The New York Herald Newspaper, February 5, 1873, Page 8

8 —————, THE COURTS. TH2’ STOKES BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. Winding Up of the Arguments of Counsel on Both Sides—A Thorough Legal Sift- ing of the Bill and Elucidation of Its Leading Points—A Decision Promised in a Few Days. THE JUMEL CASE. _ Close of the Dofendant’s Téstimony—The Venerable Ex-Judge Herring on the Stand—Recollections of New York More than Eighty Years Ago. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. —e——_ Liability of Express Companies—Verdict Against a Railroad Company—Summaries—Convio- , tions and Sentences in the Two Branches of the General Sessions—Part 2 of the General Sessions Said To Be Mlegally Held. ‘The arguments on the bill of exceptions in the ‘Btokes case were resumed and concluded yester- @ay. Judge Boardman mentioned to counsel that he would send down his decision at the ciose of the present or in the beginning of the ensuing ‘week. The hearing of the case of George Washington Bowen vs. Nelson Chase was resumed yesterday in the United States Circuit Court, before Judge Bhipman and the special jury. The interesting feature of yesterday's proceedings was the appear- ance of ex-Judge Herring on the stand asa wit- ness for the defendant. The venerable gentleman— who is in his ninety-fifth year—was Judge of the Marine Court of this city in 1805. He was simply called to prove the ancient custom of letting houses in New York from May to May. The testi- mony for the defendant has closed, The trial will be continued to-day. Yesterday being the first day of the term the fury calendar was called in the United States Dis- trict Court, before Judge Blatchford. Hiram W. Cooper, Frank Q. French, David W. Haight and James H. Sackett were fined $250 each for failing to @ppear when called as jurors, Yesterday Harvey Barnes, a sugar imperter in this city, and his consignor, Mr. Channer, of Deme- Tara, were held in $5,000 each befere Commissioner Osborn ona charge of having defrauded the gov" ernment by means of false invoices entered at the: Custom House, About a year ago Mr. Barnes was: sued in @ civil sult in the United States District, Court for $54,900, being the amount of which the’ government said they were defrauded by the under valuation which they alleged followed upon the en- tries in question. There was a verdict for the govern- ment for the full sum, but Mr. Barnes, it appears, failed to satiafy the greater-portion of the judg- ment, The case of Aaron W. Fairbanks and others vs. K. Kruger others was tried yesterday in the United States trict Court before Judge Blatch- ford and a jury. It was asuit.to have the defend- ants declared bankrupts, The defendants denied the.acts of bankruptcy imputed to them, and the yury rendered a verdict in their favor. In the matter of Abraham Tully and others vs. Leonard G. Haas and: Alexander Sampson, which ‘was a suit tried before Judge Blatchford and a jury to have the defendants declared bankrupts, a ver- dict for the creditors was rendered. William Meeker, doing business as a druggist at Winth avenue ana Forty-seventh street, was yester- @ay charged before Commissioner Shields with selling liquor without paying the special tax re- quired by law. The Commissioner, having examined into the accusation, ordered the defendant to be ‘The investigation touching the charge against ex-Senator William M. Graham, President of the Wallkill National Bank of Middletewn, N. Y., of having misappropriated or embezzled $100,000, the property of the bank, was to have come on yester- day before Commissioner Osborn, but, by consent of the District Attorney, the inquiry was adjourned for three months, A Built was brought to trial yesterday in the Su- perior Oeurt, before Judge Monell, in which a ver- @ict was rendered in favor of the American Mere chants’ Union Express Company. Laces of the value of $400 were sent by the express company from this city to Pittsburg, Pa., and they failing to feach their destination the suit was brought to recover their value. The Court hel@ that $50 being the limit of damages as specified on the back of tne receipts, in case of failure to specify the value of the goods shipped, ordered a verdict for this amount. Application was made yesterday before Judge Rebinsen, holding Special Term of the Court of: Common Pleas, to set aside the late proceedings before the Sheriff's jury, in which $10,000 damages were awarded against United States Marshal Sharpe for alleged assault upon D. Wemyss.Jobson. The ground of the appiication was that th immons ‘Was served upon an attendant in the office instead of Mr, Sharpe, and, therefore, that the proceedings were irregular. The Court granted the applica- tion, which compels Mr. Jobson, if he is determined on pursuing the litigation, to commence de novo. While Part 2 ef the Court of General Sessions, ‘which has commenced holding its term inthe chamber of the Assistant Aldermen, in the vity Hall, was yesperday doing 4 lively business in the trial of case’, the question was suddenly raised that the Court was illegally constituted and had no business to hold its sessions there. It fell like a bombshell upon the Court. A statute was cited restricting the Court to the New City Hall, and ‘then another statute was evoked giving it jurisdic- ‘tion if held within the precincts of the City Hall Judge Sutherland was evidently in a quandary, but eoncluded to goon for the present until he ceuld examine the case and see how the matter stood. THE STOKES BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. Closing of the Argument of Counsel for Stokes—Reply of the Opposing Counsel— Drawing Very Fine Points of Legal Distinction—The Decision To Be Given in a Few Days. Another day was.cceupied yesterday in the argu- ment before Judge Boardman upon the bill of ex- ceptions in the Stekes case. The Court opened at half-past ten o'clock, and, as heretofore, the court froom was crowded. Mr. Des Passos and John W. Townsend were present on behalf of Stokes, and ‘Mr. Beach and Golonel Fellows en behalf of the people. CONCLUSION OF DOS PASSOS’ ARGUMENT. Mr. Dos Passos resumed the argument began the @ay previous, and, after a brief recapitulation and @o some extent correction of his former argument, ‘Went on to argue the last point—the metion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evi- ‘ence, a8 developed in the amdavit ot Mary Bean. As to its being newly discovered the affidavits ‘were conclusive ; as to its materiauty he should not argue—both were too clear. It must be remem bered thay there was ne amdavit here in any way fmpeaching or denying Mary Bean’s amdavit. He should only argue the question whether this was cumulative evidence. On this point he called at- tention to the fact that no witness on the trial had seen a pistol in Mr. Fisk’s hands, and that thig testimony was the only thing that directly contro. verted the Court’s theory mot suggested by either counsel—that the piste] picked up by a lady on the stairs might have been, after all, Stokes’ own pts- tol. He then remtnded tke Court that the opening NEW YORK HERALD, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1873—TRIPLE SHEET. tias intredacing before the jury considerations whieh the jury had no right to consider, and that that was not checked at the time, nor were the jury warned to disregard that appeal. He ap- Pealed mest earnestly to the Court in savorem vite % consider carefully and mercifully all the points presented in the light of the pressare brought upon the jury by public excitement. REPLY OF MR. BRACE. Mr. Beach insisted that the Court and himself Were bound to look at the matter im its legal light sione. It was no wonder that Mr. Stokes’ counsel should only see his sad condition; and if that only were loeked at there was danger that the rights Of public justice and the necessity ef public pro- tection would be forgotten. He sheuld not follow the counsel through all his quotations. The statute law and precedents of this State governed this Court, and the decisions of other States and of England were merely advisory. Most of the prece- dents cited were from States where the Court of Oyer and Terminer was held to have general jurisdiction. In this State it had been held even by one judge that the Court of Oyer and Terminer had power to grant a new trial on the merits, and a dispute had arisen between parts of the Supreme Court till settled against the right by the case of Quimbo Appo. He saw no reasen why the amalogies between beth grounds for setting aside a judgment, on the merits and for irregularities, should permit the one and not the other. This Court was not a court of general ju- risdiction, for then it could grant a new trial on either ground, but of special and limited powers, ended with the prenunciation of sentence. He commented on the case of Willis vs. The People, and argued that Judge Denio’s epinion in that case was not authority om these points, and criticised it at some length, claiming that it was in some measure inapplicable to the circumstances and in other respects not sustained by the cases it cited. He produced citations that the Court could net hear affidavits either of Jurers or of jurors’ speeches to impeach their verdict. He argued that to do so would enable a juror who had enough conscience to obey his juror’s oath, yet to commit such irregularities for the sake of a prisoner as te impair his verdict. Was such a thing to be telerated? If it were, how many verdicts would be sustained? Besides, statements of third persons were always suspected by the law, had been worked to the his ab- ban 's testimony ? That was during Mr, You: almost entirely directed to the identification of the istol, and its identity was substantially conceded by the prisoner or his ceunsel. He- thought, per- haps, the Court should place some suggestion on the record of his own ignorance of the absence of the prisoner. Mr, Justice Boardman said that he had only known of one absence of the prisoner, and on that occasion had scopeee the Rrapecdings. Mr. Beach said that with regard to the Judge's absence he should have very little to say. In Glenn’s case there was a change of one ol the as- sociate judges during the trta i@ it was objected to. The specie Court he 8 @ diserganiza- oe urt, but expressly distinguished itfrom tion of the tel absence from the bench for a brief time. As to the new evidence, there were two re- quisites for justifying a motion for a new trial. It must not be cumi ive, and it must be so material and clear that it would be likely to produce a dif- ferent result, This evidence was ¢uimulative; for the Mr. Fisk hada ar cig had testified that Pistol in his wand, and this evidence fag exactly to the same point, And, be- wi sides the prisoner’s own testimony, they had Chester’s and Stapleton’s evidence that they saw this same pistol. But look at the prisoner’s own testimony. He saw Mr. Fisk come in and saw him draw his pistol. Now thi roposed to intro- duce evidence that Mr. Fisk, aiter entering, came out again and drew a pistol outside of the hall, The two stories were directly opposed, and conse- quently one or the other must be discredited. It could Bore, Renee be of any advantage to the Prisoner to introduce this mew testimony, and it ‘Was not such evidence a8 would be likel; duce a different resuit in another trial. He said. in conclusion, that in the broadest seuse he had done with this but he leit these, in some respects, interesting questions in the hands of the Judge, satisfied that he would make @ just and righteous disposition of them. SICKNESS OF MR. TREMAIN. Mr. Townsend read a short letter from Mr. Tre- main, expressing his regret that through sickness and the orders of the doctor he was unabie to close, the argument on behalf of the his associates would therefore to Dro- as he had expected, risoner, and one of PI do it. MR. DOS PASOS’ REJOINDER, After a brief recess Mr. Dos Pasos read @ very brief reply to the citations of.Mr. Beach, and re- called the strong language of the Courts that there could be no degrees in the influence of irregu- larities, : JUDGE BOARDMAN’S DECISION. spage Boardman, at the close of the arguments, said that he would give the matter his immedtate attention and give his decision within a few days. because of the difficulties of accurate memory, In this case these statements wefe corrected by the jurors themselves, and those contradictions were ere preduced. He insisted those corrections were to be received with the highest trust; for dif- ferent reasons both sides desired to select most intelligent and Christian men for jurors. had no doubt were honest and well deserved, | and thi serawe now assailed were those who had wn the mest sympathy with the prisoner. He urged that the affidavits as to the action of the jurors after their empanelling should be ex- fury tas He admitted that previous to the present jury law @ previous expression of opinion would ave disqualified them, though he did not admit that the aMdavits presented to show that they had expressed opinions, as explained, made them unfit even under the older law, but the new law clearly took away any unfitness on this account. It was said that law was unconstitutional. He had sup- posed that the provision of the State constitu- tion, that trial by jury sheuld remain inviolate, referred tothe general constitution of the jury and not to the method of its constitution, That it did not forbid, for instance, that jurors should be required to reaq and write Eng- lish, With Ce ey to the other matters he claimed that notwithstanding the authority of Eastwood's case, in which Judge Selden has given an opinion, the prisoner was bound to make out affirmatively not merely that there had been an irregularity on the part ofa juror, as,on examining the place of the occurrence, &¢., but that that irregularity had resulted to the injury of the prisoner. That must be shown affirmatively by the prisoner, and the prosecutien could not be put to the almost impos- sible negativing of the injury by proof. He then took up the cases of the jurymen separately, and first Beyea’s examination of pistols. It has become im- portantin the trial to determine whether Fisk had a ‘store. istol, and De Corlie had testified that the pistol he ad received was a dilferent one frem the one pro- duced. He had testified that it had six barrels. Now Beyea was said to have looked at a pistol of his own to see if a casual glance weuld cnable him to see the number of chambers in'it, and for the same purpose had looked in the window of a pistel And tlis was ely alleged as a reason | for setting aside a verdict. Was a juryman to forget all his experience? Was not the breadth of his ex-- perience one ef the chief merits of a juryman? Sup- pose a jJuryman had happened to have a pistol in bis pocket in the jary room and exhibited it, could it be said that it was aa error in the jury? A whele class of questions to experts was excluded because the juryman had the same knowledge, experience and judgment to answer them as the expert. But it was not enough that it was an indiscretion on the partof a juror; it must be shown that it harmed the prisoner. The juryman told them that it had no influence on his decision, He contra- dicted flatly Mr. Horace Stokes, whose devotion to his brother might easily have misled him. Mr. Dos Passos reminded him that both Yost =a Mitchell said he communicated this fact to them. Mr. Beach said that was a mistake, but it made no difference, If the Judge believed that any one of the jurors had acted dishonestly let him give this man one more trial amd destroy the moral effect ef the verdict, though he had him- self decided that Stokes’ own testimony showed him to legally guilty. But be what effect could it have hady De Corile’s testi- mony Was simply on that point, “six barrels as near as | recollect.” In the other points where he Was more positive the distinctions were broad and clear betweea the pistols. Mr. Yost’s action in going. to the Grand Central Hotel was, he conceded, discreet, but he insisted was perfectly innocent and harmless to the prisoner. He did see that Bailey and Stokes could have seen a lady at the window he named, and that a car could not have been seen from it further of than was testified to. It was the evidence of the defence, if, anything, that was strengthened. If the people did not complain why should the defence object? With regard to Mr. Bowles reading a paper he simply reminded the Court that it could Fetal, have been the proceedin; and not editorial comment, as the Court had taken occasion to compliment the press on its abstinence from comment, As to Mr. Manehester, he repeated Mr. Mancheste! itatements of what he did say to his partner, and that it was in joke, and as preof of it, if standing alone the Court coald not think it other than @ mere joke; that it was followed by Arnold’s question “How about Tweed ?” and an answer, “Yes, hang Tweed, teo.’’ Of course he could not have meant that, for Tweed certainly was not accused of any crime for which he could be 1d. He believed that it was in reference to Mr. Manchester that Mr. Tremain, after he had “stated his strong opinien, had withdrawn his chal- lenge or had expressed his pleasure in having him for @ juror. But the. execution of the law was not to be set aside on such trivialities. He came now to a graver question, perhaps, growing out of the absence of the prisoner during ,4 part of Coroner Young’s testimony, He had not ‘supposed until read! this case of Maurer, cited esterday, that any waiver of a right other than a Jorediongnal one was denied toa prisoner. He conceded that the opinion of Justice Grover went the length claimed by the counsel, but he claimed The cempliments of the deience to the jury he-' The Court then adjourned. THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. | The Suit of Bowen vs. Chase—The Testi- mony for the Defendant Closed—How Houses Were Let in New York a Cen- tury Ago—The Vencrable Ex-Judge Herring on the Stand. 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. Hear, Mr. Chatfield, Mr. Shaffer and Mr. Sawyer appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Charles O’Conor and Mr, J. v, Carter for the defendant, MORE DEPOSITIONS READ, Mr. Carter, with the view of contradicting the testimony of Henry Nodine, given at the present trial, read a deposition of Nodine’s taken in 1870. HOW HOUSES WERE LET IN NEW YORK A HUNDRED YEARS AGO. During the progress of the proceedings yester- day. a question arose as to whether about a hundred years ago the custom prevailed in this eity of rent- ing houses from May to May. Mr. O'Conor called to the stand ex-Judge Elbert | Herring, who testified that such was the custom in New York as leng ashe remembered. He was born at Scratferd, Conn., in 1777, and came to resiae in this city soon after it had been evacuated by the English troops in 1783. Mr. Herring is a fine old gentleman, ef clear and retentive memory, He was Judge of the Marine Court in 1805, and, to use his own language, “he has since then held almost every municipal office that can be mentioned.” It will be seen that he is now just one year younger ee the Republic of which he is an esteemed n. TESTIMONY OF MR. J. 0. CARTER. Mr. James C. Carter was next called as a witness on the part of the defendant. Ih reply to questions by Mr. O'Conor, he said :—I am an attorney-at-law; Tresice in this city; 1 have been an attorney and counsellor-at-law since 1853; I am attorney in this case for Mr. Chase ; I became counsel for him in the will suit in the course of the litigation in July, 1866; in the month of September of that year I took my vacation ; before geing away I had been engaged in the case; I made investigations into the case; I read the deposition of Daniel Hull about that time; it was about that time and in connection with that deposition that 1 became acquainted with the law allowing illegitimates to inherit; I went with Mr. Chase to see Mrs, Vandervoort at her house in this city; 1 never was there but once; Mr. Chase didmot say to Vandervoort that he knew of Madame Jumel having ason or that such son was illegitimate; he said nething of the kind; to- wards tne close ef the conversation she spoke of Madame Jumel having @ son. and that she had seen him some time belore that; in no shape or way did Mr. Chase say that he knew of Bowen or of Madame Jumel having ason; he did not say that Bowen, being illegitimate, could not inherit; he said noth- ing of the kind. Gross-examined -I first acquainted myself with this case at Mr, O’Conor’s house about June or July, 1866; 1 read the depositions as soon as they were taken by Mr. Toby, in Providence; I was not in the case when the depositions de bene esse were taken; they were taken before the trial, of course; Llooked them all through; I have not a distinct recollectien what Mr. Chase said in his deposition about the age of Madame Jumel; I cannot state that he said on that occasion Mrs. Jones was ounger than Madame Jumel; I cannot state what he id in that deposition about his wile; before I went to Mrs. Vandervoort Mr. Chase showed mea letter he had received, and that to my mind the time I went te Mrs. Vandervoort's; it was nice, warm weather, but it could not have been in September. for | was away from New York the whole of that month; I did not state at the last trial that tue interview between myself and Mrs, Vanderveort lasted two hours; I could not have stated anything of the kind because the interview lasted only about twenty minutes. Mr. Carter stated, in reply to 1urther questions ‘avon cross-examination, that he had beem paid $10,060 fer his professional services in the will suit; that $10,000, with $15,000 leaned by his firm, Scud- der & Carter, to Mr. Chase, making in all, with in- terest, about $27,500, had been paid by money re- ceived by Mr. Chase from the city, as referred to in previous testimony. ir. O'Conor read to the jury depositions for the parpose of contradicting the evidence of Daniel Hull, and also entries from books to show that an apothecary had sold medicine to Betsy Bowen, daughter of Caleb Bowen. The object of this testi- mony was to prove that there was another Betsy Bywen in Providence at the same time with the ps who is claimed by plaintiff to have been his mother. that it went far beyond the question before the Court. In that case it was not merely a casual, Percent’ temporary absence sought by the pris- oner, but the prisoner had been remanded to the and an important, essential part of the trial d taken place in hiseniorced absence. So far he admitted the decision was authority, but beyond that he insisted Judge Grover’s opinion was obiter dictum, Mr. Beach continued:—It gives me no pleasure to condemn the conduct of counsel, whom esteem and respect. But, air, whatever may be my relations with my brethren, ia my ideas of a fessional duty, I never will sufler an example like this to pass without an expression of my personal reprobation. What are the facts? Sworn counsel of this Court, one of them occupying a high emi- nence in ‘his profession, henored by the conferment of Vege advancement, which adds to his repu- tation and di ity; reputable counsel, with a knowledge of the law, sit in this Court and permit their client te be absent from the trial without the knowledge of the Court and without advising it of the circumstance. It is done deliberately, sir; they direct their associate te make a memo- randum, and their attention was directed to the subject at the time, amd its pessible influence upon the action of this Court; one of the counsel is directed to make @ memorandum of the evidence given, and that counsel swears it oecupied three pages of the minutes of the aren fata as It waa hen an intentional and designed fraud upon this Court. What is the relation of counsel to this Court? a, learned friends ‘forget that they are officers of this Court, bound to if by @ solemn oath in the discharge of their professional duty. Although they were charged with the highest in- terest of human life and destiny, mevertheless they had a high and imperative ebligation to this Court. What right had they to permit this trial to pro- ceed in the absence of their client, one of themselves making ® memerandum of it? To prepare affidavits on which .to" move on the of irregularity to this Court for a new The motive of these observations is to sub- mit the proposition to Your Honor that where the absence of a prisoner is voluntary and temporary, and, more than all, where itis procured or coun- tenanced by fraud upon the Court, can never be set up by the offending party it Lhe validity of the Court. It would be a to justice; it would be @ defiance of it; it would be a violation of principle that this Court,I am convinced, will not appreve or support or countenance, and! wish now, in connection with this propesition, to refer you to authorities briefly. He wished to show by @ome authorities that it in the power of coun- sel to Wasent, and, by the consent, to waive any such irrey ity and confine the case of Maurer to the facts then before the Court; it left the ques- tion under the old rule. He quoted several cases to show that sach waiver could be made unless a | jurisdictional matter was thus dispensed with, Cancemi’s case was on @ jurisdictional matter, the very censtitation of the Court. im Maurer’s case there was no waiver. He accepted Maurer’s case ‘Qs deciding that the compulsory A mass of documentary evidence having been put in, Mr. O’Conor announced that the defendant's testimony was closed. The case Was adjourned till to-day, BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS’ COURT. Charge Against a 8 © Merchant of Making Importations Under False In- voices. Before Commissioner Osborn, A year ago, or thereabouts, a case was tried in the United States District Court, in which the gov- ernment was plaintiff and Harry Barnes, a sugar importer in this city, defendant. The action was brought te recover $54,000, being the amount which the government claimed they were de- frauded of 2 baal of false and fraudulent in- voices alleged to have been entered at the Custom House by Mr. Barnes. There was a verdict for the government for the full amount, which, with imter- est added, made up $60,000, It appeared that the defendant had endorsed his bills ol lading to Mait- land, Phelps & Co., to secure them for advances made. In October last execution was issued by the government against Mr, Barnes, but he only satistied a small portion of the judgment against him. The consignor of Mr. Karnes at Demerara, whence the sugars were imported, was @ Mr. Chawner, who came on tv this city some time since. Yesterday Mr. Barnes and Mr. Chawner were taken before Commissioner Osborn, and they gave bail in $5,000 eactt to answer in a crim! now instituted inst them, tor 7 the sugars into this city under a fraudulent valua- tion, Mr. Barnes resides at Fair Haven, Conn, and Mr. Chawner is @ native or resident of Dema- SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS, Decisions. By Judge Davis, Nash va. Victor et al.—Motion denied for same reasons given -by Judge Barrett. See rule 70. The bond is not &@ compliance, It may be renewed on om Cicaecd bag! re , Labsop et al. vs. O'Brien et al—Moti: with $10 costs, to abide event. em ee? Cathout va, Brudi.—Motion denied, withont costs, and with leave to renew on proper papers, Sutton vs. Sutton —Keference ordered. In the Matter of the Petition of Heben F. Wil- ltanis et al., Infants, &c.—Keferred back for farther proois. By Judge Barrett. Justh vs. Justh.—Refercnce ordered to settle the issues heretn and their fom. See memorandum The Tredegar Company v3. The St. Louis, Law- risoner from ® material ) sad of the trial was fatal; but it must be read in connection with the counsel nad alluded to the present state ef excite- wont of the publig in yegerd Jo de cape, doctrine of consent, and must have been an ab- sehce during » part materigl to the prisoper. What = — anes > eee Company.—Motion to continue injunction dented and temporary injanc- tion dissolved, with $10 costs, a sit The People ex rel, Eliza E, Korgets vg, The In- | Was, be preceeded spectors of Common Schools of the Seventeenth ‘ard.—Motion denied, without costs. Reinhart ‘heo, Stehn et al.—Motion granted, Allowance, $250. Spauiding et al, vs. Levy.—Motion denied, with $10 costs to abide event. Davidson ¢t al, vs. Alfaro.—Motion denied. Jenkins va, Jenkins.—Decree re! . Mutual Life Iusurance Company vs. Wetmore et al.—Reference ordered, Germania Life Insurance Company vs. Kerwin et al.—Allowance granted. Stqne et al. vs. Hawie; SUPERIOR COURT—TRIAL TERM—PART I. of Express Companies When jpped is Not Before Judge Monell. Some time since Lewis ©. Austin shipped by the American Merchants’ Union Express Company $400 worth of laces from this city to Pittsburg, Pa. The goods falled to reach their destination and suit was accordingly brought against Mr. Fargo, Presi- dent of the company, to recover their value. The defence was that the plaintiff having failed, when shipping the goods, to state their value could only receive $50, such being the amount of recovery allowed by ted notice on the back of the re- ceipt in case of such failure. The testimony showed, further, that the plaintiff had in his posses- sion a number of the company’s receipts in blank. The Judge heid that this fact afforded suficient ‘ound for icy: that the plaintiff must have ‘nown the liability of the company in cases of ship- ment without failure to speci the value of the 00ds shipped. On motion of the defendants the urt directed a verdict for $50 for the plaintiff. Damages Against a Railroad Company. While John Kissenger and @ brother were at- tempting, in November, 1871, to cross in a wagon the railroad track in Fourth avenue at Fifty-first street they were run into by an engine of the Har- lem Railroad Company, the horse killed; the wagon dashed to pieces and both considerably injured, John Kissenger brought a suit in this Court, which Was tried yesterday, against the Harlem Railroad Company for damages. ‘Ihe defence was taat the accident was the result of his carelessness, that the engineer blew his whistle, but that he paid no at- tention toit, and that a flagman signalled the coming of the train, Some of the testimony con- tradicted these allegations, and the jury rendered @ Verdict for $¥93 for the plaintiff. SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. Decisiont. By Judge Freedman. Blair vs. Blair.—Order appointing referee. Coleman et al. vs, Dixon.—Extra allowance of $500 granted. - Same vs, Evans,—Same, Birdsall ve. Donovan et al.—Order of discontinu- ance. Reed vs. Brennan et al.—Order granted. Leiss vs. Morhoof.—Same. Harris vs. Panama Railroad Company.—Order substituting attorneys. Thurlow vs. Hachley.—Order of reference. Vander Windell vs. Elsass et al.—Judgment for defendants on demurrer. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions. By Judge Loew. Mary D. Smith vs, James E. Cooley.—Motion de- nied, without costs. James Hearn vs, Morris Wolff.—Memorandum for counsel, €. Rutt vs. M. Rinoldo.—Same. W. R. Weed vs, A. Young.—Same. R. Counsel vs. Vulcan Mining Company of Arizona,—Same. By Judge Robinson. Susan F. Sarique vs. Harvey Barmore.—Demurrer sustained, Judgment for defendant. Myer Petrowski vs. John F, Levy.—Judgment for deiendant on demurrer. _ By Judge Larremore. In the Matter of the Assignment of Bryan, Hind Bliss ve. Wm. H, Crawford.—Application granted. COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS—PART |. A Sneak Thief and a Pickpocket Sent to State Prison—Stealing Umbrellas a Crime—Acquittals—Felonious Assault— Rosenzweig’s Trial. Before Recorder Hackett. The first case disposed of yesterday was an in- dictment for grand larceny against Charles Gilbert, an old offender, who pleaded guilty to stealing on the 5th of January fifty-two dozen cotton handker- chiefs, valued at $52, the property of Pullman & Co. The Recorder, in passing sentence, said he learned that Gilbert had served a term in State Prison for larceny; but, in view of his pleading guilty, six months was deducted from the sentence which would have been imposed if he had put the Court to the trouble of trying the case. Gilbert was sent to the State Prison for four years and s1x months. Another Pickpocket Sent from the City. William Robertson was tried and convicted of stealing @ watch from John Boyle on the 17th of January, while he was looking at an electrical ma- chine, on the corner of the Bowery and Delancey street. His Honor, in disposing of Robertson, asked ‘him how many times he had been sent to oe and denied having ever served a term in he State Prison. He said that it was through poli- tical enemies that he got a bad character. “ind cir- cumstances of the larceny showed that Robertson ‘was a professional pickpocket, and the Recorder sent him to the State Prison for four years and six months. Rosenzweig To Be Tried. On motion of Mr. Howe the trial of Jacob Rosenz- welg, charged with producing an abortion upon Alice Bowlsby, was set down for Friday next. It will be remembered that Rosenzweig was con- victed in this Court, but obtained a new trial. Larceny of Umbrellas. John Heffernan pleaded guilty to stealing $42 worth of umbrellas on the 11th of December, the property, of Byrd & Corwin, and was sent to the ae tor one year, the prisoner being un- ler age. i A Felonious Assault. Caroline Schrader, who was charged with firing & pistol at Peter Peterson, in Cherry street, on the 12th of January, pleaded guilty to an assault with a Sa enine weapon with intent to do bodily harm. Certain mitigat: circumstances were brought te the knowledge of His Honor, which indu him to m the punishment to one year’s imprison- ment in the State Prison. Acquittals, Frank Thompson, charged with stealing fifty cents from the person of Martial G. Jouffret, on the 16th ( mg month, in Canal street, was tried and uitted, “thomas Gallagher was tried upon a charge of acting in complicity with William Lunmgan, who, it was alleged, went into the jewelry store of Fran- cis Broemer, 69 avenue ©, on the 1ith ef December, and grabbed three gold watches and a chain. Lunnigan was acquitted at the last term. The only evidence against Gallagher was that he was seen standing at the window and opened the door for his alleged confederate. A verdict of not guilty was promptly rendered, Gallagher having proved his innocence, _ COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS—PART 2, The Court Settling Down to Hard Work—Pleas of Guilty, Trials, Convic- tiens and Acquittals—A Curious Charge to the legality of Hold tne Court Where It Is Held. Before Judge-Sutherland. The second part of the Court of General Sessions held yesterday what might be called its first busi- } ness session, Juige Sutherland presiding. The session was im the Assistant Aldermen’s chamber in the City Hall, and there was a large crowd in attendance, Pleas ef Guilty. dames Elmore, charged with grand larceny, ad- mitted the charge, and was sentenced to two years and six months in the State Prison. George Lewis, held on the same charge. pleaded guilty to “petit eat. and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, Frank Duty and John Kelly each pleaded guilty to grand larceny and were sen- tenced to two years and six months State Prison. Ellen Stapleton, charged with grand larceny from her mistress, pleaded guilty to pettit larceny, and, after an affec' ‘om her own law- yer, swooned in Court peal had to be treated with restoratives. She received a sentence of only four months in the Penitentiary, Augustus Walroy (colored), cote with grand larceny, pleaded guilty to pettit larceny, and, in consideration of his youth, got off with only four months. An Acquittal, Edward O'Connell was charged with grand lar- ceny, but the complainant did not claim that he had committed the offence, but merely wished to prosecute him in order to make him divulge, Proper Place for Holding the Court. Everything had gone on swimmtingly thus far The case of James Nolan was now called, The Clerk ‘was proceeding to call the jury. “Stop @ moment, please,” interrupted Mr. Wil- liam F. Howe. “If Your Honor please, before this jury is sworn I desire to call your attention to a Matter of the utmost importance,”’ “I will listen cheerfully, Mr. Howe," answered Judge Sutherland, ‘listen to anything you have to say, ina &@ bombshell been thrown into Court it could have scarcely produced less effect than the subsequent remarks of Mr. Howe. The matter toy which he wished to call the attention of the Court to state, ong of the utmost Public interest, | Tt was intimately connécted with administration of justice in this city. His Honor, as he well knew, was anxious that all the P ings in his Court—the arraignments, trials and convictions—should be Deriectiy legal, and that Yond the poraibiity of lug set aside on. technical tad o se je on grounds. The ends of Suntice demanded that the convictions here found and the sentences here pro- nounced stand with the immobility of anite. Othe: the holding of the court would @farce and the justice dispensed a mockery- It would be, in fact, be = grave miscarriage of justice. He considered it his duty at this stage of the Court's lon—and he did it only from & sense of duty—to call the attention of the Court to a statute which, in his view, made the holding of the Court in its present place plainty illegal, He then Ppcceded to read the following cee from the Laws of 1838, chapter 297, sec Tt shall and may be lawfal Common Council of the city of New York to assion onc piss ia ere eee &s may to them seem most conducive to public conve- nience for the holding of the Courts of General and Special Sessions and of Oyer and Terminer and Jail Deliv- ery, to be held in and for said city and county. Bus such alteration of the place of ‘uch courts ahally Gf the publle newapayers priated ithe acid wi fo ake period of not less than four weeks." Segit The spécial provision embodied in this statute had not, he urged, been complied with. His Honor well recollected when th2 Court of General Sessions was held in the Tombs, The Court was transterred by the Common Council to the brown stone building otherwise known as the New Sh Hall, The removal was made in compliance witi the statute he had just read. Since then the Marine Court and the Tax *Commissioners had usurped portions of the building, till now there was no room for holding there a second branch of the Court, as in the present crisis of criminal affairs in this city was pre-eminerttly demanded. Fully appreciating, as he did, the necessity of clearing our city prisons of their overcrowded in- mates and giving to all, which was their just due, speedy trials; keenly alive to the excited state of the public mind in regard to the growing fre- quency of crime in the community and the Nw #bie complaints at the more than proverbial de- lays of justice, and, above all, wishing to place no obstacle in the way of prompt trials, ne still felt it his bounden duty to call the attention of the Court to the very important statute, he had just read, He called attention to the particular importance given in England to this question of changing the place of holding @ court. He cited a case where the sergeants if attendance at the old Court of Common Pleas, held in Westminster Hall, in the time of Charles IL, on account af some draughts of air to which they were exposed, asked that the place of holding the Court be changed. Only bar- risters of the greatest physical calibre and en- durance could stand the death-dealing draughts. The Chief Justice refused to move the Court pe- cause the law had specified that particular locality for holding the Court, : Judge Sutherland—From what book do you read that case? Mr. Howe—From Jefferson’s ‘Book on Lawyers.” Judge Sutherland said he remembered a similar case in Westchester county. He then asked wnen the General Sessions was removed from the Tombs to the brown stone building, Mr. Howe stated that the removal was in 1852. Judge Sutherland—subsequent, then, to the pas- sage of the statute you have rea . Mr. Howe—Certainly; why the Court might as Weil hold its session at the Battery, or the Astor House, or Harlem Jane as here. Judge Sutherland—I do not think it best to run ee What do you think about it, Mr. Rol- Mr. Rollins, Assistant District Attorney, said it was a new point to him, but there was a statute in 1831 which allowed the Court of General Sessions to be held anywhere within the precincts of the City Hall Park, After some further remarks Judge Sutherland said that he would examine into the case, but meantime the Court would go on with its trials, Trials Continued. John Smith, charged with burglary from the liquor store of Mr. McDonald, in Varick street, was found guilty and sentenced to two years and six mouths in the State Prison, The last case was that of George Livingstone, charged with felonious assault and battery. On the 2d of January—‘Ladies’ Day’’—as the wit- nesses called jt, the. prisoner, in a drunken row, stabbed Peter and Patrick McDonald, He claimed that they entered his room with some four other men and injured his mother and cut and otherwise maltreatea him- self, The testimony on the other side was that the men and tne injury to the mother were a pure fiction, and the officer who arrested tim on the night of the difficulty said that he was apparently but little injured, not having received a single cut and only one contusion over the eye. About the stabbing of the McDonalds, on the other hand, there was no doubt. The jury, however, after a deliberation of half an hour, brought in a verdict of simple assault, and Livingstone was sentenced to six months in the Penitentiary. The Court then adjourned, TOMBS POLICE COURT. The Spartan Judge Takes a Decided Stand. Before Judge Dowling. Business was somewhat dull at the Tombs yester- day, although a number of minor cases were dis- posed of. The first case that attracted any attention was that of John O'Hare against Andrew Myers. John met Andrew on Monday night last in a barroom in the lower part of Greenwich ‘street, They drank together a few times along with some other people who were in the place. Some discussion arising between them both parties got very excited and Andrew Myers drew ont a pistol and pointed it at O’Hare. O'Hare had Myers arrested and losked up. ‘When Myers was brought to the Tombs yesterd: morning by Officer Erwin, of the First precinct, O'Hare seemed unwilling to make a pata Judge Dowling at once, in his usual quick and de- cided manner, said:—‘‘What is the charge against this man, ofticer 1” Officer—Drawing a pistol on this man here (peint- ing to O'Hare). ts complaint in this case. am determined to ring all these cases where concealed weapons are used or presented to trial. O’Hare—I work on a steamer and am not always in the city and I would just as leave let this go. judge Dowling—Mr. O'Hare, you will please make. Judge ape i can’t allow it, sir. Re turning to the officer) —Was the pistol loaded ? Omicer—Yes, sir. Jus Dowling—I will send this case to the @ Jury, and let them dispose of it. The habit of carrying loaded pistols and other weapons is be- coming too common, and something must be done to stop it. I will commit you, O'Hare, to the House of Detention, and Myers, I will commit you to the General Sessions under $1,000 bail. « SURROGATE’S COURT. * A Contested Will Case, Before Surrogate Hutchings. i Benjamin L. Bretton, a Southerner, ‘who recently died in this city possessed of property valued at $600,000, left a will bequeathing the entire amount away from his relatives. The latter assert that un- due influence was exerted over him. The case came up yesterday before Surrogate Hutchings, who admitted the will to probate pro forma, with leave to open the probate within a year. COURT CALENDARS—THIS DAY, SuPREME CovRT—CIRCUIT—TRIAL TERM—Part 1—Held by Judge Barrett.—Nos. 684, 504, 556, 1112, 11124, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1120, 1122, 1124, 11: 113044, 1182, 1136, 1138, 1140, 1142, 1146, SUPREME COURT—GENERAL TERM—Held by Judges Ingraham and Fancher.—Nos. 188, 189, 192, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, bate ge 206, 207, 208, 210, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, Supreme Covrt—SrectaL TERM—Hela by Judge Van_ Brunt.—Law and fact—Nos, 14, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 50, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, '93, '99, ‘100, 101, 102, 103. SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS—Held by Juage Davis.—Nos. 16, 22, 24, 32, 33, 34, 37, 46, 47, 49, 61, 62, 64, 79, 111, 114, 127, 147, 148, 1483, 152, ieo, 173, 174, 177, 180. Cail 200. SUPERIOR CovrT—TRIAL TERM—Part 1—Held Judge Monell.—Nos. 493, 1231, 377, 1763, 1928, 1 287, 815, 131, 1275, 1505, 950, 1521, 1457, 751. Part eld by Judge Van Vorst.—Nos. 876, 2020, 1512, po itis 1482, 1940, 1608, 1288, 1692, 1 822, 726, Count OF COMMON PLEAS—TRIAL TERM—Part 1— Held by Judge Daly.—Nos. 1696, 2790, 866, 59, 1366, 68, 1051, 1156, 374, 2495, 1721, 763, $04, 2001, 1247, 1854, 1308, 1685, 512, 549, 612, 613, 1618, 1 1844, 50, 1709, 164, 328, 1852, 200, 1256, 1509, 1 7, 1986, 1337, 2021, 1212, 135. Part 2—Hela by Judge Loew.— Nos. 11, 1706, 1751, 1784 1786, 1787, 1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1795, 1796, 1797, 1 iy 1—Trea 4 MARINE CoURT—TRIAL Judge Joachimsen.—Nos. 1240, 1828, 1192, 1278, 111 1302, 1230, 1184, 1986, 1224, 1868, 1862, 1364, 1366, Par’ 2—Hela by Judge Shea.—Nos. 1105, 1243, 1415, 1239, 1901, 1917, 1269, 1795, 1411, 1425, 1420, 1266, 1127, 1877, 2073. Part 3—Held by Judge Spautding.—Nos. 1907, 1002, 1003, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1016, 1016, 1018, 1025, 1027, 1028. COURT OF APPEALS. Decisions. ALBANY, Feb, 4, 1873, The foliowing decisions were rendered in the Court of Appeals to-day :— Judgments affirmed with costs—Rainford vs. the Royal Insurance Company of Liverpool; Swits vs. De Rewer; McGrath vs. Dutty. Judgment reversed and new trials granted, costs to abide the events—Cary vs, White; Menagh vs. Wintwell; Lynch vs. Crary; Wade vs. the New York and Oswego Midland Railroad Company. Orders aifirmed with costs—In the matter of the application of the Board of Commissioners of Do eed Park of the city of Albany; Grant vs. Ir. 4 adquient reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event unless the plaintit, within twenty days, Consent to a modification of the J ib i conformity to the opinion of the Chief Judge, an® if such consent is given and judgment modified, then gatemant affirmed as modified without costs; Jaden mt to be settled by the Chief Judge on not ‘umless the parties agree—Johnson V8. new trial reversed, and jndi report of the referee affirmed, wi costs—Porter va, Pa le A denied, with n0 costs—Graham v8. Dis- Judgment reversed and‘ judgment for the de- fendant, to the effect that the defendant is en— titled to the given by and codicil to the “Society for the Relief of Indigent Aged Females,” without costs to either yy as bi the other—St, Luke’s Home for Indigent Christian. Females vs. an Association for the Relief of Re-- spectable Aged Indigent Females im the city of New York. Orders. ‘The following orders were miade this day by the: Court of Appeals :— Ordered, That this Court will take a recess 2sth day of February, A.D. 1878, to the Sum day D. 1873; calendar | be Ce eee ote farthor nore new calendar wi ut - BBY bedi es a i en nan and placed upon. sald 5 upon the ‘present calendar will be called and heard is ir order during the present month. Ordered, That In pursuance of the amendment of the: Sixth article of the constitution, adopted in the year 1872,, Comenelon of aaeedty: tint ich ot seid catece aaare mn} nm 3 at such ol upon the presen Sale dar of this Court will be placed: Becta wena Reeth nite en aie Gas eo eemahting: without 4 onthe ath fo March next." E. 0, PERRIN, Olerk. Court of Appeals Ca! jar. The following 1s the Court of Appeals day ease for February 6:—Nos. 56, 90, 91, 58}4,.. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. WASHINGTON, D. ©., Feb, 4, 1873, No. 8, Fagan et al. vs. State of Louisiana; No. % Butchers’ Benevolent Association vs, Crescent City” Live Stock Landing and Slaughter House Com- pany, and No. 10. Same vs. Same—Error to the- Supreme Court of Louisiana.—This is the reargu-- ment of the New Orleans slaughter house cases, which are entirely familiar to the puolic. The» Legislature of Louisiana in 1869 chartered the: Slaughter House Company, and provided that al— the slaughtering done in the city should be done in the slaughter houses to be erected by this com- any. The butchers of the city, vie" this legis-- lation as establishing a monopoly for the benefit of tne corporators of the company, brought these ac- tions to have it declared unconstitutional. The defence was that it was necessary for the health of the city that the slaughtering should be done~ in some one place, and that the State: had authority to direct suck a course, and that the act in juestion was ®& salutary measure greatly needed, The State Court. sustained the law, and it is here contended that by establishing this company to the exclusion of ail others the Legislature had deprived the plain- tiffs ef rights o1 business and property guaranteed by the constitution of the United States. The com- pany moves to disnitss the writ of errors, on the: ground that the whole matter is exclusively of State jurisdiction, John A. Campbell tor plaintim’ in error; T. J. Durant and M. H. Carpenter for de- fendants. No. 84.—Beale et al. vs. Territory of New Mexico,. on Kelation of Griffin, Administrator.—Error to the Supreme Court of New Mexico. This was ‘an ac- tion of Griffin as trustee of the estate of one Hinck-- ley brought against Beale, the testamentary trustee, who had resigned the trust, The charge ‘Was that in the settlement of the estate Beale had, been guilty of favoring the surviving members of: the firm 01 which Hinckley was a member, and {g- was sought to make the sureties responsible Xi the loss to the estate. ‘The question was whet Hinckley’s interest in the firm was not an asset of the estate, only subject to the payment of all the: debts and the liquidation of all the affairs the firm. The Court below held the firm cl able: and the judgment was against Beale and sure-- ties on appeal jointly, the latter never ha) been. heard or represented in the proceeding, e judg-- ment 1s here reversed, the Court hol that the appeal bond was of common law ji ction and. that the sureties were responsible only according to the provisions of the common law. It is also: held that such an action cannot be maintained. against the origina! executor by the administrator: de bonis non. Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the: opinion. No. 7. Shutle vs. Thompson—Error to the Circuit. Court for West Virginia.—This was an action of ejectment to recover certain progerty in West Vir-- ginia, and the questions were all of local law a8 to: the execution of papers and the official functions: Of the officers before whom they should be acknowl- edged. The judgment below on these questions is afirmed, the Court regarding their construction as having been decided in accordance with the theory adopted by the Courts of the State. Mr. Justice Strong delivered the opinion. CONSOLIDATION OF NEW YORK AND BROOKLYN. ge Sn SP] {From the Brooklyn Union Meh Arka) to consolida- tion), Feb. 3.) The discussion of the annexation and consolida- tion projeet has again, and quite unexpectedly, broken out, and, this time, without the usual in-- itiatory by the newspapers. As was seen by the ex-. clusive account in our Saturday’s issue, the move- ment, which has assumed the practical and im- portant shape of a petition and @ bill for the Legis lature, took its rise among some. of the leading: citizens of Brooklyn, who met on Friday evening,. somewhat informally, at the house of one of ther } mumper, and then and there toek the firat step towards the consummation of what must be re- garded as ultimate manifest destiny. This. meeting, quiet and unobtrusive as it was, and this action, imperfect, and even prema- ture, as it possibly may be considered, are of. greater importance than the superficial observer may judge them to be. They constitute the be-- ginning of a species of municipal revolution; and revolutions, as everybody knows, never go back- ward. The adoption of a petition to the ture and the framing of a bill for the appointment. of a Joint Committee of Inquiry give the solatiom: of the question a practical pe. {From the Brooklyn Eagle (opposed to consolida tion), Feb, 3.) The fact that the question of the consolidation oh New York and Brooklyn has been taken up in good: earnest by some of our representative citizens wil. insure, at all events, a very thorough discussion of. the whole subject. As the first practical step it ie. proposed to ask the Legislature to appoint a cer- tain number of representative men of each city to discuss the qnestions, is consolidation desrabie, and if so, on what terms can it be effected > If the first question is answered aiiir- matively by those’ concerned there will be little or no difficulty with the other. The most. singular thing about this movement up to this point is the fact that it is taken up by men who are noted for their local public spirit and who. have shown it in Sag fa lor Brook: be Cg hy ofa city. it a eeeee Spirtane en and Low we are lebte Academy of Masic, oroantiie Library and Histort- cal society. Mr. Stranaban has been the foremoss advocate and the chief manager of our Park pro- ject, and in his advocacy Mr. Stranahan has dwelt. especially on the necessity Brooklyn was under to rovide a desirable pace Of public resort it Brook- Fn wanted to hold its own in its rivalry with New York. The initial fos Ao taken - by representative men of Brooklyn and.they cannot but be aware of the fact that, consolidation once effected, they wilt cease to Occup; ir distinctively representative positions. * * if anybody believes that the- im | bie, then as sopn thereafter as can cony, ople of Brooklyn are going to surrender thetr right to municipal Sadepes lence without a. great deal of discussion amd consideration they ure yery much mistaken, STREET CLEANING, At a meeting of the Board of Police held yesten. day afternoon the following resolution was passed :— Resolved—That the foreman of street cleaning i precinct shall be a patrolman, nominated by captans tnd ‘approved by. the’ Board, the) i Posed upon the. foreuea oF pereet sleaaineg Gat e e id lean: a Duher duties as shall be designated by the Superintendent or Street Cleaning, im accordance with te rules ‘aud es regulations. captain all f his precinct every neglect of duty of an gaged {nthe busluess of removinu street dirt, ast, a from h such eo ay specify. fig “the “number @ cart and the ni Ghdb aad”"ine penicaans” of teal atte ined, fl of sac { The captain of each precinct “wilh re 1nefiect sponsible for the cleanly condition of the stree yrecinot, and a thorough and regular removal pte jirt, ashes and ge. The sergeants whil Siow guy. shall exercise a vision “of the work of street cleaning in ‘of the patrolmen ed to roinptly re} of duty whic Feport promptly to the Sup ol ro} any and all begleete of dub ane ) Un e and Gartinen, and he shall yee that tie ordinancar here hibit the throwing of ashes and ensorced ig his precinet When pronticanie ceete ders from the itendent of Street Cleaning to an: foreman shall be tirst given to the eaptain of his precinet and when in case of exigency this shall not be prac VAieMiLy be