witness (pompously)—TI shall decline to answer | any question in such an tinperfect manner that it may appear to Us Court as falsehood. (Laughter.) 1 cannot answer without explaining myself, be- re are different percentages as to Inger- ount. Q. What proportion of Mr. Tweed’s account did ou find as &@ peccentage of Garvey’s account? (Ob- jected tu, admitted und excepted to.) A. In each case of deposits of warrants to Garvey’s credit, Garvey pa-sed over to somebody an amount equal to | aboutsivty six percent of his deposit, and wherever | suca a debit appears in Garvey’s account there ap- | rs in Wooaward’s account a credit of the same exact amount; wherever such a credit appears in Woodward's account tuere appears on the debit | side of tis account an entry for about twenty-four per cent of the amount on the face of the warrant, und wherever such debit appears I found an eatry on the credit side of Mr. Tweed’s account amount- ing to the same exact sum, THIS CLOSED THE DIRECT EXAMINATION, and the witness was then cross-examined by Mr. Field, as iollow: am not counsel for the people in this case, and have not been; 1 made an argu- ment on one point in the civil suit agaims Tweed at Albany; [ also made an adidavit en which Mr, Tweed was arrested; the peopie were plaintiffs in that suit; in arguing that q tion at Albany I appeared with Messrs, O’Conor and Peckham, Q. You also made an aitidavit in that suit on which Mr. Tweed was arrested and held to bail in $1,000,000? A. Lata, | Q. Did you appear before the Grand Jury as counsel in respect to various indictments against him? A. I dic not; Lappeared only as a witness. Q. Have you and Mr. Tweed been in VIOLENT POLITICAL ANTAGONISM | for years past? A. (Natvely) We haven’t gene- rally sympatized ve uch—(iaughter)—but 1 never had any malice towards hi Q. There was a notable contest at one time be- tween What Was known as the Young Democracy and the old or Tammany Hall democwey, of which Mr. Tweed was a member, You wert allied with the Young Democracy, were you nosy A. Thad very little to do with them: Twas not concerned in that contest except to have two conferences on the subject of a city charter; i went to Albany and made a speech against the present charter before nate Committee, of wh chairman, Q. That was over that ehar | so far as T know The Court sugg | go into | | very vio A. It dd Violence to no person, Sted that It was not necessary to THESE POLITICAL QUESTIONS. Mr. Field claimed that it was necessary to show | the jary the feciing, the animus under which the | ay appeared bere to testify in this prosecu- lon, | Question repeated—A. It was not violent on my | part. | A FEARFUL “HOOK.” | Q. Was it violen: on the part of the side to which you were attached’ A. | was not a’ hed to that side—I acted on my own hook. (Laugitter.) Q. Well, as there were alr WoO sides In the contest, yours must have been a third “hook !? (Laughter.) (With slow, emphatic accent and a snapping © My hook—was an independent per- sonal Nook, fhis was too much, and it would be difficult to © anything which could have more com- upset the gravity ol the whole Court. The audience gave vent Co one united roar of laughter, In whieh 't 4 himseli, the counsel and even tre » joined, though, of course, His Honor sup- eumed and Judge very ears. A gavel Was lo an outburst; and the fact | is that probably NO OTHER MAN | than Sammy Tilden, With those seven simple Words, coud have provoked gen hilarity. 1 was in nis tone, accent, deibéfation and the naive | expression of his miscitlevous-looking 1ace. | Q (By Mr. Fieli.) Then this investigation of | i} | hese ae Was ob that “personal, Independent A. Yes, Q. How did it happen that you got into the ac- | counts of private individuals in these banks? A, 1 examined the Keyser warrants in the Comp- | trotler’s oilice shorty after Mr. n entered that office; Keyser alleged that the endorsements oi his hame onthe backs of sone of them were forge- ries, and—- Mr. Field—TI didn’t ask you about that, How did you get the private accounts? Mr. en (evideuy iritated)—You won't let Mr. Tweed was | nt contest, 1 believe, | | me tell you without interraptions. Now, you just | sit down and Pil answer you. (Laughter.) Mr. Field (biandly)—Thank you, But TI have been sitting for some time, and it relieves me to siand uj Mr. ‘Miiden (smiling a roguish smile)—We}l, T shalt be most happy to have you relieved in any way—(resumil testimony)—There was a strag- gle at that time going on to oust the Comptroller, and— Mr. Field—Answer my question—was that strng- wie going on tn the bank ¢ (Laughter.) Mr. Tilden became very much irritated and put his foot down altogether. Mr. Peeknam—=do ony MF. ‘Tilden, ‘ ir. Peckhat ir. ‘Tilden. Mr, Tilden—1 cant & ‘on when he stands there ! ana browbeats me ashe is doing. (Sensation.) Mr. Field (with evident surprise) —Why, sir, I~ I—certainly didn’t mean to have that effect. I was— Mr, Tilden (indignantly)—Well. sir, T consider your conduct insolent and indecent! (Greater sensation.) if Mr. Field (very calmly)—Well, indeed! If the wit- ness was notill, as I am led to believe he is, I should speak differently in response to this lan- guage. f Mr. Tilden (very excitedly)—You can speak a9 you please, str, and so will 1! After a few moments order was restored and the witness resumed as follows:—1 went to the bank and told them that [ wanted to investigate this subject; I first looked at Woodward's account. . Hadyou any legal process upon which the | officers of that bank permitted you to look at the accounts of its depositors and dealers A. No, sir; Iwas amember of the last Legislature; I had a conyersation with Mr. Alvord, but not with the Attorney General, in reference to a bill I intro- duced, having for its object the present prosecu- tion; Alvord told me it was unconstitutionai, Did you say to him then, “THAT WILL NOT MATTER, 80 long as it 1s passed, for before its constitution- ality could be proved Tweed wiil be tried aad in prison’? A, No, sir. Vas you say that it would not matter, so long as Tweed was disgraced by it? A. No, sir. . Do you mean to say that in the ledger account of the Broadway Bank there isa distinction be- tween moneys drawn or deposited as collection deposits or loans? A, I think there is, ANOTHER “‘SHINDY,” Quite 1 tedious examination followed on this point, and finally the witness was told to examine the bank books, which re sircady 10 Court. In the course of his examination Mr. Tayator, a gen- tleman employed in the Comptrotler’s office, ap- peared to be aiding Mr. Tilden to find a particniar entry. Mr. Field objected to Mr. Tayntor’s assist- ance in a manner somewhat captious, and instantly there was a perfect jargon of recrimination and sarcasm, In the course of it one of the counsel for de- fence got up and sain something about “protect- ing” his “associate,” and that “il he was exam- ining the witness he would annihilate him” or something of that tenor, Judge Davis quietly suggested, ‘Mr. Field is of age and can take care of himself,” A “SETTLER.’? As the bellicose lawyer sat down he appeared to feel he had been guiity of a blunder, and a hiss plainly resounded through the Court, mingled with quite an atiuosphere of sensation. Mr. Fieid said, “l am disposed to deal lightly with this, as [ understand Mr, Tilden is suffering from ill heaith,”” A Voice (sotto —And over age. Mr. Tilden again made a very sharp remark to Mr. Field. Mr. Field, evidently exasperated, said somewhat warmly—I now give the gentleman notice that if he persists m this once more J shal answer him in @ way that will not prove agreeable to him, The witness must stop. Mr. ‘Tiden (sharpiy) —Yes, and the counsel must “stop! ‘the Court rapped tor order, and stated that if there Was any person present who was abie to iur- nish the Court or witness any assistance in under- standing these books they were at liberty to do so, and that when the defence required it similar as- sistance should be extended to them if desirable, Mr, Ficld—But I subinit, Your Honor, that— Judge Davis—That’s right. I wish you would submit without any more of this disputation. Crier, adjourn the Court. In a trice the proclamation of adjournment had been made by Mr. Valentine, who knows it “by heart” as well as he knows his prayers, and, amid ripples of laughter, provoked by the Judge’s witti- cism, the spectators and counsel dispersed. As Mr. Field and Mr, Tilden lve on opposite sides of Gramercy square it was Fuonehe that some lively snowballing might be indulged in there last night, but up to midnight nothing had been flung. STOKES’ LAST APPEAL. Cee One Effort More by His Counsel—Motion vo Be Made for a Stay of Proceedings— Alleged Irregularities by Jurors Dur- ing the TrialA Juror Visits the Grand Central Hotel, Another Examines Pis- tols and the Prisoner Himself Leaves the Court Room for Four Minutes Un- known to Counsel—The Case To Be Ar- gucd Before Judge Beardman on Fri- day Next. Yesterday, immediately on the reassembling of the Court of Oyer and Terminer in the Tweed case | after recess, the attention of the Court was di- verted from the trial in progress to the case of the condemned prisoner, E. 8, Stokes, The appear- ance of the counsel who defended Stokes was suf- ficent to draw rom the other courts and from all parts of the building as large an audience as on any of the days of the protracted trial crowded the court room. The action to be taken in the matter was looked for with the greatest interest, the Boss and Garvey and Ring deiinquencies were Jorgotten for the time and the Stokes question again ruled the Court. Mr. Tremain and Messrs. Townsend and Dos Passos having taken tueir places, Mr. Tremain rose and, addressing the Court, said he would beg the attention of His Honor for a little time to a case different from that he was on | the bench to try. It was the case of the People vs. Rdward 8, Stokes. Le had prepared attidayits anda bill of exceptions, upon Which he was to ask for an ex parte order requring the District Attorney to | show cause why the verdict passed upon Stokes | should not be set aside, and counsel requested | Judge Davis to fix an early day for hearing a mo- , tion to that effect. It was unnecessary to read the | aaevite, but they were substantially to this effec THE ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES—A JUROR VISITS THE GRAND CENTRAL HOTEL. One, that a juror, during the trial, separately from his fellows, visited the Grand Central Hotei, and passed all over the place to which the evi- dence referred and possessed himself of evidence not given Cita | progress of the trial, through the mouths of the witnesses, and this testimony was used by the jury during their deliberations. ANOTHER JUROR EXAMINES PISTOLS AND IS FLUENCED THEREBY, Another, that a juror, during the trial, to satisfy | himself whether the evidence of a witness for the defence was to be credited, went to a pistol siore to satisfy himself whether the testimony was true, and was :nfiuenced by the examination he made. THE PRISONER 18 ABSENT FROM THE COURT FOUR IN- MINUTES. Another, that during the trial, while a witness was on tac stand, without the knowledge of coun- sel, the privoner withdrew from Court, and was absent trom Court four minutes, while testimony | introduced by the prosecution, and was re- edewith no suspension of trial, and the witness | examined alter the prisoner's return. WIS HONOR WITHDREW, | Another, that during the sunming up by the prosecution fis Honor withdrew, and the summing proceeded, Auother, that three jurors were im- pied With sentiments of bitter and decided hos- tility against the defendant, unknown to him; that one of them declared hanging was “too good"? for the prisoner; another, that he would like to get on the jury to “hang htm,” and another used a stuilar expression. ‘there were other points as to improper influences operating on the jury; on these he asked the Court to fix an early day to “show cause,” and let tie papers be served on the D he Court—When will Judge Boardman be here ? Counsel replied that Mr. Dos Passos had a letter from Judge Boardman stating that he could not be here earlier than Saturday, Counsel wished an | early day for this motion, heard early, and decided before settlement of the bill of exceptions, which must be settled in the same term as Ue trial, or | anadjournment of it We have had an army of | 4 at work to get the bili Of exceptions read) ‘The signing of the bill of,exceptions ts an act of ti Court, and must be done’ by Judge Hoardman in court, therefore we expect lim to be here at leas on: rday, if Your Honor asked the question | with reference to his hearing the motion to set | aside the verdict, Judge Davis—Yes, sir; some of the grounds stated make it peculiarly appropriate that he should hear the motion, Mr. Tremain—His Honor has expressed his pref erence”, as he came here simply to try the case, that all futare action be by the judges of this district. We should be sorry to have it postponed to the very jast hour. In that it would necessarily be thrown bevon ne present term, and that woud be unforvut Jud, vis—'Tho Oyer and Terminer is a contin- ‘That point is not important. f Pullerton—This being an ex parte applica- tion I don’t know that I am entitied to say any- thing. dudge Davis (smailingly)—Only as amicus curia. Mr. ‘tremain—It it in any degree partakes of an tion to the order I trust it will not be made, ullerton—f want to make @ suggestion for 18 Mr. the convenience of the other side a well as our own. * I would suggest if the order 1s made returnable on Thursday morning there will be no time to give it attention on the part of the people, Mr. Tremain deprecated any delay, as they would be cramped as to thine. i The Court finally set down the case for Friday next, at half-past ten o'clock, to be heard by Judge Boardman. ( Upon Judge Boardman’s dccision, after hearing argument by the District Aitorney and counsel for the condemned man and reading the aMfdavits in the case, will depend whether Stok twice tried—will have the chance siforded him of escap- ing his sentence by tie uncertainty of a third trial, aoe THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. The Suit of Bowen vs. Chase—Further £xamination of Mr. Paul R. G. Pery— Evidence Given to Contradict the Tex- timony of Witnesses for the Plaintiff The Deeds of the Jumel Property. ‘The hearing of the case of George W. Bowen vs. Nelson Chase was resumed yesterday in the United States Circult Court before Judge Shipman aud a special jury, Mr. Hoar, Mr. Chatfield, Mr. Shaffer and Mr. Saw- yer appeared as counsel for the piaintiff, and Mr. Charles O’Conor and Mr. J. Carter for the de- fendant, TESTIMONY OF MR. PAUL R. G. PERY CONTINUED. Mr. Paul R, G. Pery was further examined by Mr. O'Conor, He said—l have mentioned some trips [have made to New York and to France; I was in France at the ¢ime of Madame Jumel’s death; I went to France alone in 1865 to see my friends there, and returned to America in August, 1865; at that time Madame Jumel was dead. Cross-c xamined—I was born on the 15th of June, 1883; I have been examined as a witness four times for my father-in-law, Mr. Chase—first in the wili suit, then in the suit of Champlain Bowen, and twice in the present suit; { testified on Fri- day last that my daughte seventeen years of age; I first saw me Jumel on the ith of December, 1 Madame did rot speak to my father on that o jon, bat Lspoke to her im French; aiter that she went to Italy with Vliza L Chase and Williem Chase, visit- ing Malta, Sicily and Rome; then she went to Paris; came back to Bordeanx; she then went back to Paris; from thence to London, Liverpool and | here to ‘America; my marriage contract was dated in July, 1855, and my marriage took place in De- cember following: witness produced. « number of letters written by Mme, Jumel to his satiier in 1854 | and 1855 in relation to his marriage with Miss Chase; he said, “I had written to iy father to send those letters to me and he «id se;” I have been living at the Jumel mansion since 1865, since Macame’s death; Mr. Chase is now living at mansion; have seen Madame Jumei write as Jar back as 1854 at the mansion and in several suc- ceeding vears; | have seen her write some lymus: and her name} { cannot tell what the sub, hymns was; tay wite told me that he mame was Mary Bowen; she told me that time of our marriage ; i Mayor of the city of Bordeaux; that w: 1sth of July; on the 16th we were marri Catholic Church and in the Episcopal England, and subsequently the whole bil registered in the manuer usual on such o siohs. ‘Yo Mr. O’Conor—The card produced is one of the visiting cards used by Madame Jumel when she was in France—‘Madame Burr, widow of Aaron Burr, Vice President of the United States.’? TESTIMONY OF B. A. JANDIER, B. A. Jandier, of the Third Auditor's Department, Treasury, Washington, was called to give testi- mony irom the muster and pay rolls o1 the New York State militia enrolled during tie war ot 18)2, for the purpose of contradicting the evidence oF Henry Nodine, a witness who had been produced for the plaintit. The witness said there was no person of the name of Henry Nodine ou the roil, though there were upon it the names of Benjamin and Louis Nodine, TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM RERRIAN, William Berrian deposed—I was bora at the manor of Fordham, in Westchester county: | am oing into my seventy-elghtn year; 1] was born on the lith of September; I now live in the Saimari- tan’s Home, in Fourteenth street; I was a militia man tor about six montiis in the war of 1812; there ‘was no captain in my company named Doughty; no Colonel Bogardus had any tning to do with our com- bet so far as] know; there were in my company uis and Benjamin Nodine: l have seen Henry No- dine; I think he was too young to be in the com- pany; wien I was in the militia he was a boy about twelve years old or somewhere about that, Cross-examined—A gentleman, Mr. Logan, came to me to ask me to be a witness; he did not tell me what I was to prove about Henry Nodine; he did not put any questions to me. TESTIMONY OF JOUN J. PERRY. . John J. Perry, sworn—lI reside at Bridgeport, Conn. ; I leit there this morning; my father’s name was Seth Perry; he is dead tour years this month; 1 have heard my father say ne had a brother David; T was born in 1521 in my father’s house, the house where I now live; during the last year of my father’s life he was blind; the paper now shown me isin my father’s handwriting; I have a brpther named Robert Perry; he is in Chicago now. ‘The Bare identified by witness as being in his father’s handwriting and bearing the signature of Davia Perry, which signature witness said he be- lieved to be written by his father, Seth Perry, was marked, Mr. O’Conoy Stating that at another stage of the case he would show What he intended to prove by it. A considerabie portion of the afternoon was taken up with a discussion upon the adaussibility of certain deeds in relation to settlements of the Jumel estate, Mr. O’Conor said that he expected to prove by those deeds that Mr. Chase had a com- Reece to the action brought by the Plaintitr, Plaintitf’s counsel objected to the reception of the deeds, Judge Shipman said that in discussing the mat- ters arising uncer these deeds, involving, as they did, mere questions of law, it would not be neces- sary to submit them to the consideration of the jury. But if the Court was to pass upon the legal Geta of the documents, those documents must be put in. The deeds were then putin, and the Court ad- journed to this mornin: BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. 29: SUPREME COUST—CHAMBERS. Decisions. By Judge Barrett. In the Matter of Anne Chesebrough, &c., for leave to pay money.—Report contirmed, George Widemayer vs. Mrs. Mohr et al.— Report confirmed and order granted, Barney et al., Trustees, &c., vs. Edward P. Brag.— Order settled, The Berean Baptist church vs. James W. Peter- son.—The motion to continue the injunction is granted, with $10 costs, to abide the event, &c. SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TEAM. Decisions. By Judge Barbour. Hillman vs, Mathews.—Order granted, Sinith vs, Fair.—sSame, Main vs. The Mayor, &c.—Same. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions. Before Judge Loew. Davidson vs. Hiersey.—Motion granted, Wilcox vs. Robinson,—Motion granted on pay- Ment of $10 costs, In the Matter of the Application of Otto Harsen- dubel et al.—Application granted, Mary Dean vs. Wiliam L. Dean,—Judgment of divorce granted. Adam Gross vs. Margaret Gross.—Same. Lord vs. Dreyidos.—Motion to open default denied, with leave to renew upon an aiidavit made by the defendant Engielart him: 3 order to be setiied on notice, with stay in the meantime, Whitlock vs. con. —The reteree’s fees must be reduced to $78, Green vs, Barmon.—Application granted. Elmendorf vs. Pinekney.—Same, Richards vs. Wellington.—Same, Fischer vs, Kambock.—Same. ‘the Yale and Winn Manutacturing Company vs. Hawks.—Motion granted, 2 Haden vs. Buddensick.—Same, COURT OF GENERAL Sessions, A Double Branch of the Court to Be Held in February—Ail the Homicide Cases to Be Tried Within a Month. Before Recorder Hackett, His Honor the Recorder presided in this Court yesterday in the absence of Judge Sutherland, who Was summoned as a wWilness in a trial in the inte- rior of the State, The Recorder directed the clerk to enter an order for an additional pane! of jurors, returnable in this Court next Monday morning, in order that a double session of the General Sessions tay be held during the month of February. ‘The Legislature last year passed a law di- recuing the judges of this Court to hold a double. session whenever in their judgment the public interests required it. It is confidently expected that with the Oyer aud Terminer and a double branch of this Court sitting next month all the homicide cases will be disposed of by the Dis- trict Attorney, and the large number of prisoners trict Attend in the Tombs tried and either acqult- ted or convicted, The Grand Jury now in session have already found over three hundred indict: ments, seventy-two of which were presented yes- terday. They are for burglary, larceny and felo- nious assaults. When Recorder Hackett presides next month he will have an opportunity during the principal part of the term to manifest his great ex- ecutive ability by trying these prison cases rapidiy, and then can assist his associate in the trial of some of the murder Cases, if not disposed of by that time. The Keeper of a Disreputable House in Greene Street Shot at by a Customer=The Assailant Sent to the State Prison for Ten Years. Mathew Busey was placed on trial charged with comiutting a felonious assault and battery upon James Burns, the keeper of a house of ill repute in Greene street, The testimony for the prosecution showed that the prisoner went into this place on the 6th of December and had a difficulty with girl and the barkeeper, whose brains he threat- ened to blow out, Burus was in an adjoining roow, and upon hearing the noise went into the hall, and approaching the vestibule door was met Busey, who deliberately aimed a pistol! at him, an without mene, ~ word, fired a revolver, the urns face, ‘The jury rendered a verdict of guilty of an as. sault with intent to kill, and: Recorder Hackett sentenced Busey to the State Prison for the period of ten years. Larceny. James Vong was tried and convicted of grand larceny in stealing on the 29th of December $34 from James McCarty, at the Oatman House, corner of Bowery and ard street. As there Was Lot evidence showing that Long was an old offender, His Honor sentenced him to the State Prison for! two years, Bingidiys ‘Thomas Collins was found guilty of burglary ity the third degree, the proof showing that on the( night of the 8th December the premises of Kisner 4 Wehiel, 13 Jacob street, were entered and #1x skins, Valued at $18, were stolen, The property! was traced to the house of the prisoner, and ti ofiicer also found a “jimmy” and other burglariou: implements in his room. ‘His Honor the Recorder promptly imposed the hignest penalty the law, allowed, which was five years in the State Prison, Edward Cahill was tried upon an_ indictment charging him with betng concerned with others inj assaulting Michael O’Herring on the 4th instant, _ Desbrosses street, and taking $80 in money fro: him, The complainant was s0_ intoxicate: that he was unable to identify any 01 the thieves, and the ig! evidence against the prisoner was that on the following dav he wi Jound wearing a hat which the complainant identi~ tied, and that Herring picked up a hat which the prisoner adinitted was his, Cahill stated that his brother gave him the hat., The jury rendered a verdict of guilty and the pri- soner was remanded for sentence. Alleged Youthful Bargiars. Joseph Henderson and John Keeland (boys) were placed on trial, charged with attempting to bu glariously enter the liquor store of Patrick Moore, 403 East Mouston strect, on the 7th inst, A oath i omicer found them im the entry way. The youth | stated that they had been to Wood's . Museum, ant went into the entry to d to prove their pre- resulted in @ verdwta Petit Larcenies. i Michael Gorman pfeaded guilty to stealing pitcher and a tumbler worth $2 on the 2ist of December, the property of Michael Healy. As th prisoner’s wife was sick the Recorder imposed aj nominal punishment by sending him to the City! Prison for tive days. Dennis ete and Thomas Manning, charged‘ with stealing six hides valued at $60, the property| pleaded guilty to petit larceny,’ and were each sent to the Penitentiary for snc months, An Acquittal. Haward Healey, a respectable looking youth, wa® tried upon a charge of stealing two tubs of butter? ‘on the 24th of December, from the store of Marcust B. Bookstaver, 295 Spring street, one of which was found in his possession an hour after the property! wasstolen, He told the officer when arrested that he! was engaged bya man to carry it toa certain reet, but the oMeer did not go with him to find: out the truth of iis story. The prisoner’s state- ment was believed by the jury, who rendered w verdict of not guilty, Assault and Battery. Samuel McLonghiin and James O’Neill pleadedy guilty to assaulting Thomas Maxwell, on the 23d off November, by cutting him on the thigh. Theyt were sent to the Penitentiary for six months, ‘The Court adjourned at four o'clock, and by th combined action of District Attorney Rut an the Recorder every case on the calendar wast reached, iz been locked out they sleep, Witnesses were calle vious good character, which of uot guilty, COURT CALENGARS—THIS DAY. Supreme Court—Crrovir—TRtaL TERM—Part 1—« 709, 831, 1821, 561, 4 9607 971; 973, $75, 977. Part 2—Held by Judge Vane Bruut.—Nos, 1822, 168, 672, 1816, 874, 1718, 1086%4,, 1804, 600, 748, 846, 924, 926, 930, 932, 934, 36, 938, 940, Court or Common PLEAs—TRIAL TERM—Part 1— Lizddg, 866, 59, 205, ‘yr22, "763, "606, 2807, "1247, 1854, 1803, 1685, 5125) 1649, 612, 612, 1618, "1092, 1644, 511, 3044, 70, 50, 1709,, 164, 828, 1352, 290, 1256. } SUPREME CoURt—CHAMBERS—Held by Judge Bar- rett.—Nos. 10, 11, 12, 85, 98, 100, 103, 128, 130, 134,1 135, 152, 106, 194, 215, 219, 220, 225, 227, 246, 240, 262.1 Call 230, Terres CourtT—GENERAL TERM.—Adjourned. ta ¥ ¥ x =. Thursday next. ed BL yliegp, i BROOKLYN COURTS.. UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS’ COURT. Stealing from the Government, Before Commissioner Winslow. William Davis and Henry Armstrong, who were employed in the Navy Yard, were arrested yester~- day on the charge of having stolen about $160 worth of quicksilver «from the receiving building) in the “yard.” They were taken before Commis-) sioner Winslow aud held to bail in the sum o! $2,000 to await the result of the hearing of their case. SUPREME COURT—CIRCUIT. Verdict Against an Insurance Company. Before Judge Pratt. j Robert J. and John Hall brought suit against ther Insurance Company of North America to recovert $1,000, the amount of a poiicy on photographic materials destroyed by fire at their store, No. & York street, on the 25th of April last. The com-; pany claimed that tne plaintitls violated the con- ditions of the policy by using Kerosene ot! on the premises. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for the tull amount claimed, with interest. COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER, An Eastern District Homicide. Before Judge Pratt and Associates, Frederick Weir, a young man, was arraigned yesterday morning on an indictment charging himy with having caused the death of one Henry Seigier.. On the 23d of December last Seigler came over from New York to see his brother at 22 Cook street,. F. D., and while there got into an altercation with: Weir, during which the latter cut him in one of bis: = with a razor. The wounded man bled to- leath. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and, as he ha@ no counsel, the Court assigned Messrs, Headly and Johnson to defend him, The trial will take place next Monday. ‘ CITY COURT—SPECIAL TERM. Yesterday’s Decisions, By Judge Neilson. Johnson vs. Gleavy.—New trial denied, In the absence of evidence that the person commitning the wrongful act was employed by or Hy dete the defendant, I think | was correct in dismissing. the dee a eee proof it was the duty of the laintitl to supply. i" Scott vs. Scheldmacher.—The defendant having; been actually committed to and in prison on the execution of the judgment issued against his per- son, the technical satisfaction of tne judgment, a Suspension rather, is a fatal objection to the sup- plemental proceedings since taken. Motion. ranted. hi Cronkright vs, Merrill.—The application to con- tinue the injunction granted. Chapman vs. Wely.—The answer would appear to have come in too late, but there being an allega- tion of merits, the answer may be pot 1m on paying’ $20 costs and taking short notice of trial. Clelai 3. Helfenstien —Injunction continued ; order to be settled on two days’ notice. Burtis vs. Whittlesey.—The findings signed and judgment for the plainti. Warring vs. Yale.—Motion to set aside attach- it granted. ywton vs. Morford.—Let plaintiff's proceedings he appears to be exa: ed, be stayed until . The Excise Law. In the Matter of Charles Gentsch.—The defend- ant was tried before the magistrate for a violation of the Excise law, found guilty, and committed for ten days, The commitment, though somewhat in- formal, is sufficient. Iam not disposed to inter- fere in such cases except for a clear and substan- tual cause.—Defendant remanded, In the Matter of Schmidt.—The defendant was. committed by the Justice for a violation of the Ex- cise law, There are several objections to the com- mitment, one of which cannot be obviated. It is. stated that he Ba not guilty, and demanded a trial by jury, and that, thereupon, the Justice pro- ceeded to try him without a jury.—Delendant dis- charged, Suit Against the City. Lorenzo D. Thompkins vs. the City of Brooklyn,— At the instance of the late Mayor, the Common Council and the Street Commissioner, the plaintit™ repaired the Bushwick Bridge. His bill was: audited and directed to be paid. The Corporation Counsel, in the discharge of his duty, contests the claim, and principally on the ground that the work was not let out to the lowest bidder, atter adver- tising as required by the charter, ‘The city authori« ties proceeded thus without the delay which an observance of the provisions of the charter would have imposed, by reason of the dangerous condition of the bridge, and in such an emergency they had inherent power to act, It is proved that the bridge wasin such condition. the work necessary and the charge reasonable. i am theretore constrained to overrule the objection and order judgment for the plaintit, COURTSOF APPEALS—CALENDAR, ALBANY, Jan, 27, 1878. The following is the Court of Appeals day calen- Mar ior January 23;~Nos, 43, 37, oie 40, 3 43, 48, sheep= .