The New York Herald Newspaper, January 30, 1873, Page 8

THE COURTS THE TWEED TRIAL. All the Testimony In—Final Objection to Secon- @ary Evidence Overruled—Summing Up of Counsel—Addresses by Mr. Fullerton for ‘the Defence and Mr. Peckham for the Prosecution—The Summing Up by Counsel on Either Side to Close To-Day and the Case To Be Left to the Court and Jury. THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE, Farther Testimony for the Defence—The _ King Henry Book Again—Mr. Chase on the Stand—Another Leaf from Fam- ily History—A New Point of Law on the Admissibil- ity of Evidence, IN THE OTHER COURTS. fot Summaries—Decisions—Trial, Convictions and Sentences in the General Sessions. BUSINESS ‘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. The examination of Mr. Chase, the defendant, occupied nearly the whole of the @ay, and had not concluded when the Court rose. The testimony of Mr. Cnase was mainly directed ‘to showing the terms of intimacy upon which his family were with Mr. and Madame Jumel. The trial will be resumed to-day. ‘ Yesterday Judge Blatchford rendered a decision tm the case of William E. Brockway, a bankrupt. The discharge of Brockway was opposed by a wreditor, on the ground that he did not keep Proper books of account, and that a check book ‘which was shown to be his had the words on the stubb, “paid, $1,587 76,” the check being appa- rently torn off at the stubb, Counsel for the ereditor urged that such a check was not shown to ‘be part of the check book, Judge Blatchford de- cided to admit the check as having been torn from the book. Yesterday Thomas Donohoe was discharged on ‘his own recognizance by Commissioner Shields, to answer a charge of having obstructed Deputy | that could be it him, aided ‘Attorney General ep tnsablant trials counacl in the State, superadded by an“ EXCITED AND A TYRANNICAL PUBLIC PRESS, and urged on by an unreasonable public opinion. Nothing had been left undone or said that could prsaaice the case of the defendant and produce is conviction, He did not believe there was a pa ‘allel in the history of litigations to this. They new prolessedly weil how t! ress had teemed with the most inflammable articles on this subject, and the defendant's alleged offence had been pro- claimed on the highways and house wie And since this very trial had commenced there had been a studied effort on the part of those who conduct the public press to produce such a state of feeling, and-an attempt was made to intimidate the jurors he was ad- dressing, to prevent the acquittal of the de- fendant at their hands, which might be expected irom the testimony given on the trial in this case. He begged to call their attention and the attention of the Court to what been sent forth from the press that mornin, e ink was not yet dry upon an article which in his judgment ought to ject him who wrote it and lilm who sent it forth te the world to a punishment far severer than that which the worst enemy of Mr. Tweed would visit on him, We live in a country of laws, where courts are administered for the purpose of administering the law, We organize juries and select men from the body of the people who are honest and intelligent and who, under the solemnity of an oath, are to render a. verdict according to the evidence im the case, They can submit properly to no _ other influence; they can listen to no other argument save such as is produced here ; and it was a violation of the law and a brutality and an indecency for any other person outside the walls of the Court to attempt to influence the jury empanelied to try this case. (Mr. Fullerton was about to read an editorial arti- cle published in one of yesterday morning’s papers, when he was interrupted.) Mr. Tremain—I1 do not object. Idesire the fullest latitude relative to any attempt to influence the result of this trial, and I only desire to say that if my friend reads the article to which he refers I shall claim, as a matter of justice, the right to read from another article or two, and to comment upon them, Mr, Futlerton—I have no objection to your read- ing anything you like on this subject, THE COURT HAS A WORD TO SAY, “Judge —I think it is my duty to say a word on this subject. 1 must assume that this jury, under the instructions | have given, have not read any of these articles to which you allude on either side. I have myselfseen articles om both sides of the question involved here of a character that ought never to have been published. Iam not here, however, to allow this case to go to the jury upon newspaper articles at all, or to allow counsel on either side to make any allusion or read or re- fer to them for any, purpose, What is to be sub- mitted to the jury is the evidence taken in this Court—not what this manor that man may have said out of Court, or what appeared in the public print, The case must be decided on the evidence alone, and counsel will refrain, therefore, on beth rer from any further allusion to these newspaper articles, Mr. Fullerton continued, saying that the whole case arese out of the act of 1870, the fourth section of which directed the auditing of certain county liabilities, It was for a violation of that fourth sec- tien that the defendamts were indicted. They are charged with having certified false bills and claims, knowiag them to be so. Before they could cenvict the defendant they must find out what he did under the law and what were his motives, Unless he erred with deliberate intent he was entitled to an equittal at their hands, It required some courage to say that, considering the tide of prejudice and passion that has been flewing over the country for the past fifteen months, but he hoped before he sat down to establish the innocence of the accused, Mr. Fullerton continued :—The case arose under the law of 1870, imposing on certain parties the duty of auditing, and the indictment charges wil ful und corrupt violation of that duty, But, unless the jury were conscientiously satistied that there bound Marshal Turney while making a seizure under a bankruptcy process in Westchester county. ‘The old‘suit of William Hildebrand against Wm. B. Ogden was called up for trial yesterday before Judge Van Brunt, holding Supreme Court Circuit, but was dismissed, on the ground that the action Was not properly brought. ‘The suit was brought | nm an agreement to pay $20,000 in money. Plain- | tif’s counsel stated, in opening the case, that a former lawyer of the plaintiff had been given bonds | in settlement of the agreement, but returned them | Subsequently to the plaintit. Judge Van Brunt held that this was a satisfaction of the agreement, and that to recover possession of the bonds the ac- tion must be brought in another form, The long protracted trial of the People of the State of New York against William M. Tweed is nearing a close. Yesterday counsel for the defence said they would net put further testimony in. Mr. Field at the same time moved that all the secon- Gary evidence put in, and previously objected to, be struck out, This the Court overruled. Mr. Fallerton then proceeded with one branch of the summing up tor the defence. He was followed by Mr. Peckham, for the prosecution. To-day two counsel will conclude the summing up—one on each side; this will consume the day. To-morrow Judge Davis will charge the jury, and with that body the result will then rest. THE TWEED TRIAL. Final Objection to Secondary Evidence on Vouchers, &c., Overruled=The Sum- ming Up—Addresses to the Jary by Mr. Fullerton, for the Defence, and Mr. Peckham, tor the Prosecution—The Case to be Left With the Court and Jury To-day. There was a very large attendance of anxious lis- teners to the closing proceedings in the protracted Tweed trial yesterday. The audiences which have filled the court room from day to day since the opening of the case are not of that class which are usually attracted by triais for murder or by those cases wherein the disclosures made by the wit- messes cater to the morbid longings and tastes of the general public. On the contrary the audiences at the Tweed trial are of the higher and wealthier classes of the community, who teel an interest in the cood fame of our city and its municipal govern- ment. Mayor Hall's trial on the same indictment Was in this respect a counterpart of the present | trial. The defendant has held for years a promi- nent attitude, not only in our municipal councils, | but in the legisiative councils of the city and State, | and, as might be expected, it was from that class | whose interests are most deeply involved in city | and State legislation the audiences on the | trial of the big indictment against Tweed are composed, The trial has been ably con- ducted throughout, although from the nature ofthe testimony, chiefly confined to figures and Milustrations of the manner of carrying on otlice work in the Comptrolier’s Department, there ap- Peared on the surface but little to enlist the deep attention with which the case has been watched from the beginning to now almost the end. The efforts of counsel in the forensic sinale, upou which to a great extent they must depend for conviction | Or acquittal, no doubt will, as yesterday thus far proved, well repay a visit to the court foom. Two speeches were made yesterd but | the closing arguments for and against, whiqy will | be made to-day, are left to the best tried and trusted champions for the people and the defenc These gentlemen will occupy the whole of to-day and to-morrow Judge Davis will charge the jury, aud then—we shall see what we shall see. AT THE OPENING OF THE COURT of Oyer and Terminer yesterday there was the | ‘sual rush for seats and for what standing room the officials of the Court permitted. itis enough | to say that every availabie spot was occupied | within and without the bar. Judge Davis, as | usual, was prompt in his attendance. Counsel on | both sides were also on hand. Mr. Tweed, upon | ‘whom the anxiety of such a trial might be supposed to tell somewhat, was, to outward appearance, all himself. He listened with quiet attention to the | opening address of his counsel, not betraying the Flightcet emotion even wheu Fullerten’s invective | Against Garvey was felt by every other person in the conrt room. General Tweed and young Dick | were, as usual, present, attentive listeners to all | that was said for and against their father ; but they, | too, inade no sign betraying consciousness of how | Much they, in common with the defendant himself, had at stake in the result, FINAL OBJECTION TO SECONDARY EVIDENCE. Mr. Field opened the proceedings of the day by #ising and addressing tie Court, He said that the Gefence had concluded not to trouble the Court with any further evidence for the detence, He should move, hewever, to tiave ail secondary evi- @ence in regard to warrants, bill vouche nd cer- dificates produced during th» trial, atric ken skid avis overruled the motion, to which the @elence took exception. SUMMING UP BY JUDGE FULLERTON, Mr. Fullerten then rose and proceeded to ad- Gress the jury on behalf of the defendant. fie sant that he would be followed, in the interest of the defendant, by associate counsel, who would com, letely exhaust all the issues in the case, and bis ity, therefore, would be rather suggestive than otherwise, He supposed that after this long and tedious trial they had seen the head and iront ot | of bills), evidence not only a violation, but a wilful violation, the was entitied to a verdict at their hands, a# an officer in the Comptrolier’s office by law with power to audit the county xercised that power after passage | | 3, and he of the law of 1870, a8 was proved by his name, James Watson, on the very vouchers produced, certifying that he had audited the bills, To ascer- in the meaning of the word auditit would be necessary to look to contemporaneous legislation, and thus ascertain the nature of the duties im- posed by the Law of 1870. Counsel read the resolution passed by the Board of Audit, the Mayor, Comptroller and defendant, when they organized, and insisted that it was proof of an honest intention to do their duty. Judge Potter delivered an opinion, in which he held that it was a proof of guilt, of intention not to do their duty; but the learned Judge on the Bench (Judge Davis) differed from Judge Potter and held a different opinion, Thus it appeared that judges, as well as doctors, sometimes differ, The Legislature provided that the accounts of counties should be settled, examined and allowed by the Supervisors; but, speaking of town ac- counts, Says merely that they shall audit, which showed that 1t was merely a ministerial act that was required of them, for examination was re- quired in one case and not in the other. The Legislature passed a bill that all expenses incurred in the prosecutions by the Attorney General and Charles O’Conor should be audited and paid by the Comptroller on the certificate of the Attorney General and Mr. O’Conor; but it was clear that the Comptroller had nothing to do but pay when the certificate came before them. When Mayor Hall, the Comptroiler and the defendant ated @ Board of Audit in 1870 they natur- ally looked to the Law of 1867, which ated the original Board of Audit, to construe the act of 1870. The power of examuning and swearing witnesses was not implied in the act of 1870, which simply di- rected taem to audit. When the defendants entered upon their duties, suppose they went about and visited the armories, how could they tell whether the work was done or net for which payment was claimed * How could they tell the bills were cor- rect? They were not mechanics. ‘They bad no power to summon or swear witnesses; they had no power to spend a dollar in investigating; they were simply directed to audit. When they satdown in the Comptroller’s office to construe the act of 1870 they had in the office James Watson, a man of large experience in public affairs aad then discharging the duties of County Auditor, @ man enjoying the confidence of tne Comptroller, & man supposed to be the best on the island for judging of the amount of work done for the city. What did they do? What could they do? The: naturally turned to Watson, and by resolution di- rected him to collect and lay before them for sig- nature and audit the claims before the Supervisors, But they did not bind themselves not to audit after Watson had collected the bills; on the contrary, they reserved the power todo it. The presump- t ys that eaere ofMicer did his duty. v ed that Watson was looking up the 5 to lay them befere the Board. The bills them- selves, on the face of them (hands the jury a bundle by alteration of figures, that somebody had been auditing fo the best of his abil- ity. Noevidence whatever was produced that the Board did not perform their duty, even in the sense explained by the prosecution. Garvey and Keyser never were before them, but there was no ne ity for that. If they called Garvey before them they would be no wiser, for Garvey would say they w correct as fast as the Attorney General and counsel for the prosecution could draw up am- davits. They would naturally preter trusting the judgment of Watson. There was no reliabie evi- dence that they ald not meet a thousand times when Keyser and Ingersoll were not the ‘i was no reason in the world why the Boar should not place entire confidence in James Wat- son, They were not then aware of his infamy and wit, and it was the easiest thing in the world for 1m to deceive them, and he did deceive them. They could turn to no more reliable man than Watson to ascertain what they could not ascer- tuin—the amount due on the bills—that they might audit them, I beg at your hands, then, a fair and patient hearing. In order to get at the intent of these gentlemen charged with auditing these bills against the county of New York, we must look to contemporaneous legislation to learn the construction which they naturally and properly pon the law, and with what intention oceeded to discharge their duties. When appointing the Board of Audit was passed e Was @ Board of Supervisors of the county of ew York. The duty of the Board was to audit, i bills against the count 1 after the actof 1870 was Hl your atten- That the Board at ot their p passed. tion to of of Audit did all they had po: there is no evidence to show that they did n idit the bills before them in the very sense in which the prosecution uses that term. I repeat, there is no satisfactory evidence before you that they did not audit the bills in the sense used hy the | prosecution in this case, ‘Third—There is no re- liable evidence in the case that Tweed ‘ticipated ingetting up these alleged false bills or ever shared Knowingly in their proceeds. It is charged that this Board never m on the p t. This is @ gratuitous charge rt of counss How does he know that? the fact by this resolution that they me On that day they passed this reso- that was the at; lution. Connsel say but there is no evi have failed to prove it, before that Board. Da Gar But doe that f © testimony that they did not me and yet others be in entire ignor- ance of it. 8 Rot hecessary that these men should go before the Board tor them to bills. No, the erred to re: tion and reports they received from Watson, tii County Auditor specially appointed for that pur- pose. You know enougii of Garvey to know that he would not hesitate inomeut to swear to the correctness of his They = ther fore relied Spon Watson representations. after the 5th May, and that they did net do every- thing in their power to ascertain whether the bills were correct or not. Alter clothing Watson with They met and Wat- amined bills—that he made inquiries with regard to them, and that he found that the work was done and the material charged all furnished. It was not to be wondered at that, in this great city, with the im- mense amount of labor periormed in it—the wor done and the number of people employed and the extensive character of the werk done—it is no wonder that Watsen could deceive the Board with regard to these bills, Not at all. And,éhen, remem- ber the position of the three auditors, When these power, they relied upon him. son came before them and stated that he * Mr, Tweed’s ovending. They had seen eyerything bills Were presented for audit Mr. Tweed Was Commissioner of Public Works; bis wl office. ‘. ‘was Mayor of in onerous duties, and Mr. Co! was lal ley of the city, with all his time occt It might have been wrong for them to ted office, but still, through all this, we must look at the intent of these parties in order to deter- mine whether they were simply negligent, or, knowing, guilty or crime. I will our attention to the fact that Andrew J. Garvey, in addition to his having robbed the city, HAS COMMITTED PERJURY HERE, And by and by I will ask you to disregard his tes- timony altogether. If you take the testimony and read it carelully through you will see that before he made out these’seven spurious bills he had, in fact, received every dollar coming to him, by his own calculation; every dollar betore he sat down at his own firesiae, among Ins own family, surrounded by his wife and children to make out these seven spurious bills to plunder the city he had in his poenss: or in his bank account every’ dollar that ‘he city owed him. ‘This is the man that comes on the stand and whines out this miserable, lying, false excuse, that he had to become an instrument in the hands of Watson to commit fraud and to plunder the city because they owed him @ large amount of money that he could not get from them; that his hand was in the lion’s mouth and he could not extract it; that he was ina vice and had no choice. You will see as we proceed, gentlemen, that this is a lying excuse—the last resource of an abandoned man, Why did he not go to Mr. Tweed or to Mr. Hall or to Mr, Connolly and represent his case—that he had done work for which the city owed him money, and that he wanted them to audit his bill, so that he might get his money? No, he did not do _ this, but he was every day closeted with Watson. ‘They got the certificates and vouchers and manu- factured them to suit their purpose. It is most ex- traordinary that the man who says he was in straitened circuinstances for want of money which was due to him for work done for the city should commit a crime rather than go to the men whom the Legislature had clothed with power to audit his bills, ana get them to audit his bills that he might get paid what was due him. There was proof that Watson had had interviews with Gar- vey in relation to the claims ot the latter, The bills themselves on their face showed, by certain alterations, that somebody had discharged the duty of audit. There was no proof that the Board of Audit nad not met hundreds of times and examined the bills ‘submitted to them, That Garvey and Keyser had not appeared belore the Board is no proof that the Board did not meet. ‘That the members of the Board were deceived by Watson about the bills is not to be y | thave met a thousand times | There is no reliable evidence that they dia.not meet | | | | wondered at. They had other duties of vital im- portance to the community to perform, and it was inevitable that they should place dependence upon Watson, whose duty it was to audit as well as theirs, and who had more experience, evidence that Mr. Tweed had no connection what- ever with the Davidson or Keyser claims. ‘True, the Garvey claims were fraudulent, but Tweed had nothing to do with their getting up, Even Garvey himseli dare not say that he had any conversation with Tweed about the claims. Seeing Garvey on the stand they knew that he would leave nothing undone to COMPASS THE RUIN of the defendant, Cea had time to make out that, and in making out his fraudulent claims he was acting under compulsion, had his hand in the lion's mouth, &c,; but the eflort conspicuously failed. Watsen, he said, came to him to inquire about his claims, and he (Garvey), in his own words, “told him what was coming.”” And what was coming ¢ Undoubtedly the flood of fraudulent bills against the city, At that time likely the con- spiracy to defraud was formed, ana Garvey after- wards broached the matter to Woodward. Counsel here read a portion of Garvey’s evidence in regard to the manner in which he made out his bills, and urged that it clearly showed that Garvey could have got his own without defrauding the city, If he was not the originator of the conspiracy, he was, on his own showing, a willing participator in it, He was not able, though afforded the fallest opportunity, to vindicate himself; but he was not able to mention a word of re- maonstrance ever uttered against the frauds, But, gentlemen, the prosecution saw that to convict Mr. Tweed they must connect him wth the frauds, Well, how was that connection to be establishedy Why, of course, by Garvey. There ‘was no pretence that In 1870 there was any connec- tion established between Tweed and Garvey, The prosecution had to go back to 1867 to establish that connection. Now what was Garvey evidence? He told you that he went to Tweed ait@r the work was done and asked him “how he should made out the bills.”” So that it Would appear that on his own shone it was he whe sought to corrupt Tweed. ut the WHOLE STORY WAS IMPROBABL and the jury would have to disbelieve it. His (Garvey’s) statements about the matter were ut- terly inconsistent. He was unable to show how the alleged fifteen per cent was added, though he got the opportunity to do so on the stand. His attention was called to the par- titular items in the bulls, but he could give no explanation. Counsel here referred to the transaction about the bill for $60,000 for work done on Mr, Tweed's house in Greenwich, and which Garvey swore he aiterwards got out of the city by a fraudulent bill. Garvey made out two bills for that work—one for $69,000 and the other for some $60,000 odd—in order, as he said, to be “business-like.” But the jury would recollect his contusion, how he was asked to show on any item how it was added. He was asked, ‘Was it added on this item, on the prices of material, on the {oot- ing up?” and his answer was, “I can’t say.” All he could tell was, that fifteen per cent was added, and thatit went into Mr. Tweed’s pocket. ‘fo connect Tweed with some fraud of 1870, Garvey tells that he did some work for him at Greenwich; that he gave a receipt for it to Tweed; that he wasn’t aid, and that he paid himself by one of those ‘audulent bills on the county. But the DEVIL FAILS HI8 FRIENDS just at the moment they need him, and that was the case of poor Garvey. He told them he made out a bill for $69,000; that he wanted to reduce it; that he didn’t think $60,000 would look business like, and accordingly he made it $60,450, and that he gave the defendant a receipted bill for it. It was a curious thing that a man should endorse on the back of the bill before leaving his house that morning, “Copy of bill presented November 7." All the evidences were that what he called a copy of the bill was made aiter his return to Europe, and that he was qualifying himself to be a witness, The bill was paid, Garvey did not inciude it in the action which he brought against Mr. Tweed to re- cover what was due bim. Certainly, if Mr. Tweed had not paid him he wouid include the $60,000in the action. ¢ y'sstatement that Mr. Woodward took over blank certificates to be signed by the defend- ant was not discussed by connsel. Hearguea that if the defendant thus openly committed himself, why should not Garvey and Tweed mect each other? Why should net the conspirators come face to face? Why has Garvey kept outside, waiting, like a menial, while Woodward went inside? Wicked as Garvey is, he had not the courage to Jook the defendant im the face and say, “I saw you sign the certificate for my fraudulent’ bills,” and the next beet thing he could do was to convey it by innuendo. Even supposing that Garvey did go over with Woodward, an olticer whose duty it was to prepare certificates, and that the defendant did sign the certificates, and that Garvey was kept waiting outside, the inference was that Woodward said to Garvey, “You don’t go inside; YOU HAVE NOT AN HOD FACE? you spent too many nights at your home concoct- ing fraudulent bills; let me go tnside; you remain there and I will deceive ‘the old man’ and get him to sign.’ Tweed was not present when the de- posits were made in the oadway Bank: his bank book was not there when the de- posits were made; there is absolute want of evidence to connect him with any knowl- edge of the deposits or the source from which the money came. If money is found depos. ited to-day to the credit of one of the jury, which meney had been stolen, no one should conclude that the juror knew itt. There might be a reason for s a deposit, and before the case was ever the jury might be satisfied that one existed in this case, The jury would remember that Garvey told them that Mr. Tweed said he was afratd of an in- ee committee, and that Tweed said to him, “Old fellow, you'll have to come down with money to buy them up.” Very familiar with a man who used tobe kept Waiting in the outer oftice! If weed knew of the large sums deposited to his credit by Garvey and Woodward, why wouldn’t Garvey turn around and say, “Old fellow, you can come down yourself; you know these large amounts we have deposited in the bank for you.” They Knew that Tweed was afraid of an investigating committee, and what was more natural than that Watson and Garvey should keep the Knowledge of the deposits irom him, that he might have his bands free aud be adie to meet an investigation! HOW IT WAS DONE. agen deiraud and Mr. Twetd kuow nothing about t The Court here took @ recess, After Recess, Mr, Fullerton resumed his address, and said;— What does Garvey teli your That in isi he fed the country; and well he might. But why did he go? Tweee didn’t go; but Garvey leit his home ae night, crossed into the jurisd lon Of another State and passed under another name until he left for Kurope. It was bis own conscience that was his accuser, for he knew he was the guilty man, Tweed has never passed under another name, has never fed the city, although his “might” has been pub+ lished by the papers a hundred times; he is here to-day to face his accusers, and has atall times beem here, How did Garvey cate back? He came back jor, to m: accordance with what he had in a measure st lated for in the correspondence that tween himself and his brother. Aud what was he told in that interview with Mr. O’Conor? Mark you, gentlemen, that he went on that witness stand with the words his ears; for upon THE STORY HE TOLD there was to depend his own chance of liberty and of immunity from prosecution. Why, in the face of his own confession of the part he played in refer- ence to these bills, and then of the conditions un- der which he came upon this witness stand, no man should be deprived of either reputati liberty by his statements. Not even a dog in the streets should be for an hour restrained of his lib- erty upou such testimony, I will read from his tes- timony, He says:—“Mr. O’Conor told me that if I told the truth, and they were satiajled, no harm should come to me.” Of course I do not mean to impute anything improper in Mr. O’Conor’s mo- tives, nor indeed, to any of the gentlemen condueuing the other side of this case. We can well understan: that Mr. O’Conor would have nothing out the truth told, and he very properly required of a man like Garvey that they shouid be satisfied that he did tell the truth. Here, then, his protection. Garvey says he supposes “they” meant the people. Yes, the people; all the people who have met on street corners and elsewhere and have condemned Mr. Tweed. But he knew that the jury.that was to de- cide upon this case was inside this court room as Well as outside of it, He knew that there was A DESIRE TO CONVICTOMR. TWEED ofsomething; that there was a power outside of this court room that might want to make @ com- plaint bejore the Grand Jury against him, Let us see by what means and by what statements on this witness stand he has tried’ to shield himself tro harm, He has made himself guilty of damnabi rjury. Notwithstanding the proot we have be- fore us, as to the clear and distinct guarantee of immunity from prosecution made to rey, look at the testimony in which he denied strenuously that there was ay. arrangement of the kind made with anybody. Yet, when closely pressed for his answers, he .confessed that such an arrangement had been entered into with Mr. 0’Conor, reprenene ing the Attorney General, at Fort ington. ‘The counsel then read extracts from Garvey’s te: timony on these points in support of his assertions,” and continued :—He came on to this witness stand and testified as to his own fraudulent bills with the FRAUDULENT PROFITS IN HIS POCKET to the amount of half @ million dollars. But “no harm should come to him,” though by the breath of his nostrils the doors of a prison are to be opened to receive Twee: He says I will come and tell all I kuow if lam only to be spared. Gen- tlemen, you all despise a thief and a liar, but this man Garvey simks several degrees below either, as & perjurer and that loathsome thing, a public in- former, The prosecution itself, though it loves the treason, hates and despises the traitor, the mean informer, whom that great Irish lawyer, Curran, 80 eloquently denounced. Counsel then proceeded to quote authorities from the law books as to the caution with which the uncorroborated evidence of informers and accomplices should be received, Andrew J. Garvey stood alone here; he was not in any manner whatever corroborated, Strike his testimony out and there is rp leis left on which to predicate any wrong done by this de- fendant, And it would be a novel thingif it were to be left to this jury, in the nineteenth century, to convict & man, to sacrifice his reputation and his libarty, on the unsupported evidence of an informer. MR. PECKHAM, for the Lasspyidypeer then arose to address the jury, and said that in opening this case he had said that nothing would please him more than to find before its close that the defence had been able to present such acontroversion of the facts presented on the side of the people as to warrant the jury inacquitting the defendant. But he now felt compelled to say that he felt both surprise and regret to find that in a case which had taken the past two weeks to pre- sent before the jury the defence had not brought forward anything to controvert these charges nor ie testimony by which they were supported. He wid not propose to ask the juryto pay any atten- tion to outside matters, to eloquence of counsel or to rulings of Judges, nor to the denunciation by a famous Irish counsel of informers who are the tools, in many cases, of a system of political op- pression. There were but two questions here to which he would ask the attention of the jury, and they were as to whether or not this defendant had been guilty as a public auditing officer of neglect to audit certain accounts, or whether or not he had made a fraudulent and corrupt use of the auditing power vested in him, He was a member and the presiding officer of this Board of Audit. When these men were entrusted with the power to audit public accounts, Laer were invested likewise with power satisfy themselves, by requirmg necessary proofs, of the correct and proper nature of the bills presented before them. But they say it was Wat- son's business to audit these bills as County Audi- tor. If they had themselves no power to audit, who conferred upon them the power to delegate the auditing power, as they claim to have done, to Watson under a resolution passed by their Board? That resolution AT THE TIME it was passed was never intended by them to have that effect. It merely “resolved” that the County Auditor be directed to collect from the several committees all bills and accounts of liabilities before them, with the amounts now due on them, together with the evidence thereon, and that “thereupon the County Auditor annex the proper vouchers, with their several blanks, for our signature and action.” Mark me— it was for “signature” first and “action” after- ward, The evidence shows that when these bills were coliectea the blanks for the certificates of ee argued that this was how the thing was carried on. Garvey, the arch-scoundrel, was oftice with Watson, ‘A y en to pieces in Watson's inner ofiic ite of audit was detached, and could cond time by affixing it to auother of oncerns, More than that, the ju) that Copeland, the man Who ex stifled that not only were the ¢ tes sometimes wanting, pat | the first page of the bilis, on which Tweed's name Was written, Wis sometimes missed, What was easter than to 1X that page to another bill and get the Comptrolier’s order and the conspirators get their money’ That was how the thing was carried on, as colinse! believed, while Mr. Tweed was as Innocent as 4 child, Why should Watson and Gar- Vey go to the trouble of ‘taking vouchers asunder and retaiuing the certificates if ali they had to do Was to go over to the defendant, if he was “in with them,” and say, “Coine, old man, sign us another certificate?” Counsel pointed out how Garvey's | bilis were all fer sums of about $40,000, and sige gested how casy it would be to alter done to ® four, and in this way also the two conspirators audit and the werrant were all filled in for the amount before they were taken te anybody to sign. Mr. Lynes says that those audit blanks and those warrants were filled up at the same time, so that it all went beiore this Poard at the same time. Now, when was this auditing dene? These papers regularly came from the supervisors ready tor the signatures of this Board, and they did nothing but sign them. But there is NO EVIDENCE to show that these bills were even in some in- stances betore them. The defence has not brought forward a single book from the Board of Audit to show that. The Clerk has testified here, and the President of that Beard, the defendant, is himself here, and they should know if there is anything in these books to show whetner the bills ever came regularly before the Board, Their clerks were clerks in the Comptroller's office, and the only paper roduced by them is headed “Comptroller's ce,” and that one which they do pro- duce in reference to this delegation of power to Watson, it appears, is the only thing there is to show tnat they ever met asa Board at all. In order to constitute a legal audit. ing of these bills witht the meaning of the law by which the Board was created there must have been a meeting of the members who composed this Board, with joint action of their minds in the ex- amination and consideration of their accounts, There is no evidence that such meetings were ever held, and in this view of the case itis not necessary that you find any corrupt motive or any co of wrong-doing beyond the mere fact that the, id SIGNED AND PASSED BILLS, without joint action of any kind, so as to constitute & proper auditing of the bills as required by law. The next point to which I ask your attention is to whether he has wrongfully used er abused his power as an auditing oilicer, and with a corrupt motive to the injury of the public interests. You have the evidence before you, which is absolutely uncontroverted by anything they have offered, that the initial step in every case that came before this Board, and which we here charge, was an act of the defendant. His signature as President written across the face of the bills was the first one ap- plied. Watson nad nothing to do with finding whether these bills were true or false, He merely audited the vouchers sent from this Board after this Board had examined and certified their correctness, Watson couldn't affix his stamp to op unless Mr, Tweed had first signed the bill, and Mr. Tweed knew that Watson merely certified by his stamp that the bill in question had received the signature of Mr. Tweed as President of the Board of Audit, and that they had come through the proper form. What do we find when Mr. Tweed wrote his name across the faces of these bills? Either that when he so certified he knew the bills to be false, or that he didn’t know anything aboutthem, We find that, upon twenty-six different occasions, when he so certified to these | bills, upon these very dates, $1,000,000, forming a PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT | or oe of these bids, goes directly into bis | pocket. Mr. Peckham then handed to the jury a number of copies of the statement of entries in the Comp- | trolier’s books and the Broadway National Bank books, and called their attention specifically to a number of them. He next cited authorities to show that no corroboration of the testimony ef ac- | complices 1s necessary so long as the jury is satis- | fied that the witness tells the truth, | He then continued to say that this fraud initiates ietaare Texeunin e my Whole reco! ne Somes here concealing Cd cree a et = ae defence VEY HAD DESERTED city and Gar’ MR. TWEED, had fled the had then turned State’s evi- wn der red. ie’ wane “crushed and sent Was deserted. He wi and Mr. Tweed refused ve him advice. Was it any he fled when he feit himself aban- ater in office, and was it viewea the evidence Storrs and alluded to the disappe: vouchers from the Comptroller's office and of deposit tickets for the Broadway Bank. He closed with an appeal to the uy to say by their verdict what is the standard in America is demanded for & man to fill high pom sin as a trusted and honored officer of the public. At four o’clock the Court adjourned till this morning. THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. The Suit of Bowen vs. Chase—Further Westimony for the Defendant—Exa- mination and Cross-Examination of Mr. Nelson Chase—A Nice Point upon the Admissibility of Evidence. 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. Mr. Hoar, Mr. Shaffer, Mr. Chatfield and Mr. Sawyer appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Charles O’Conor and Mr. J. 0. Carter for the defendant, “THE KING HENRY BOOK” AGAIN. Mr. O’Conor offered im evidence @ book from the oMce of the Secretary of State of Rhode Island, containing @ list of the names of menenrolled by Major Reuben Ballou, and signed by him. This book was laid before the jury for the purpose of enabling them to compare the writing and signa- ture in it with the entry in the “‘King Henry book,” recording the birth of the plaintif, G, W. Bowen, and which entry, it is alleged, is in the handwriting of Reuben Ballou, who 1s claimed to be the father of the plaintiff by Betsy Bowen, TESTIMONY OF MR. NELSON CHASE, Mr. Nelson Chase, the defendant, sworn. He was examined by Mr. O'Conor. He said:—I reside at Washington Heights, in the Jumel Mansion; I am informed that I was born in 1808, in the town of Duanesborough, in this State; I was brought up to the law; I completed my law studies in New York, in the office of Colonel Aaron Burr; 1 knew Stephen Jumel in his lifetime; Iwas living at the Jumel mansion at the time of Mr. Jumel’s death, which Occurred on May 22, 1832; he left no child, tomy knowledge; he was a Frenchman; I married Mary Jumel Bowen, niece of Mme. Jumel, on the 15th of January, 1832, at the residence of Mr. Schuyler Crippen, @ lawyer, at the town of Worcester, in this State, with whom I was studying law; my wife, as I understood, was born in 1801; my mar- Tiage was published in the Albany Argus, Mr. Hoar objected to this latter evidence. Mr. O’Conor said that he proposed to show that immediately after the marriage Mr. Jumel ac- ratte this lady, Mrs, Chase, as a member of family. Mr. Hoar wanted to know what had Mr, Jumel’s friendships or hostilities to do with the ciaim of this plaintia ? Mr. O’Conor replied there never was a time when Mary Jumel, the wife oi Mr. Chase, was called Mary Jumel Bowen. The defendant wished to show that the lady named Mary Jumel Bowen was called Mary Jumel, the adopted daughter of Mr. and Mrs, Jumel, What he (Mr. O’Conor) wanted to prove Was that as soon as Mr. Chase could go to the Jumel mansion he did so, and was welcomed there as the adopted son-in-law of Mr. Jumel, The Court admitted the evidence. Mr. Chase’s examination was then resumed. He said :—Alter my marriage Icame to the Jumel Man- sion and was introduced to Mr. and Madame Jumel; my wife was there then; within one or two days after my arrivalI presented to Mr. Jumel a copy ot the Albany Argus of January 19, 1832; he said nothing, but gave my cheek a Slight pinch; my wife was present at the time, as 4vas also Madame Jumel; my wife died on the 5th of May, 1843; we had two children, who survive—Eliza Ju- mel Chase, now Mrs. Pery, wko was born in 1834 at the Jumel Mansion, and my sen, William Inglis Chase, born at Hoboken, August, 1840; they and their families have resided at the Jumel Mansion since Madgme Jumel’s death; I have also resided there sincé that time; after tne death of Mr. Jumel I know that a letter was written by Madame Jume! to friends in France in relation to that event; I pro- duce a copy of that letter; the original letter 1 mailed at the New York Post Office; the letter was written in English; while I was studying law in 1831 at the office of Mr. Crippen Madame Jumel came there with a young lady, to whom I was in- troduced as her niece; Madame said to me that if Mary and myself 1d agree she weuld be glad to have me as a son-in-law; after that we were mar- ried, ‘and Madame asked me to come down to the Mansion; she said that Mary was their adopted daughter and their heiress; from that time down to the death of Mr, and Madame Jumel I and mine have substantially lived at the Mansion, Mr. Chase then alluded to some occasions when he resided for short terms in the city, while the Mansion was occupied by Mr. Pell and Colonel Munro, the latter moving out of the Mansion about 1841 or 1841. During the time that he resided in New York, with his family, Madame also resided with him; he resided with her and his family also at Hoboken; Madame was one of the family; when Colonel Munro leit the Mansion House Ma” dame returned there; Madame went to Saratoga in the Summer, and I went with her, and my wile also when her health was good; when my children rew up Madame used to take them with her; dur- ing those times that we resided in New York Ma- dame paid the rent, with the exception of one time; when I was getting business I paid the rent; Madame Jumel took my daughter after the death of my wife and had charge of her; after that she took my somto the mansion; that was their home; she sent them to school; up to 1863, when Madame went to France, taking the chilcren with her, she had charge of the childre in 1859, after Madame returned trom Saratoga, my son William was at the mansion, but soon alter Madame took into her head that William intended to do her some bodily harm; he left the house, but used to go there often to see her; she used to receive him well, though she manifested some feeling against him—so much 80 that she put a black patch over his face on the bask family picture that she got painted in Rome, and which is now at the mansion, Mr. Hoar satd he would like to see that picture. Mr. O’'Conor observed that he would be glad the jay saw it. ir. Chase said it was a large picture, and when it arrived trom Rome he had to get a spring wagon witn four horses to take it up to the mansion, Mr. Chase went on to say that he made his residence Hpattatatgelitd at the mansion in 1848, efore that he used to go and visit at the mansion once or twice & week; had lett the mansion on one occasion estion of Madame and the Rey, mith, and he returned again at Madame’g re- quest; the picture to which he had alluded was brought to the mansion in 1854; it represents Madame standing, and his sen, a smallish boy at the time, seated, aud his daughter standing; the black patch had been taken off since Madame’s death. Mr. Chase went on to describe the property in litigation ; the thirty-six acre lot contained the homestead of which witness had spoken, lying con- tignous to the old Albany post road; witness knew Maria Jones in her lifetime; was introduced to her by Madame. Q. What was the condition of Madame Jumel im- Mediately aiter the death of Mary? A. She seemed very much plunged in grief, and took to her ned; she remained there for a week, or about, mourning and lamenting the death of that person; it was on the 26th of September, 1866, I first Knew of the ex- istence of Anne Eliza Vandervoort; on that day I received a visit from James A. Vandervoort, her son; I never heard of her before, and never Knew of her existence till then; I fix the date because I had received a letter from Jumes A, Vandervoort; I met Mrs. Vandervoort at her house, in Fifty-first Street, in this city; Tcalled on her the next day alter I got the letter; Idid not see her the first time I called; on my cail when I first saw her I Was alone, and on the next meeting with her Mr, J.C. Carter was with me, Q. What «did she say about it being useless to search, as “there was her (Madame's) son, G. W. = with the signature ef this defendant and closes with the passing into his pocket of one-fifth of the | profits of the whole amount. And no word comes | rom them in explanation, He doesn't come | on the stand himself, and we canuot | presume anything against him because he | 80 chooses; but where is his bookkeeper, | EB. A. Woodward? He was the holder. of | all the offices and a man of great business, and it | was but reasonable that he should have his clerks, They claim that large amounts of this money paid in to his account came from members of the party and was for party uses, to be USED IN THE LEGISLATURE, But they forgot that the Legisiature of that year adjourned about the ist of May and that this money was going into his bank account from May | until September, just at the time when there is no | possibility of doing anything, for it was the inter. val between the sessions of the Legislatures of 1870 and 1871. The counsel just now claimed in effect that his client was a victim of public abuse and calumny and have in advance pronounced him guilty. But! will say this, that when yoa find a whole community has come to @ certain con- clusion regarding anything, then, in @ manner, Bowen, in Providence #’ A, She said she knew a man named George W. Bowen, and she added, I be- lieve, that he was the son of Madame Jumel; [never said to her that this nan could not inherit because he was illegitimate; I never said ne was the son of Madame Jumel; I never said to her, or to anybody else, that “tt was no more to him than the turthest Stranger in the world—that he was illegitimate = could not inherit; that was an entire fabrica- tion. Q. Before that, were you familiar with the stat- ute enabling an illegitimate child to inherit from the mother ¥ Objected to by counsel for plaintit. Mr. 0’Conor said he wouid offer evidence to show that Mr. C! ‘was not ignorant of this law. Mr. Hoar submitted that they would show con- tradictory statements on oath by Mr. Chase. It ‘was no contradiction of a witness who states that he heard a thing said to call another witness to say that that thing was not true. It did not affect the credit of the witness who testified to the deciara- tion. Judge Shipman said that he would like counsol to pass this question for the present. As a general rule when Cd proved the statement of a witness out of Court they could not prove that he did not “the voice of the peopie is the voice of God.” Mr. Field arose and objected to the counsel call- ing in improper allusions of this natare, and, after @ little discussion, in which ‘The Court said that the defence had opened the door for it by Mr. Fullerton’s remarks he apse ae ference to Mr. Tweed, but tha’ nO more Of it should be permit Mr, Peckham resumed, ‘aad reviewed the evt- dence Of Garvey as to his own accounts, both with say 80 by proving that the fact was not so, The Judge said he would look into this question, Mr. 0’Conor observed that he intended to prove an independent fact—that Mr. Chase never made the statement at all attributed to him by the wit- ness Vandervoort. Counsel for the plaimtift had argued as if this statement of Mr. Chase was an as- sertion Of ignorance on his t of the law in question. e other side had sai oe impli- cation arising from Mr. Chase’s act, that he was = your clients knew as much a@ .) : I said was that Mr. Chase wad of this law, but that he made did for @ purpose, to deceive Mr. O'Conor—We have a right te show the othe! not ignorant of this Jaw, an ry tim him to Mrs. Vande! d that the mat aan of confirmatory proof wales io tes lowed, Jue Shipman said he Shoot tas he wae ie Was aware Of its exist of this alleged declaration Dy hi oe voort, Mr. Hoar ded would look into the matter and give his decision the morning. fe said he found, in wiil that was produced here from the Court; knew Hon. William Inglis well; saw draft of a will of Madame’s that was drawn by Mr. Inglis; read that will; substantial; far as het. could remember, the dratt drawn by M: hh the will witness found in Mme. Jumel’s were the same. (Some letters were then put i Mr. O’Conor stating that the question of their ad. missibility was reserved till next di Cross-examined—I was examined at the last trial; I think I stated at the last trial that I F never conversed with first wife about he: family history; I lived with her from the time oj our marriage, in 1832, until her deaths in 1843; between five and six month: elapsed from the time I first saw her until we wi married; had married her without ascertainin, her age; during those months did not ascertai her family history; I think Madame had told she herself was very rich; had married when I w: about a year in Schuyler Grippen’s law office; after wards went into the office of John Duer; had thei no property; went into Colonel Burr's office, and}, may have been there a year; I was adinitted 1 Albany, I think, as an attorney either in 1833 orf. 1834; I can give the date, as I have my licenses made a copy of a letter in 1833, because Madam Jumel requested me; that was the letter nouncing Mr. Jumel’s death to friends in France , my permanent abode was not fixed at the mansio! until 1848; I was away from the Jumel mansio: from May, 1862, to September, 1863; with referen: to the sults about the Saratoga property, if amended my auswer it was done by my counsel; think my answer inthe suit of Bowen and Van. dervoort was drawn in the office of Mr. J. 0. Carter; 1 think the amended answers were furq nished from the papers themselves; I cannot tellj’ the exact date when the ante-nuptial agreement o! Mr. Perry was pleaded; the paper would show, After some iurther cross-examination the casov ‘Was adjourned till to-day. 2 BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS. Decisions. By Judge Barrett. The Manhattan Savings Institution vs. Rogergi et al.—Memorandum for counsel. } Caroline P. Collins vs, Waldo H. Collins.—Refered, oe Ay take proot of the facts stated in the com-\ Plaint, &o, } Hughson vs, Bell.—Motion for an attachment< denied without costs, &c. Same vs. Same.—Motion for costs granted, and{ $80 allowed to be recovered, &c. In the matter of the petition of Henry Alker,— Motion granted. In the matter of the claimof the Guardian Sav- | ings Institution against the Bowling Green Savinga Bank.—Motion for reierence of claim ted. Minell et al. vs. Martin et al.—Decree granted. Same vs. Same.—Motion granted. Same vs. Same.—Allowances granted.. In the matter of the estate of Moses Aaron deceased.—Memorandum for counsel, Baker vs. Hogel et al.—Motion granted.. McKee vs. Joyce.—Order granted, SUPREME COURT—CIRCUIT. Decision. By Judge Van Brunt, Jacobs vs. O'Brien.—Case settled, SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions. f By Judge Barbour, Unger vs. ries Street Railroad Come pany,—Order of discontinuance, Coddington vs. Dunham.—Order granted. Harrison et al. vs, Kirke et a.—Order of rele ence and substitution. Winston vs. English.—Examination. adjourned t 30th, at half-past ten A. M, Sedgwick vs. Decatur et al.—Order granted. Lomehigh et al. vs. Hattield.—Judgment of Court, of Appeals made baal fee ald of this Court. Colfee vs. Coifee.—Judgment of divorce grantedy COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions. By Judge Loew. The Knickerbocker Ice Company vs. Eldridge: Memorandum for counsel. People, &c., vs. Fields. —Whatever my own vie’ might be, I do not think that I would be justified 11 disregarding the deeision of the General Term the Supreme Court in the case ef Gildersleeve vs. The People, 10 Barb., 36, The motion must denied. 4 COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. Larcenies and Burglarics. Before Judge Sutherland, His Honor the City Judge, having returned to the, city, presided yesterday, and District Attorneys, Russell prosecuted. } James Sullivan was tried and convicted of bur« glary in the third degree. the proof for the peopie’ showing that, on the 6th instant, the prisoner wag seen leaving the stable of John Cavanagh, in East. Forty-second street, with a harness, John Murray was also found guilty of burglarie’ ously entering the liquor store of John McGrath, 613 First avenue, on the night of the 9th of Decem= ber. An officer jound him in there, but no roperty was taken, There was a roar of laughter 4 Court} when ke said that, upon hearing a noise inside, he; lifted the window at one o'clock in the morning in! order to protect Mr. McGrath's interests, Sullivan and Murray were each sent to the, State Prison for four years, 1 Thomas Thompson, who was indicted for felo~ nious assault and battery, pleaded guilty to an ase sault with intent to do bodily harm. On the 19th of December he discharged a pistol at John Schnei-+ der, but the complaint taken by the magistrate did not disclose the circumstances under which the: assault was committed. The sentence imposed was imprisonment in the State Prison for four yearsi- and six months. James Sheehan and Jeremiah Murphy, youths, / were tried and convicted of stealing a package of blank books, valued at $60, on the 17th of Decem-( ber, from an express wagon in Warren street. Thot books belonged to the Erie Railroad Company.. woke each sent to the State Prison for two year: Alexander Anderson was found guilty of pett; Jarceny from the person in stealing a silver watch, from Michael H. Curley, on the 3d inst. As there: were mitigating circumstances the Court modified the punishment to one year’s incarceration in tha, State Prison. Charles Steinmuller was convicted of stealing two~ lithographic stones valued at $60, in November, the property of Peter Miller, and was sent to the State Prison for four years and six months, Acquittals, William Tucker was tried and acquitted of a charge of cutting Edward Ceazer in the arm with » knife, on the 5th of December, in Baxter street, The parties were colored sailors, and the jury wero. satisfied upon the evidence that Tucker was justi~ fied in defending himeelf. } Edward Smith was tried upon & charge of felont-; ous assault, the allegation being that on the: 16th of December he cut James Rogers with small Knife in the back of the head. The facts showed that the accused was @ soldier connected with the United States Marine corps; that while in an intoxicated condition his pocketbook was snatched out of his hand, and the compiainans being the first man he met he cut him, bet when examined said that he did not intend to injure him, The jury rendered a verdict of not guiity, COURT CALENDARS—THIS DAY, Supremes CovrtT—Cincvuir—TRUAL TERM—Part 1— Held by Judge Van Brunt.—Nos. 672, 1816, 660, 1004, 1006, 1008, 101044, 1012, 1016, 1020, 1022, 1026, 1028, 104234, 1044, 1046, 1048, 1050, 1054, 1056, Part aetlela by duage agg 2 ieee Ase 899, 985, 905, 999, 953, 1013, 1015, 201 102 1025, 1029, 1031, 1033, 1035, 1037,” sais CouRT OF CoMMON PLEAS—TRIAL TERM—Part 1— Held by Judge Robinson.—Same calendar. MARINE COURT=GENERAL TeRM—Held by Judges Shea, Spaulding and Jones.—Nos, 1 to 18, iaclusive, SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS—Held ba Bar- rett.—Nos, 32, 45, 72, 103, 106, 181, 132, 162, 217, 21734, 219, 220, 289, 340, 241, 260, 261, 286, 247, Call’288, COURT OF APPEALS CALENDAR, ALBANY, Jan. 29, 1873, The following i the Court ef Appeals calendar for January 30:—Nos, 45, 21, 25, 41, 28, 48, 49, 60, BADLY BEATEN, Thomas Duffy, no home, was found in the Bowery at an early hour yesterday morning in a helplesa condition and unable to see by the police of the Seventh precinct. This man was most brutally beaten in a liquor saloon corner of Houston and Elizabeth streets some hours before by an unknown man, and then flung out into the street. Dr. Savill dressed some of his wounds, and ordered hi pi to Bellevue Hospital, as his life was considered. 4 jenn ds