The New York Herald Newspaper, January 29, 1873, Page 5

THE COURTS. —~—_—— THE TWEED TRIAL---DRAWING TO A CLOSE Termination of Mr. Tilden’s Testimony—A Parting Bout with Opposing Oounsel— Tho Prosecution Oloses—Opening Tes- timony for the Defence—Ingersoll’s and Garvey's Vouchers—Era- sures—Mr, Twoed Never Iden- tified in ‘Transactions Be- twoen Watson, Inger- soll and Garvey. THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. The Tables Tarned—Mr. O’Conor Offers to Prove an Attempt to Suborn a Witness for the Plaintiff on the Part of Coun- sel—The Offer Buled Out—Ex- eoption Taken—Letters from Madame Jumel to Mrs. Perry—Case Still On. IMPORTANT LEGAL QUESTION. Seizure of Lace by the Sheriff Decided To Be Megal—Rights of a Firm to Deed Away Joint Property— Question of Law Practice. ee tegen BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. ————— Summaries—Convictions and Sentences in the General Sessions. ‘The Tweed trial still drags its slow length along tm the Court of Oyer and Terminer. There is, however, a prospect of @ termination to it, Yes- terday the prosecution closed its case and the de- fence was entered upon, A good deal will depend ‘upon the new turn the evidence has taken in be- half of the accused, A witness firat called for the Prosecution was examined for the defence, and proved that erasures were not unfrequently made on the warrants and corresponding vouchers, Of these erasures, to his knowledge, Mr. Tweed was ignorant, and, indeed, he could not have known af them. all th {transactions ig which witness SRR tebe ae the or OMce, he never saw Mr. Tweed in the office and (never beard his name mentioned in connection witb the Garvey-Ingersoll business there. A motion came up for argument yesterday be- fre Judge Barbour, holding Speeial Term of the Puperior Court, involving an important point in legal practice. The question hinged upen the le- @ality of the seizure of some fifty thousand dollars’ worth of laces by the Sheriff. It seems that a member of the firm selling the goods some time since toek out bankruptcy proceedings in England and executed a deed of trust allowing, in case of @efault in payment of instalments due upon a eompromise made with his creditors, that any property of his could be seized te make good these payments. As the member ef the firm selling the goods, as well as the purchaser, knew nothing of ‘this deed, the Sheriff’s seizure of the goods was declared illegal and void. The Sherif’s jury yesterday assessed damages for $10,000 against United States Marshal Sharpe tm favor of D, Wemys Jobson. The suit, it will be remembered, was based upon an alleged assault of the former and an ejectment from his office, tul! particulars of which were published at the time. The hearing of the case of George W. Bowen vs. Nelson Chase was resumed yesterday, in the United States Circuit Court, before Judge Shipman and the special jury. Mrs. Eliza J. Tranckell was examined at considerable length on the part of the defendant, Mr. O’Conor offered to prove by this ‘witness that Mr. Gideon J. Tucker, acting as agent for the plaintiff, had attemptea to bribe her to give Yestimony on the plaintiffs side of the suit. Mr Hoar denied that Tucker was acting as the plain- tims agent. Judge Shipman ruled out the offer and defendant's counsei entered an exception to the ruling. The case will be comtinued to-day. THE TWEED TRIAL. olicaclammatthly behets Conclusion of Mr. Tilden’s Cross-Exami- mation—He is Still Peevish and Indig- mant—Close of the Case for the Prose- eution—The Erasures in the Warrants and Vouchers—No Identification of Mr. the Comptroller’s Office—The Beginning of the End. Im the case of the People against William M. Tweed the prosecution yesterday brought their branch of the case toaclose. The defence was then entered upon, one ef the principal features of ‘which was the examination of the principal prose- cuting eMcer, Mr. Peckham, on the stand. There ‘was considerable headway made by the defence, and the prospect is that the case will be left to the eloquence of counsel to present in the best light their respective cases to the jury, after that bouy has been first enlightened on all the law points involved by the learned Judge. The Court of Oyer and Terminer epened yester- day at haif-past ten o'clock, Judge Davis presiding. ‘There was the usual crowded court reom, the ‘usual array of counsel and the same public interest manifested that has marked from tke first the whole proceedings in this protracted and impor- tant trial. MR. TILDEN AGAIN ON THE STAND. Mr. Tilden, on taking the witness stand, returned to his array of figures which has been such a terror to all interested since he was first called to testify. Se read an entry te Woodward's debit in the ‘Dank, May 6, of $40,000. Mr. Field asked him whether that entry indi- @ated a check, not a note, paid to a customer? Mr. Tilden said he supposed it was a check from fais experience with bank books. Mr. Field said he did not want the witness’ suppositiens. After their a last night he felt it best to go en regu- Mr, Tilden replied that he was interrupted before fis question was finished. -oheck, because it passed through the hands of the receiving teller. He admitted that he got the tn- formation from the bank officers, The statement ef accounts he read yesterday was taken from memoranda. He did not make the memoranda Be did not compare all with the originals, Q. Did you not make the figures in that tabular e@tatement frem the books from what purported to be transcripts, and from what parported to be de. | posit tickets? A. l answered yesterday. Q. I don’t want to know what yeu answered yes terday; did you so make your figures? A. (aiter @ pause) —Not at all; the transcripts were not made by me, but te some extent were compared by me With the books; to be certain I requested George ‘W, Smith and P. H. Rhodes to compare the tran- scripts and books, and they did so in my presence; I think I compared myself the whole of Mr. Tweed’s acconss in the transcript with the ledger; also examined Woodward's ac count, and in doing so had some fifty deposit Vskets before me, the form of which (printed tick- ets, with name, date, &c.) he described; he saw and read them all not less than half a dozen times, and took down the entries; he knew the hand- ‘writing of Mr. Tweed; he knew Mr. Woodward's from seeing bis writing in the records in the De- partment of Finance; never saw Mr, Woodward ‘Write; Dever acted himself upon apy such wigna- He believed it was a | NEW YORK HERALD, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY wy, 1873—TRIPLE SHEET, SE, bat he saw the signature on Woodward's own et know! bave that these deposit Dank officer so represented ¢! inary course of business, s man oe al with a bank, would he write having large de: his own ticket once in a year? A. I don’t know. Q Are xy Bot usually written by clerks? A. ‘They are, sir, often. Q Have you any further kn as to the banter g on these tickets than what you have mentioned? A. I have not. dofoatts in the Ioagers ian by the depont tickets? in the an by the deposit ticke A. In some banks—— Ree question. A, 1 had no other way Where were the deposit tickets taken from ? A. The officers teok them from the bank vanlte somewhere; I don’t know; I rather think they were en wires, . ht not some one go dow, to the coal hole @ iraudulent ticket the day before? A. Yes, if he got at the books and committed forge- ries on the tickets, and if the bank officers were in compltclty, and if the forgeries were ingeniously Your suspicion would not be so easily excited by ries on old solied papers? A. It would be detected if the officers were not in bara oh re Q. Now (turning to Ingersoll’s it, 6) hoW can you tell, by the entry, whether it was a deposit, aloan or acollection? A. You probably icked out one where there was no loan. (Laugh- rT.) ). Very well; how do know by any of them ? acmore is an ‘scoouat, « of Tweed’ 4, of Pinal bs. and the letter D, which probably means scount How can you tell this from the books? A. I tell from the deposit tickets; every item is put on account of the deposit tickets. Q Oh, you are at the deposit tickets again. (Laughter.) Did you put dows all the debits and a the crenite in your tabular statement? A. I me ¢ aNothen T17, | Mr. Field here asked the witness @ question as to What his knowledge of the accounts amounted to, and on witness commencing his answer counsel requested him to answer A pepe and not argue, but leave that te the counsel in the case So mare Tr “other counsel”). Mr. Tilden indignantly complained of being in- terrapted when he was asked @ question. Mr, Field—When I see a counsel in thecase volun- teering to take the stand I shall interpose. Fy Davis (hammering his desk)—Now, now. . Tiiden—I am. not counsel in the case; 1am not counsel in the case, Mr, Field—Were you not counsel in the case? spege Derie ake ‘said not last evening. Mr. Tilden—He said “the case,” meaning this case. He imputed to me a position which I did not hold, and that is the misstatement and imputation of whion I complain, contradicted by my sworn tes- Smear, of yesterday evenings Q Now, sir, have you not advised about the con- uct of this case? A, Not atail, sir, Have you not got up these tables with a view to this prosecution? A. No, sir. Q, Did you not, as a member of the Legislature, d with a view to prosecutin; try to get a bill Mr. Tweed? A. Not with reference to Mr. ‘Tweed at all; not with any special reference to Mr. Tweed, a rposing)—We had enough oi judge Davis (ai Eroene With that little matter yesteraay. (Laugh- . Field—Oh, if Your Henor thinks there was enough of it, very weil, but I have my own views of it and {zor Taaintain them; I should like to question them. Mr. Tilden (sitting himself dewn for the en- counter)—1 have no ebjection. Judge Davis made a remark to the effect that the questions had an exciting effect. Mr. Field—The witness is unwisely excited, Mr. Tremain—He is justly excited, in my judg- ment, when you impate to him what is derogatory to him ag @ member of the Legislature, GOING FOR THE WITNESS AGAIN. Mr. Field then intimated t! he would ask the witness no more qyestions. n that point. At this instant Mr. Burrill hurriedly pulled Mr. Field’s coat and handed him @ slip of paper. Mr. Field, on glancing at it, id:—Your Honor, I should like to ask him another question about his being counsel. Mn Woh anytning you please, Judge Davis—Ask him. Q. Yeu said last night you only appeared as coun- sel on the civil suit of the people, by arguing the case at Albany on the appeal in the General Term; did you not argue at Special Term in resistance to the application of Mr. Tweed to reduce the bail fom 1,000,000? A. 1 did, on a motion before Judge ned. Q. ‘That was a motion to reduce the bail? A. I suppose It was. Q And you resisted it? A. I¢ was part of the motion; yes, I did. ‘The motion was to reduce the bail, which was fixed at $1,000,000, on your affidavits, wasn’t it? A. It had been fixed at $1,000,000 on ail the papers. You made an affidavit? A. I did. And you made the affidavit on these very papers you produced to-day? A. Precisely. . You stated last night that you went before the Grand Jury in the criminal case? A. 1 did not, Q. Did you not say you were before them? A. Yes, as a witness. Cre said you went be’ore them as witness, not as counsel; did you not go there about an in- dictment for the very thing for which Mr. Tweed is now on trial? A. Idid not go there about any indictment. a Did you go there without reference to the finding of any indictment? A. I went because I ‘was subpceenaed; whenever THE JURY WAS OUT OF BUSINESS they used to send us subpcenas. (Laughter.) Mr. Field—Then they must have got out of busi- ness very easily, for they kept at this for three months. You say you did not go in reference to anindictment? A. I was at that time disinclined for any indictment. ve Mr. Field—Oh, yeu were? Did you not advise the Grand Jury to extend their term? A. I did; but oo disinclined fer the finding of any indict- ment Q. And yeu got a law d that they might ex- tend their term? a. 1 dia se Mr. Field—That is all. George W. Smith and Philemon W. Rhodes, who assisted in the examination of the defendant's Ae accounts, corroborated the testimony of Mr. iden, ‘This closed the case for the prosecution, THE DEFENCE. Mr. Field intimated that the defence waived a formal opening, and that it was arranged to put in the evidence and a counsel on each side to ad- dress the jury. They expect te close the testimony to-day, The Court then adjourned for an hour. The first witness called for the delence was EDWARD GILBERT, a lawyer, who was counsel for Garvey im the suit he breught against the county. He was asked the amount ofthe suit. (Question Secctuce i Q. Did you commence a suit against Mr. Tweed in August, 1872, for Garvey’s brother ¥ The Judge asked what was the object of the question. Mr. Burrill—To contradict the evidence of Gar- ey. fudge—I can’t receive it, JOEL STEVENS, Under Sheriff, examined by Mr. Burrill, said he knew James Watson, in the Sheriff's office, in 1859, Mr. Tremain—W hat is the object of that? Mr. Burrili—To show that up to the time of his death Watson shored @ good character as a care- ral officer in discharge of his duties as county officer. (Question excluded.) An original order of arrest, dated October 25, 1871, was offered in evidence by Mr. Burrill for the arrest of ‘these parties, including Garvey,” and bail fixed at $1,000,000, The prosecution objected to mt. Judge Davis did net see the competency of it. Mr. Field said it would show there were two suits against Mr. Tweed to recover amy money unlaw- fully taken from the city, if any, which counsel de- nied, and that the people had ample remedy, and that there were thirteen indictments, and that suits were brought on affidavits, one by ‘Mr. Tilden, for recovery of $6,000,000, In reply to @ remark from Mr. Trematn, Mr. Field Said another defence would be that on Garvey's ewn testimony Mr. Tweed has millions enough te satisfy all claims. Mr. Burrill said he offered to prove the order of “— aud that it was issued after Garvey came Judge Davis—It is totally irrelevant. TESTIMONY OF EUGENE DURNIN. Eugene Durnin testified that he knew Garvey; ho was Commissioner of Deeds July, 1867; recog- | nizes his signature and Garvey’s te an afidavit produced. R Was that affidavit sworn to befere you? udge Davis—What is the object of this? Mr. Burrill—To falsify Garvey’s statement that the oath was not administered in accerdance with | the certificate of the notary. Judge Davis—I have ao evidence on the point but Garvey’s. Mr. Burrili—You have mo evidedce to rebut him but the presumptions of the certificate. Judge Davis—All this was called out on the cress- I sonnet allew evidence to rebut col 5 @ wanted to show if the bills were true that this statement of having inserted fifteen examination. the witness in @ Mr. Barrill- er cent on the bills was untrue. We offered the ills as a verified statement and cer! te, | and Your Honor would not allow us to use the per unsworn or with the certificate attached, at all that came out on cress-examination by them. Now we have the man in court who admin- istered tg ease ber he first opportunity of provitig thé verified, and te would be Very strict en us to exclude the! Judge Davis said née cou ‘low the testi- mony, as it did not contradict the testimony that ; Sfteen per cent was added, but was a collateral | Matter affecting the creuit of the witness. | Mr, Burrill said it did, because the verification went to prove the accounts to be correct. Sup- pose there Was no affidavit at all and Garvey was asked, “Didn't you tell Mr. Durnin your bili true” and he deniea it, the defench would have the beneilt of Mr. Durnin’s contradiction. Now the Slescay wan ti 4 oe saying nothing of an ness is Honor excindes rt Says he signed it, and udge is said he th wed not 1 allowed rea ought he allo it. if ir. Bari continued his satd when the witness Garvey wen sekon” aia'e he Say so and 80, the remark was made, “He wasn’t then under oath.” The defence produced. the affidavits, and Garvey was driven to denying that he ever made them. Judge Davis—If 1 sliow you to go inte that col- | of Garvey and Ingersoll; Watson, Mr. in ct estion and prove that made the how could I'stop and prevent him from Ay withstanding this gentle- man’s testimony, he did not? This sort of evidence ig excluded by law, in my judgment. I might be mistaken, it ] am, you have the benefit of your exception. TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH B. YOUNG. Joseph B. Young, Clerk of the Board of Super- visors, was hand Fr, and asked if on that rac wagid Garvey oath before him. jaded). Witness was asked whether the Board of Super- visors on she 4th of July, 1870, organized, (Ques- tion objected to.) ander the Law of april 12 1010; the Mayor, Comp- er WO! ; ‘or, Comp- troller and Board of Alderm conntivated the igo) amdavite calling witnesses Board of Supervisors since 3 the defendant took an nee of Supervisor; since the or- spaetion of new Board defendant has not was employed in she Deparament of, Public Works, e ol je Worl and fnew the defendant as a Commissioner. . What were his duties ? r, Tremain—Whatever his duties were he ought te perform them faithfully. Itis no excuse for him to say I audited when he did not audit; that he was overwhelmed with work. Mr. Field said they wanted to show that the de- fendant could be indicted for neglect ot ouy. as Commissioner of Public Works as well as Auditor; that he was bound to his name three or four hundred times a day in the Public Works offlee, and that, considering the amount of work impose: on him, the Legislature did not mean to hold that as Auditor ne should g@ to the bottem of every- thing, and on that they would Fi Davis said defendant tion of any overworked officer; he could resign. Ie woul no excuse. fora man holding several Offices to neglect the duties of one and aay, “1 had fo jpogh fa attend 10,2) SR nO AI eter Bt , fe Gould discharge the duties of his office as Rnpervisar two months before he was burdened with the duties of auditing under the new act. Isn't it reagonable to say that the Legis- lature took into consideration the duties he already had to discharge, when imposing addi- tional duties on nim, as the Court construes the act? And this we offer to prove for the purpose of showing that the duties which the prosecution claims Were required of him by the act of 1870 he simply could not discharge in the way they claim. Judge Davis said the only question was whether the facts constituted the wiliul neglect the law denounces, But there was no excuse for neglect. Mr. Burrill formally offered to prove by Mr. Young that the deiendant, as Commisstoner of Public vers hi te sign documents, vouche' &c., on department, three hundred to five hundr @ day, and that therefore it was utterly impossible he could personally examine into ‘claims laid be- fore the Beard of Audit. Excluded. The defence now offered te prove that defendant took no oath as Auditor, but the ordinary oath of Supervisor. cluded. defence next offered to prove that the other members of the Board of Audit were the chief executive officers of the city, with a view of show- ing that the defendant, if he did what was claimed, relied upon the integrity and ability of his asso- clates, Excluded. Two indictments against Andrew J. Garvey, of February, 1872, were offered in evidence by the deience. Davis said the indictments were incom- to the jury. the best protec- Jus petent, but he would allow counsel to argue to the Jury, or he would charge the jury that if the facts ‘alleged by the people were true, every one of the ence indicted were liable to imprisonment for lelony. WILLIAM ¥, COPELAND TESTIFIES FOR THE DEFENCE. The witness William F. Copeland, who testified d against Mr. d, W ined by Mr. Burrill. Counsel over the cross-examination of the ritness at his last appearance on the stand, as to thé place where the vouchers were kept, how he used to hand them out to Garvey, Ingersoll, &c. and sometimes they would come back all jumbled up and detached. In reply to questions of counsel he further testi- fled on this occasion that when vouchers came in no entry was made, but the voucher was filed sways while Mr. Watson was in the ofice witness would take out vouchers and hand them toGarvey, Ingersoll or Keyser, at their request and without specific directions from Mr. Watson; sometimes te Watson himself; then Garvey or whoever got the voucher would go with Watson into his room; it would be nothing for them to come and ask for their vouchers, for they were always in the room together. (Laugnter.) Witness has given Garvey more than one warrant at a time to take into the inuer room to Watson, and on these occasions Garvey closed the door; thinks he would miss the vouchers if they did net come back. WERE THE VOUCHERS ALL RETURNED? Q. Did you ever miss any of the papers from the vouchers? A. The certificates and the Comptrol- ler’s order sometimes were not with the vouchers when spy pees back; in nearly every case when I gave the vouchers to Watson, or Garvey, or Ingersoll, the Comptroller’s order was not on them when they came back—if ever they did come. ERASURES NOTICED. Q. Did you ever notice anything like erasures on the papers? A. I noticed erasures on the certifi- cate of audit. Q. On whose vouchers? A. On Garvey’s and In- gersoll’s and others I think; sometimes I couldn’t positively say that it was an erasure which I noticed; but I was watching the thing closely that year ‘and 1 looked at them. (Laughter.) Q How frequently was Garvey the Comptrol- ler’s office ? A. Hardly a day but he was there. oo With whom did he do business? A. With a twon. ¢ With anybody else ? A. No, sir. . Dia you ever see Garvey get a voucher from Watson? A. 1 did, sir, in the outer ofice. TWEED NOT MIXED UP. Q. How many would you say you saw Watson hand him? A. A good many; I couldn’t say. Q. When the warrants were get where were the vouchers? A. Watson had charge of them in the safe until the warrants were got out. &. Did you see Garvey get warrants from Watson an away withthem? A. I did, itrequently; he would sign his name to the bottom of the receipt and go away. ay. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Tweed in your ofice or the ether office? A. I never did, Q. Did you ever ee Mr, T¥eed @ voucher or ee anything to do with him at all? A. I never ie WHO HAD THE BIGGEST BILLS, The witness next described the vouchers here made up, consisting of different bills; about a dozen bulky bills fastened together. Garvey’s and Ingersoll’s were the biggest; but, if there was any difference, Garvey’s were the biggest of ali. (Laughter.) Cross-examined by Mr. Peckham—I left the Comptia’ office because my services weren’t wanted; 1 took copies of the books while I was there and I gave them for publication; when t spoke of vouchers filed away I referred to vouchers for all kinds of county liabilities; Garvey, Inger- soll, mere and the rest had not many other kinds of vouchers; we did have a number of other kinds under the head of “Adjusted Claims,’ just before these companies’ liabilities accounts were opened ; they were all filed there—a big lot of them—and I took an acceunt of these, too; the copies which I gave the newspapers were taken from the books, Q. For what purpose did you look at the vouch- ers? A. They came to me tn a loese manner sometimes and I looked at them to see what they contained; I generally opened the vouchers. Q Did you not tell me within this week that you never Opened them except when some accident of the kind happened’ A. Ne; 1 told you I didn’t see them all, for all ef ther weren't there; the red aumber on the voucher was taken from the record of vouchers; the account was not written up on the audit book sometimes for a week after the entry on the record books; when I opened the bills I saw Mr. Tweed’s name across a great many of them; I saw the signatures of the Board of Audit at the same time on all the veuchers which I opened Lynes, and pretty nearly every ome in the office had access to the vouchers; when they got a voucher from me they might hand them back to somebody else. WHY HE TESTIFIES. 1 noticed what might be called erasures om & couple of the certificates; Mr. Burrill knew of this, because the other day, after 1 came down from the stand, he spoke to me and said they had as good a it to know what I saw about this matter as the others; I never Laat ge anything about this, be- cause you never asked me; Our conversation was nearly all about figures. ERASURES IN THE VOUCHERS. To Mr. Burrill—I_ can safely say 1 saw mor two of Garvey’s certificates with erasure: were bunglingly done— (iaughter) —the w: both cases were forty thousand dollar enes; some- times, when the is came back loose, I noticed t Mr, Tweed’s signatare, which wouid be acros# ee phe or fre bills, was pgs ; it was ab- ni e ease of the erasure billg; ce of audit and the Comptroller’ iedottons weuld | sometimes be wanting Vouchers came DaCK. © COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION EXAMINED POR THR DEFENCR—MR. PECKHAM ON THE STAND. we eae oes Wanted an adjournment, as eases were absent, but Judge Davis ee i. . Mr. Wheeler fi. a, coun: e le, was then called ity Tetonice to the witness stand and examined by Mr. Full a. e counsel appeared greatly surprised when his name was called out as awitnes. NOT IN COMPANY WITH GARVEY. Q. Did you ever visit the Attorney General's house in Company with Garvey? A. I was there | when Garvey came, but I did not go there in com- pany with him. 33 about his being lable to punishment in case he was Not a witness? A. I don't remember apy thing of the kind, A SEARCHING EXAMINATION. Q. Was anything said \e 't re- po y thing by you? A. I don’ r, Q. Was anything in reference to it said by Gar- tly ‘A. Nor dol remember anything said by Ga- ; Did he allude to the tact ‘that he haa seen Mr. OConor? A. 1 couldn’t say he dia not; very ng. someth on the ? likely there was some allusion vraag aw Q Was he interrogated as to what he could tes- tor A. He a RE At great le: ? A. We were there probably Q. What he could testify to was spoken of in the conversation? A. He 4 asked what he knew, and he detailed it. - Q. Let me refresh your memory; did you hear from Garvey that he had seen O’Conor? A. No. Q. Who made the appointment to meet him | eae Y A. I don’t Know; probably the Attorney Q. How did you know he was to be there? A. From the Attorney General. Q. How did you jearn that Garvey had seen Mr. O’vonor? A. Probably trom Mr. O'Conor. Q. Was the fact of having seen Mr. O’Conor alluded to that quing t A. 1 have no doubt it was, but I don’t remember it. lad = an interview with Garvey at the Attorney General's house any other time? A. I have an indistinct recollection of seeing him at the Attorney General's office once, during the Hall | Who would arrange |ONEY | for this trouble, ‘That was what the defendant trial, ag he used to wait there to be called, NOT ANDREW, Mr. Burrill next callea “Mr, Drew—not Andrew.” George H. Drew was then sworn, and he testified that he knew Garvey and saw him on the stand oy j us res i. ou hear him make any remark when oi the stand ? ne pet prosecution asked what was the object of “ecaoe A STARTLING OPYER, Mr. Burrill said he Byehoees. to show that on Monday or Tuesday Garvey said, while off the tans, ot eal send Tweed to State Prson if I ir judge Davis—Trat is not competent evidence. Mr, Burrill insisted that a matter of that kind entered into the animus of the witness. Judge Davis reminded counsel that he had not called Garvey’s attention to it to give him an op- portunity of Ledtrdegsbeat a it. Mr. Burrill replied thas he was not going to prove anything inconsistent with Garvey’s testimony, but to prove an independent fact, and that he had @ right to do, Mr. ‘Tremain said they should first ask the wit- ness whether he had animosity or malice, and then call his attention to the out of Court statement, The rale of law was against such evidence. Judge Davis excluded the testimony and the Court adjourned, THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. The Suit of Bowen vs. Chase—Further Testimony for the Defendant—Mr. O’Conor Offers to Prove by a Witness, Mrs. Eliza J. Tranckell, that Gideon J. Tucker Had Attempted to Bribe Her to Testify for the Plaintiff—The Offer Ruled Out and Exception Taken, ‘The hearing of the case ef George W. Bowen vs. Nelson Chase was resumed yesterday in the United States Circuit Court, before Judge Shipman and the special jury. Mr. Hoar, Mr. Chatfield, Mr. Shaffer and Mr. Sawyer appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Charles O’Conor and Mr. J, C. Carter for the defendant. TRETIMONY OF RLIZA J. TRANCKELL. Eliza J. Tranckell, sworn and examined on the part of the defendant. She said—I reside at 144 129th street, Harlem; I knew Eliza B. Jumel, formerly of tne city of New York; my parents were William and Maria Jones; I am now sixty-five years old; 1 am a widow; my mother died, 1 think, in 1850; she was a widow before her death; I have always known Madame Jumel; as early as I have any recollection; my sister, who was afterwards Mrs. Chase, was older than myself; she was always called Mary ; she always, from my earliest recollec- tion, lived with Madame and Mr. Jnmel; Mrs. Chase was called Mary generally, but she was called Mary Jumel, because they adopted her; I never heard her called Mary Jones until I heard it here; I was with her when she died, at Chelsea, on the west side; she had two children, who now survive—Mrs. Pery and William Inglis Chase; when I was thir- teen years old I resided at the mansion for about a year; my family resided at the Red Barn, near the mansion, jor about a year, Q. In your satercourse with Madame Jumel how did you address her? Objected to by counsel for plaintiff. allowed. A. I called her Aunt Eliza, but when she re- turned irom France with a retinue of servants we fell into calling her Madame; I was with her at Saratega in 1852; Madame went to Europe in 1853; Ihave always understood that Mary Jumel (Mrs. Chase) was born in 1801; she was about eight years older than I; prior to my sister Mary’s marriage with Mr. Chase she resided at the Taansion with the Jumels; in 1815 my sister Mary went to France with the Jumels, and was away about two or three years; | know Mr. Jumel very well; about 1821 Madame Jumel went back again to Europe, and rema: away two or three years; Madame went to pe in 1861; shortly before that trip to Europe Madame calied at my house; members of my family were then present, and also Mrs. Prindle, the lady who was examined here the ether day; Madame called on that oceasion to get the names of the members of our family; my brother Stephen made a memorandum of the names of the family for Madame Jumel (memoran- dum produced); the names im the memorandum are correctly given. Q. You have stated that vour mother was Maria Jones, Who were her parents? Objyected to. Question allowed. A. Jonn and Phoebe Bowen; | have quite a pack- age of old pers that have been preserved in our family 3. now the handwriting of my sister, Mrs. Chase, very well (letter produced); I say most fat ively that is my sister’s handwriting; it is a letter written from Paris im 1816 by my sister to Mme, Jumel; I have seen my father and mother’s handwriting; I know my father’s writing, and I think I know my mother’s writing; she wrote scl- dom. (A large number of letters was preduced, and the witness identified them as correspondence that had pased between members of her family and Mme. Jumel; the witness had put a private mark, “T,” on the papers.) Mr. O’Conor ded te the witness the paper testified to y ly by Mr. John I. Pery, and she identified it as a paper she had found in an old bag belonging to her mother; she had put her mark upon it, and had delivered the paper to Mr. O’Coner. An old pocketbook, with tne name of Jonathan Clark upon it, dated 1777, was identified by witness, as was also a commission in the army of the Revolution to Jonathan Clark, dated in 1777, Question and signed John Hancock. She found these among old family papers, The witness continued to say— Lhave seen MR. GIDEON J, TUCKER; 3 have seen him at my residence three or four times. 2. On any of those occasions did Mr. Tucker so- licit you to become a witness on behalf of the plain- tif 1n this cause? if Objected te by plaintiff's counsel. The Judge—The witness need not answer that ret. 4 Mr. O'Conor—We desire to show by this witness @ piece of the same kind of evidence as that speech made in the streets of Providence by Mr. ‘Tucker to Mr. Hart. We think it was as admissible as this is; but this is @ diferent thing altogether. Counsel for plaintit® objected to the declarations of Mr. Tucker, as not evidence. Mr. Tucker was not the attorney of record. Mr. O’Conor said that Mr. Gideon J. Tucker was the so'e manager and conductor of this case, doing the business of it. The plaintif@ did nothing in re- gard to it,as he (Mr. O’Conor) thought they had proved by the oath ef the plaintiff himself, and the person who was pat in his place was residing thou- sands of miles off. Having given other evidence of MB. GIDEON J. TUCKER'S AGENCY IN THE CASE, he hoped there was enough to enable the Court to see that perhaps the jury would determine abso- he fact that he waa agent or attorney, ma: agin; esecution of the piaintifl’s part the Fw aa Os cl THE ACTS OF A PACTOTUM and general agent, quoad hoc. Now, they offered, not the declarations of Mr. Tucker, not a statement = edad oy fa supposed ee bata Evora bast 01 m—an a yh FO this witnegs * Decome a kind of ee uete sth MPION WY CHA! for his (Mr. Tucker's) side og the cane, for A CORRUPT © That was the thing ‘/éien ne tur C ich he (Mr. O’Conor) ex- ted he would be Peon when tte, Sble, to prove, He did not 4. this would be admissible, except on the * 46) D Aore of macy. He had used the rotten bahay,” fnd“an argument had been id the Court on the law of conspiracy. jaw 46thing now but present to the Court the jon, which related to the act of the agent You arranged to meet there? A, We did. . When was that? A. In the Spring of ‘7? meet, beiore the first trial of Mayor fall. Q. How long siter Garvey's return from E” A ee nate e 4 yhat time of day or evenii abut eight o’clock or nine in the eve. us ttt A. @ Was it contemplated that Ga- .,“.ing. ? uidnre says the Ws to ry witness in the Hall case? A. ¢% Ll object of the meeting the g Saar Fae or ogee be know what q you se Attorne: . § hocempanied by Garvey?, Cenarel? A. Yes. Waa Lorca eae sgt, 8 4 y thin, 9, o seaman a or rh a. Walt ee rember, 7Y thing; M/you suggest it 1 might re- & Did'not the Attorney Cpenersl say something oo ( Who got there first. A, I did. $ « rope? iM che present business, ir, Hoar replied that he only represented Mr. Bewen in this case, and that there waa nota single particle of proof existing to show that Mr. Tucker was the agent of Mr. Bowen, or that the latter gave him any autherity te make a CORRUPT PROPOSITION to the witness, As a matter of fact he (Mr. Hoar) did not know that. Asa matter of law he did not know there was any evidence to show that Tucker ever had any authority from this plaintiff to do any improper or disnonest act. They were now discussing the question as to whether 2 peincips} ‘was to be made responsibie ior actions which were to reflect on his case, and which were done by some one who never had authority from him to do Me sort of act, . judge Shipman said he thought the question a m rela- sented to him now was different irom thi v te Mr. von to the declarations made by Mr. Tu 7 Se a es Hart. He was reluctant to admit the declarations of counsel made to eaeh other in the progress of a jou admitting the evi- dence. The offer involved . A CRIME AGAINST THE LAW oie nee =f New oe It — Proposition in- @ turpitude of counsel. As at present advised he should exeinde the question. ® Counsel for defendant excepted. Judge Shipman—Mr, O’Conor, yon had better state on the minutes what you offer to prove. Mr. O’Conor—The object is to show by this wit- ness that Mr. Tucker applied to her to become & witness on his side of the case, stating that if she did they were sure to win; that he would not say unything more then, because, being counsel, it would not be SAFE OR PROPER}; pas Wh if she was willing to become a.witness he would SEND A FRIEND TO HER, the business with her, that she would prefit by the testimony, and receive VALUE OR Mi Offered to show by this witness, As stated above thia offer was ruled out, and Mr, O’Oonor otaiee. saying tl if the case ever went to the Supreme Court it might be well to have the exception noted. TESTIMONY OF B, G. COOK. Edward G. Cook, paying teller Mechanics’ National Bank, was called for the defendant; and, a bundle of rs having been exhibited to him, he stated that the signa- tures to them were, in his judgment, those of Madame Jumel. The witness on cross-examination said he judged that the body of some of the checks, signed by Madame Jumel, appeared to be im the handwriting of Mr. Nelson Chase. Mr. Cook was called a little out of order during the examination of Mrs. Tranckell, 60 a8 to dis- pense h hie attendance and enable him to pro- ceed to th si Wa oi XAMINATION OF MRS, TRANCKELL. ‘The cross-examination of Mrs. Tranckell was taken up after receas and largely directed to in- quiries as te the length of time she had resided at articular picen and as to how long she had ved np at the Red House, near the Jumel man- sion. She testified as to certain entries in the family Bible of her family. The letters and bapers that witness had produced she had found in @ bag, im an old trunk that belonged te her mother; she remembered distinctly finding the letters from her sister; Mrs. Chase had seen that bag long before she gave the letters out of it to Mr. O’Conor, when he called upon her; had looked over the contents of the bag fourteen or fifteen years ago, and had looked over them be- fore the trial of the will suit; Jonathan Clarke was the second husband of Phoebe Bowen ; did not read his examination before the Town Council of Provi- dence, but heard iv referred to in Vourt on the trial of this case; 1 sold my interest to Mr. Chase; Ihave no interest in this suit now; I got $10,000 for my share; our family got $40,000; Mr. Chase has got no mortgage; he, I suppose, holds a judgment against me yet for $10,000; he made a release on the house; I saw the release; when it was given to us we requested Mr. Chase to riya the release, and he did it; Mr. Chase has paid the interest on the mortgage ; we go to Mr. Wetmore and he pays the taxes; I never said to Mr. Chase that he misrepresented the value of the property; I do not recollect saying to Mr, Chase that we did not have enough fer the property; we had been tor- mented for two years, day and night, by a foolish rei op and it was that person, and not we, who said that we did not get enough for the property; me had never thought of it until it was promptec us. Q. Who was that foolish lawyer? A. They call him the Count Johannes. (Great laughter.) At the time of Madame Jumel’s death I calied at the mansion, but the servant said I could not be ad- mitted then; I attended the funeral; saw Mr. Chase after that, late in the Summer or early Fall, at his office, and finally closed the matter at Mr. Wetmore’s oftice; Mr. Wetmore never made any bill against me. Re-direct—You (Mr. O’Conor) never called on me about a bag holding papers; you called on me to know if I had any yore about the pedigree of our family ; you never had any knowledge of any bag; Mrs. Dunning had a mortgage en my house; i bought it from her; Mr. Chase has paid the inter- est; Mr. William ©. Wetmore acts as my agent, LETTERS FROM MME. JUMEL. Mr. 0’Conor read in evidence a number of papers from Mme. Jumel to Mr. and Mrs. Perry, of Bor- deaux, father of Mr. Paul R. G. Perry. Mr. Paul R, G, Perry is the husband of Miss Eliza Jumel Chase, and the letters expressed the intention of making a pears for that lady, (he case was adjourned till to-day. in the a witness IMPORTANT LEGAL QUESTION. A Sheriff's Seizure—Right of a Member of a Firm te Deed Away the Property of the Firm—Important Question of Law Practice—The Seizure Declared Tm 2. A case came up yesterday in the Superior Court, Special Term, before Judge Barbour, in which it appeared that one Herman Victor not long since purchased some laces, of the alleged value of $60,000, of A, Zerbau & Co., of this city. In Decem~ ber, 1871, Andrew Zerbau, of Nottingham, Eng- land, and since then one of the partners of A. Zer- bau & Co., took benefit of the Bankruptcy act and compromised with his creditors. To secure pay- meuts of the instalments due on the compromise he executed to trustees in Nottingham a deed of trust, in which it was stipulated that, in default of making these payments, they could make seizure of any property. of his to make good the indebtedness, The trustees were empowered by this deed to appoint an attorney to exercise ail the rights appertaining to the deed in the United States. Subsequent; r. Zerbau formed a part- nership with Mr. Schilling, under the firm name of A. Zerbau & Co. Mr. Schilling, as claimed in the existence of this deed, and sold the laces in ques- tion te Mr. Victor on the company account, the purchaser also being ignorant of the existence of this deed. In default of paym upon the compromise by Mr. ir r. A. Lahay, the attorney dda by instituted proceedings for me eye yg the recovery of the goods, and upen these pro- eeedings the Sheriff levied upon them. A motion was made in this Court yesterday toset aside these roceedings. For the motion it was urged that Mr. hay’s proceedings were irregular, inasmuch as, being an psraroay he sued in his own name, instead of that of his principals. It was also claimed that his affidavit was defective in having merely described the deed of trust on which the sult Was based, instead of setting it forth in full, and further, that the undertaking was defectivi inasmuch as it limited the Lt! he of the plaints! bondsman to the prosecution ef the suit, instead of leaving the abil a Es In opposition to this it was insisted that by accepting the sureties the defendant had waived all objections to the plain- i er ait oreln nes, . Mee! ins lain roperly brough' e action. Jus Barbour overruled the points taken on behalf of the plaintiff, and sustained the defendant by order- ing that the plaintiff's proceedings be vacated as illegal and void, BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS. Decisions. By Judge Barrett. West Side Bank vs. Thomas Keech et al.—Motion gianted, with $10 costs. Penfield et al. vs. Edward D. James ct al.—Motion denied, with $10 costs, but without prejudice. Kilpatrick vs. Beebe.—Motion nted. Booth et al. vs. O’Brien.—Moti rentes upon ent of $15 costa upon ente: judgment and 10 costs of this motion witht ve days from entry and service of this order. Answer te be served within a like time and caused to ve placed on the next Special Circuit calendar. The People ex rel. Benjamin P. Finnetl vs. Amert- ee motion for 8 mandamus must jenied. . Wakeman vs. Stoughton et al.—Motion denied, without costs. Hills et al. vs. Same.—Metion fer judgment on ac- count of the frivolousness of the answer granted, with $10 costs, Johnson vs. Davis.—Motion denied, with $10 costs. By Judge Brady. In the Matter of William Mela and Selomon Mela.—The application cannot be sustained. The remedy is by action to set aside discharge en ac- count of — : polls iy Jus graham. Marcus Evarts we Hectic Evarts.—Report con- irmed and diverce granted. ae See" SUPER, COURT—SPECIAL TERM, Decisions. By Judge Barlow. Allemania Fire Tusurance Company v4. Harrison Prindie et al.—Order for com! ns Reed vs. Brunner.—Injunction modified, &a Moran vs. Martin, Jr.—Order granted. vs. Victor.—Order vacating proceed- ings, &c. Winston va. English.—Order granted. Stilwell et al. vs. McCabe.—Same, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions. Ju Loew. By Judge Q Wiedner vs. Baiser.—Order granted. - In the Matter of the Application of Adna C, Porter .— tion granted. *tMeclee rear ve. Louis Burkart.—Judgment of divorce granted. this motion vs. Rosenthal.—I think shania be dented, but, under the circumstances, t costs. Whhicnt vs. Mi —Motion granted. man vs. Gleason.—Same. jun Kerrold va, Gobetz.—Order granted. De Graf vs. Byxir.—Application granted, COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. Damon and Py Before Recorder Hackett. At the opening of the Court veaterday Mr. Hom rt. ———apewie me! ¢ alled the attention of His Honor to the case of Edward Cahill, who was convicted of larceny mainly upon the fact that the complainant’s hat was found on his head, and that the prisoner's hat was picked up at the scene of the theft. The coun- sel produced the brother of the convicted prisoner, Jeremiah Cahill, whom he wished to surrender, Edward having testified on Monday that Jeremiah gave him the hat. The Recorder directed him to be committed, and suggested tbat the complainant should before the Grand Jury and make a new complain Discharge of the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury came into Court at noon with @nother bundle of indictments and the foremap announced that they had completed their labors, His Honor having been informed by Assistant District Attorney Russell that the Grand Jury had found 300 indictments said in discharging them that it was the most extraordinary labor ever com- mitted to or performed by any Grand Jury within his recollection, The prisomers were arraigned for plea, and, as will be seen by our report, a number of them pleaded guilty and were sentenced by the Recorder without unnecessary delay, thus saving almost three days, which would have been spent in trying these cases. A Large Batch of Prisoners Plead Guilty to Burglary, Larceny and Assault and Battery, and Are Sent to the State Prison and Penitentiary. William Reilly pleaded guilty to an attempt at burglary in the third degree, the allegation being that on the 29th of December he broke into the grocery store of George Lubken, 18 South Fifth ave- nue. He stole an umbrella and a few cakes of soap. Reyly was pent to the State Prison for two years: and fix months. Owen McCauliffe pleaded guilty to committing an assault and ind Bi aed Henry N. Kelly, on the 25th of December. ie sentence imposed was one year’s imprigonment in the Penitentiary, John Benson, who cut Mary Leonard in the tace on the llth of January, pleaded ger to assault and battery, and was sent to the Penitentiary for ix months. John O'Keefe, Walter Moore and Nicholas Lang- ton, youths, pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree. On the ee of the 11th inst, they effected an entrance into the cigar factory of erick Buchholtz,\34 West Forty-second street, and stole $192 worth Ofcigars. These prisoners were each sent to the Penitentiary for four years, John Lyons, who, on the 14th of this month, stole aring, worth $2, from Daniel Kennedy, pleaded guilty to petty larceny. | His, Honor sent Lyons to he Island for six months, The same punishment was inflicted upon Thomas Jackson, who wags charged with stealing $28 worth of clothing from Peter Kuhn on the 12th o: December, John Morse and Lilian Hallis pleaded ari to stealing clothing and money proupting | $71 on the 8th inst., the property of Geo! '. Brisco. They were each sent to the State Prison for three years, George Moore and William Jones were indicted for Leia on the 11th inst. three bonnets, worth $55, owned by Margaret J. Lyons. Jones pleaded guilty toan attempt at grand larceny, and was feat ao the State Prison for two years and six months. Abel Manuel and Nicholas George pieaded guilty to an assault and battery, committed upon Robert Stuart on the 10th inst., and were sentenced to the Penitentiary for one year. William Stuart, who was indicted for stealing over- coats and pantaloons valued at $50 from the dwell- ing house of Robert Harrison, No. 67 Macdougal street, on the 11th of this month, pleaded guilty to an attempt to commit that offence. The sentence imposed was two years and six months in the State Prison. John Elmore, jointly indicted with Thomas Keenan and James Elmore for stealing @ horse valued at $125, the property of bet & Bleck, te guilty and was senf to the Penitentiary lor twe years and six months. Frank Cady pleaded guilty to an attempt at rand larceny, the indictment charging that on he 18th of January he stole half a chest of tea from the sidewalk of 401 Water street. Two years and six months in the State Prison was the pun- ishment inflicted. John Harrison, who attempted to perpetrate an indecent assault upon Amanda Price on the 16th inst., pleaded guilty to assault and battery, aud was sent to the Penitentiary for one year, A Daring Robbery in Rivington Street— The Highwayman Seut to the State Prison for Ten Years. ‘The first case called to the attention of the jury was an indictment against Samuel Naloney, alias Stephen H. Maloney, for robbery in the first de- gree. The evidence adduced by the prosecution was that Wilitam Feldman, employed by Hirscham and Edwin Einstein, cigar manufacturers, 332, 334 and 336 Rivington street, on the 16th of De- cember drew from the Importers and Traders’ Bank $4,175 in srpenbecks. about moon, and while walking rly | eds foe street saw three men on the sidewalk, one of whom threw red pepper in his eyes. bye then grappled for the money, which was wrapped in a newspaper. One of the pe fired a shot, and he (Mr. Feldman) fired his pistol. noise attracted two men im the tobacce tory, who came out and gathered up the niomey, which amounted to $1,340, Feldman having a tag the balaace in the conflict with the robbers, The complainant positively identified Maloncy as the man who threw the pepper in his eyes. Hary 4. Brand, the keeper of a lager beer saloon in Rivington street, testified that on the day in question, about half-past eleven o'clock, she saw the prisoner and a number of men in the saloon, whose movements attracted her attention. When Maloney was arrested, three days after, Mrs. Brand went to the station house to see him. She Was not sure about his identity at first, but sev- eral days after she said he was the man who was im her saloon. The defence called Mrs. Mary Mc- Carty, who saw the robbery from her window and swore that Maloney was not one of the three men who eommitted the offence. Witness also teatified that Maloney came into White’s saloon, cerner ot First avenue and Twenty-third street, on Monday, the 16th ef December, at hali-past cleven o'clock, and remained an hour. Colonel Spencer made am able ech In defence of the prisoner, and was followed by District At- torney Russell, who thoroughly ventilatea the tes- timiny which was given to establish the alibi. The jury, after deliberating # few mements, rendereda verdict of guilty, ang the Recorder sentenced loney to the State on for the term of ten years, It 1s probable that the January term will be con- cluded to-day or Thursday, as the February term opens next Monday. JEFFERSON MARKET POLICE COURT. False Pretences. Mary Holcomb, a lady engaged in the business of renting aad sub-letting furnished houses, was charged by Anna Coleman, of 123 Greene street, with (alse pretences in selling certain furniture, fixtures and other articles, Bhisp ler | them to jor be her property and obtaining there! ¢ sum of $1,300 from the complainant, having previously sold the same to anether party. Mary denied the charge, and went on to explain at some length, through her counsel, but. was held in the sum 0! $2,500 to auswer. Grand Larceny. A colored woman, with the high-sounding name of Georgiana Africanus, complained of Joha Thomp- son, of 200 South Fifth avenue, for stealing her trunk, containing Cider g J to the value of $30. Thompson was committed in default ef $1,000 bail to answer. A boy named Thomas Goss was arraigned on charge of stealing a robe from the sieigh of Mrs. Fife, of Lexington avenue. The property waa found in bis possession aud he was locked up to an- swer, COURT CALENOARS—THIS DAY, SupreMg Court--Crecerr—Tatat TERM-—Part 1—~ Held by Judge Fanctier.—Nos. 81%, 483, bP) 831, 1821, 734, 757, 806, 899, 909, 979, 981, 983, 985, 987, 993, 996,997, 990, 1007.’ Part 2—Held by Judge Vap Bruat.—Nos. 146, 1822, 672, 1816, 874, 1086}, 060, 1716, 18, 046, 960, 966, 962, 960, 902, 900, 998, 998, 200°, SUPREME CovRT—CHAmBens—Held by Judge Bar- Tett.—Nos. 106, 160, 177, 17%, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 193, 211 , 278, 283. Count oF Sonor PLeAS—TriaL TRRM—Part 1— Held by Judge Robinson.—Nos. 1696, 2700, 129, 112434, 866, 69, 1366, 68, 1608, 1061, 1156, 374, 2495, 1721, 763, 606, 2807, 1247, 1864, 1303, 1685, 612, 1049, 612, 613, 16 Joos, 1644, 611, $046, 70, 60, 1709, 164, 328, 1962, 200, 1256, 994, '1509, uit COURT OF APPEALS. Deeisi ay ALBANY, Jan. 28, 1873. Re following decisions have been rendered in the Court of Appeals :— Judgment sMrmed, with costs—Cook vs. State Natienal Bank, Livingston vs. Greem, Strong vs. Woodward Steam Pump Manufacturing Cempany, ee are and new trial granted— Judgment reversed Joslyn vs. Cowel. ‘Judgment reversed, with costs, &c.—Gilbert and vs. Knox. American Bible Socte! Ordered that remittt berecalled and amended,. 80 a8 to state facts that orders were affirmed by stipulation instead of argument. In the matters of Gown Sateen ee and Ho; Orders acirie , with costa—In the matter of De- laney to vacate an assessment; People ex rele Kingsland vs. Palmer, Pulver vs. Harris. ‘Cause ordered to be put in its proper place in the — irs v8. Wheeler. wep val atsmiisends with costa of appeal to time of mating motion, and $10 costs of motiou.—Mc~ Anaily vs, Mullen, Motions denied, with $10 costs—Browa vs. Leigh in the matter of Bossiord to vacate an assessments Feu le ex rel. Lawyer vs. Assessors of the Towik of Springport. dation granted, with $10 costs—People on re Commissioners of Highways of tae Town of tison, er Day Ca re ALBANY, Jan. 28, 1873. ‘The following ia the Court of Aj cale! for January 20:—Nom. 13, 40, 4 4 ry hy ere tay ‘