The New York Herald Newspaper, February 18, 1873, Page 4

4 THE CouRTS. THE SCANNELL-DONOHOE KILLING. Opening of District Attorney Phelps for the Prosecution— Examination of Wit- nesses—Scene in the Pool Room— The Shooting—Four Shots Fired—The First Fatal. THE NEW JURY LAW SUSTAINED. The Application for a New Trial in the Bar- clay Test Case Denied---The Constitutien- ality of the Law Sustained by the Supreme Court, General Term-- Opinion by Judge Ingraham. THE FEES OF RECEIVERS. pasa aac seal The Glenham Hotel Receivership— How the Money Was Gobbled Up by the Law- yers and the Oreditors Left Out in the Oold—A Suit Brought to Oompel Them to Disgorge. TuE BOARD. OF AUDIT IN COURT. A Street Cleaning Contractor’s Bill—The Board Deduct from the Bili—A Per- emptory Mandamus Granted to Compel Payment, THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. Close of Mr. O’'Conor’s Argument for the Defence—The Case for the Plaintiff to Commence and Close To-Day. SUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. Im the case of the People vs. John Scannell for the killing of Thomas Donohoe, on the 2d of Novem- ber last, in Johnson's pool room, corner of Twenty- eighth street and Broadway, District Atterney Phelps yesterday opened for the prosecution. He was brief in his remarks, but really went over @ll the ground that is to be traversed by the witnesses in describing under examination and cross-examination the fatal oceurrence and its attendant circumstances. ‘The testimony of the witnesses themselves was brie/, and counsels for once saw the inutility of spinning out the case unnecessarily. There is nothing that can behopea to be elicited to throw doubt upon the plain un- varnished tale that each witness relates, and what- ever is to go to the jury affecting the case must come {rom the points to be raised in the defence. ‘The case, thus far, promises to be a short one, In the General Sessions-—Parts 1 and 2—the usual routine of shert trials, convictions and sentences was the order of the day. One that might be selected as a warning to Bohemians was that of Henry 8. Bogart, who for a time went about the city representing himself as a reporter of @ morning paper and blackmailing the un- sophicated. For one of his many little operations he was taken up and sent to the penitentiary, to chew the cud of bitter reflections on bis unproft- able Bohemianizing. 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. Charles O’Conor concluded his summing up of the testimony on the part of the defendant, Counsel for plaintif’ will reply to-day. It is expected that Judge Shipman will charge the | jury to-morrow, Ap important decision was rendered yesterday by the Judges of the Supreme Court, General Term, affirming the constitutionality of what is known asthe new Jury law. In another column will be found tn full the opinion of Judge Ingraham em- bodying the points upon which the decision 1s based. A case has just been brought to trial, before Judge Van Brunt, holding Supreme Court, Special Term, in which some queer revelations are made as tothe expenses growing out ofa receivership. The facts and figures, as given in our law columns, are Tull of instructive suggestiveness. A motion was made yesterday, before Judge Davia, at Supreme Court, Chambers, to punish the Board of Audit and Apportionment for contempt in not obeying a writof peremptory mandamus in auditing the bill ofa street contractor. The Court heard the argument, but reserved its decision. THE SCANNELL-DONOHOE KILLING. —_—_ Commencement of the Trial Proper= Opening for the Prosecution by District Attorney Pheips—Examination of Wit- Nnesses—The Shooting—Four Shots Fired—The First Shot Fatal. The trial of John Scannell for the shooting and killing of Thomas Donohoe, on Saturday, the 2d day of November last, at Johnson's pool room, un- der Apollo Hall, Twenty-eighth street, Broadway, was resumed yesterday in the Court of Oyer and Terminer before Judge Brady, T the previous week was consumed in obtaining a jury. seat on the bench, and all who were able to gain admittance had already passed the guards in the passage way and at the doors, which, later in the day, were, by orders of the Court, more strictly gusrded, so that the court room during the day was but tolerably filled, much to the comfort of the Bench, the jury, coumsel and aii who had actual business to be there. The people were repre- sented by District Attorney Phelps, who conductea the case single-handed against prisoner's counsel, consisting of Messrs. Beach, Howe, Mitchell and Spencer. The prisoner Was, as usual, brought in in custody of Sheriff Brennan's deputies. Near bim eat his wife, mother and sister and some other relatives. The prisoner looked like one who had really begun, and for the first time, to realize the Pertlin which he stood by his dread vioiation of the law, which, however it may be at times evaded, yet exacts the penalty of life for life whenever the taking of life cannot be justified, The Prisoner yesterday looked careworn, and was noticed to gaze around the crowded room more turtively and less confidently than heretofore, His wite and friends seemed to ke of easiness, and a look more of auslety thi Previous interest which marked their demean during the swearing in of the jury was easily per- m. ceivable among the answered to their names, the The jones having case for the 49 it would be proved by the pened by People, testimony of witnesses, was o ane sag tceet atronnay PUELPS, ress! im o the jury, he great responsibility which Tested upon theta, ot gne were ministers in the great temple ef justice, ing nearest to her sitar. It was their duty al see that the innocent shoul aot sumer nor that jus- tice should ery out i0,the streets invain, He ‘th n reviewed the cireumstances of the shooting ef Donohoe by the fd On the night of the 2a of November, tn Johnson’s pool room, in the basement under Apollo in Twenty-eighth street, near Broadway. The saloen was crowded at the time Sr Pabatea frgaad iw prteta tas on electio: e risoner fired feur shots at Donehoe, the first of a NE in pe i back to the origia of the Bona: whole of | At the usual hour Judge Brady tvok his | NEW YORK HERALD, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1873—TRKIPLE ‘SHEET. | nott-Donoboe tous tn ctream stances of ¢ue ater fa igh the Briooer” brother, fost Dis lit saloon, ‘ which are too well known to need repetition. He then referred to -the of Donohoe tn December, 1871, on Third avenue, by Scannell, who had sworn. the deve: for the al- pM Ate pope cluded by a) not geance, but ag Ss Ministers of justice in the case, ‘The calling and examination of witnesses were then proceeded with. The first witness called was EDMOND STRYBNSON. Examined by Mr. Phelps—I reside at 306 Third avenue; I knew Thomas Donohoe; | know John ioe oa sanranentue at of ner doheaoals ret room on ure 1e G elt soiss't pituorm, wh about eight o'clock pir hotel n the door and the atood near the door, bet talking with a friend, with my back to the door; al like a h of lightning I heard the report of a pis- tol; 1 wheeled roams: 1 Se a with a ergs own; panel! ‘by his pide {a08, and 1 wont til {saw his 1ull face; it was Jehn Scannell; I heard four shots, but did net see what he was. at on the floor ul aterwraraes Kovels ny it was penance (wit- neas here explain Fe positions) ; Thad. son by the bar about fifteen minutes before, ant wearer the centre of the room about five minut ; hed seat naan at eee er biter Donohoe h: eft the bar; 1001 than five minuten after Laaw, ‘Soawaell at when T'saw him moved edge tl ite was close to the thohold or his shonlaers ‘and raised the man apt Talawe went to tench him ;Beaunell went rigut op 6 UD statre and some followed him; I didn't follow fora Jew minutes; Donoh ay with, hia bead to the door, towards the wont side of the door; his arms were not spread, By Mr. Beach—Asnear as I remember this dit represents the pool room; I know of no other door to the room but this one; I kad known both about the same time, eight or mine years; [knew Dono- hoe had a liquor saloon about the time that Flor- ence Scannell was shot; I don’t know of my own knowledge what the business of either Donohoe or Scannell wag; I was there accidentally; I was something of partigan in the election; I don’t know to what parties elther Donohoe or ‘Scannell belonged; I was talking with Mr. Deoker about tho chances for May: had his candidate, I mine, but either would have satisfea pa. Of. vid meee net excited; there, was no éXcltement xcep' around the bool selling; tiié crowd around that pe to the stove; there was no great ‘e $s crowd the rest of the room; I left about fifteen or twenty minutes past nine; I don’t think I was there as much as five min- half an hour; ‘was there when I went in; he was beside the auc- tioueer when I frst saw nim; I took no particular note of his actions; he was talking with more than one; I knew by sight several of those he spoke to; Idid not see either Donohoe or Scannell drink; Donohoe came in with a man named Nesbitt; there were several persons talking with him during the evening, buc I can’t tell who; when Scannell was leaning agalnst the bar Donohoe was nearer the centre of the room; I should say the whole affair occupied not much more time than the tick of a large sized clock, and then I stepped right forward and saw Donohoe; Scannell stood so near the ste he could have stepped on them, I think, with one step; he was on the cast side of the door, so that there was about the width of the door between them; I saw no one in front of Scan- hell; there was at once a great dust rose and the amoke of the pistol; I heard uo such words as “Come on, John;’’ that Iam positive of; from my nearness to them I don’t believe any such words were said; from the time I first turned I don’t dis- coor remember any one nearer than myself; the crowd were running away to the other end of the room, At this moment witness, pointing to the door of the court room, said, ‘There is a man now going out whom 1 saw in the pool room talking with Scannell that evening.” Mr, Beach—Attend tothe questions, sir, and yol- unteer no statements, Mr. Phelps—He was asked who he saw there. Mr. BDeach—He hasn't been asked that question now. Witness continued—When 1 saw Scannell first atter the firing he was standing sidewise, and ag he fired he faced more and more into the room, until at last he had a foot on the stans, and then fired the last shot; he then turned and went up stairs; I have seen mon up faster; well, per- haps it wes 4p ordina: 7 gat jt iy that Life he station hopse; Lsrent mainly from curtosity 5 Pubhbemareed my alate: there was Awnkn iid light coat who followed Scannell out; I don’t know who tt was; I didn’t see his face, To Mr. Phelps—There was no noise in that part of the room; there was ordinary conversation going on; the noise and the crowd were in the | other part of the room, near the pool selling; I | Meant by the tick of aciock that the pistol shots followed cach other about like the ticks of a large clock; the next time I saw Scannell was at the Coroners’ ottice. é TESTIMON) SUBRIDAN SHOOK, Sheridan Show Tostided '—I had known Donohoe and the prisoner two or three years; I was at Johnson's pool room November 2, 1872; I saw the prisoner there; I saw him at the end ot the oyster counter; that was between three and five minutes before the shooting; I was standing with my face towards the door waen he came up; I passed a few words with him; I said I nadn’t seen him, I think; and I think he satd he had been away; he ade me good night; Mr. Barcel: \Dybens with me; I remained near the north end of the oyster counter til I heard the first shot; {t came trom near the door; isaw Scannell at the door; as I was turn- ing round 1 heard some one say, ‘John, stop!” and heard the second shot; I saw Scannell fire four shots ata body on the ground; the body had its head towards the door aud its feet towards the room; I did not see Donohoe that evening, dead or alive; I did not go to see the body; I don’t kbow who said “John, stop,” or where he was; heard that before the frst shot; that drew my at- tention, and I turned, and while turning heard, but did not see, the first shot. CROSS-EXAMINED. To Mr. Beach—I should say the north end of the oyster bar was four to six feet from the bar; I don't remember that any one spoke to Mr. Scannell or me when We Were speaking; there were two er three near; when he was shooting I rather think he was near the centre of the steps; there were, lthink, two doors, and one may have been shut; he stood at the bottom of the stairs, with his back towards Broadway ; I have no means of telling who said, “John, stop; 1 had but very slight aquaint- ance with Donohoe; I did not recognize the voice | as bis. To Mr. Phelps—My judgment is when he fired he | had his left foot on the lower step and was facing | west. TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN F. BRADY. | _ Benjamin PF. Brady sworn, testified:—I was at | Johnson's pool room the night of the shooting, and heard it; I knew neither mohoe nor Scannell; when I heard the shooting I had just entered the room, and was about twelve feet from the en- | trance; I saw the flash of a pistol on my right, and | wenton afew feet; the man was facing me; I went | round behind him; he was firing to the door; Isaw him firing at a prostrate man close to the door; his | head was almost on the step, his feet towards me; ; the man who fired was a few feet from me, and | about fifteen feet from the prostrate body; he fired all the shots there; the pistol was an extraordl- narily large pistol (pistol shown), I should say out the size of this; the frst 1 saw of the body it | was lying prostrate; this was in the neighborhood of half-past nine; I could not recognize the person who fired the shot; immediately after the last shot | he went up stairs; | saw the body alter it was taken to the station house; Isaw no movement in it after the first shot, To Mr, Beach—The man who fired the shot was five feet further from the door than from me; he was coming trom the door and facing me; I should say he Was fiteen feet irom the door; when I faced towards the door there was quite a crowd to my right; I should say some were nearer Donohve than myself, ° sete To Mr. Phelps—After the first shot 1 passed round bebind the m: Oring, far enough to put myself in safety, and so came to face the door, TESTIMONY OP WILLIAM W. DRAK! William W. Drake was called and testified :—I knew Thomas Denohoe; I saw bim at the pool room when he came in; John Nesbitt was with him | when he came in; he stopped \d spoke to me; I | was sitting down about two t to the left of the goor; he passed on towards the bar;I saw him agai! out fifteen minutes after; I had got up and | gone OWards the centre of the room ; he passed | me going tewai ing two or three seconds later; } towards the bar, and was abodt bh Fede trom | the door; the shot seemed to come from right behind me; [heard four shots; I saw three shots fired; I heard four shots, and { think that between | the first and second shots there was an interval of two seconds, & second of time between the second and third snd between the third and fourth also | about one second; I didn't notice whether Dono- ; hoe had an overcoat on or whether he had outside pockets in the outer coat; 1 know Sheridan Shook slightly, but do not recollect seeing him at John- son's that evening; I was in the habit before this of meeting Donohoe at various places; I met him ‘enerally at Case's Hotel, 202 Third av 31 | didn't bay any pools with’ him at Johnson's that night; 1 am a builder by trade, but now keep a saloon at Broadway and Fifth avenue, | g Anytiing ¢ise in the way Of 8] . ments? A. Yes, sir; @ little card playing; | play sometimes; it is not a regular game; 1 don't know ; that I have talked with any friend of Donohoe's about this atfair; I have heard a good deal said abont it; I might have passed some remarks about it at the same time. Q It has been suggested to me that there are some other amusements in that establishment of yours besides billiards and an occ il game of cards, What other amusement is carried on? Is there any? A. (The witness smiling) Yes, sir; there What amusement 1s it? Tho witness looked rather “cunning” at this point, aod, with a twinkle in his eye, said :—Well, we fight ca‘ckens there 'ca- slonally—once in a while, coorpit? A. Yes, . Oh, ¢ a . Ctugntery. adrag eal the witness reured, .) after some discussion, a recess of Without a featbar Fuffied. At this ‘twenty takatee was taken Afternoon Session. During recess nearty all the Gnestaters in court G@ropped out to take the fresh air ny they could jnot get imside the court room, and Scannell accompanied by his keeper, algo Svalied himseit of the opportunity’ for relaxation. Mi “4 court room was as un- interesi asitcould well be. The great cavalry with which Donotioe was killed tay glitter- on the table beside the sheath’ and belt in scnaitive court eMoer @ large green-govered ‘The Court reassembied promptly and James Barclay, a very elaborately dreased you! man, with @ modest manner and sealskin garni- on his was next sworn, ani 5 tare r le Iiive at 309 Henry atreet; 1 ‘was in the pool room at the time of the shooting of Donohoe; lknew Donohoe for elght or ten years; I did not ace kim ig but there that no T saw Scannell there; Scan- nell camein, 1 think, from the with me; then he walked away from me; I id, “John, you are looking well,” and he re- pl “Yes, 1am pretty well; he then left me; shortly alterwardg | heard the report ef a pistol; I should aay it ward; after be leit me I remained standing in the same ; When Scannell left me he walked rere selling po: I fal tol, bat did it;) I was standing with my back to the door near the oyster counter; I tarned around and saw omen fail; he fell right by the on his face; he fell towards (he door; ho fell about a step or two from the door; I don’t think I was over six as feet frees the door: at Abed ‘ou hear any exclamatio! Somebody sat, din, don’t!" anter the first shot ‘wan fred; was ‘sald by 8 gentleman with a light at 10) wi Stet i aE ‘Mot une Re you turned; did ou then see Scannell? A. I did, sir; he was in ‘ont of the door; he had one foot en the steps; I think only one shot had been fired when I saw him with his foot on the steps; 1 don’t remember whether there were four shots fired or five. Who fired the shots you saw fired? A. Scan- nell; he had one foot on the Rails at the time; he was shead of the body, nearer the door, as it lay on the floor; the remark “John, don’t!” was spoken aloud and quickly, pining. the giving of tho witness’ testimony Scannell wore @ sort ofscowlon his face and did pee look up, He rested lis clbow on the table and is cheek on his knuckles, and seemed to be think- ing on his own hook more than listening to the tes- mony. Q. Did you see the pistol? A. I did, sir; it was a large pistol. "e ‘ow did it compare in size and appearance with this (holding up the large revolver pre- viously alluded to)? A. It looked sometnu ke that; Tom Canary was near me and sald, ‘Who is that?” and I said, ‘It is Tom Donohoe;” 1 knew him by his hair as his hat fell off, Cress-examincd—Sheridan Shook and I wore standing together ; Seannell shook hands with both of us; I didn’t see him in any position during the firing than that | have described. Francis H. Hamilton was next sworn and testi- fled—I reside at 132 West Thirty-first street; 1 know the prisoner and was acquainted with tue de- ceased; I saw Donohoe on the night of the shoot- ing at the poolroom somewhere, I should judge, between eight and nine o’clock; when I saw him I think he was about the centre of the room, but toward the eastern side; he was going toward the door with Mr, John Nesbitt; Isaw Scanneil about six feet from where I saw Donohoe, about a minute after I saw Donohoe; he was talking with some ntlemen whom I do not know; at that time Donohoe was about six Jeet west of him; Scannell was looking west at the time, and Donohoe was facing to the south and going in that direction; almost imme- diately I walked toward the door, and Scannell stepped past me toward the centre of the floor; 1 think it was not to exceed a minute after Scanneil stepped past me till 1 heard the shot; I was stand- ing at the rear end of the bar, towards Twenty- ninth strect, when Iheard the first shot, but did not see the shot fired; the sound came from the direction of the door; 1 should think Scannell could see Donohoe from where I saw Scannell standing; I didn’t see Scannell again alter he passed me; saw Donohoe lying on the floor; I think I heard five shets; I didn’t see Donohoe lying on the floor until the firing ceased, and he was then lying with bis head towards the west jamb of the door, rather in an oblique position and ail in a heap, with his face down; he had no appearance of bein, alive when I saw him; I heard no exclamation; saw the police arrive with a stretcher, aud saw them move off up Broadway with the body. The defence did not cross-examine this witness. Henry Saulspaugh testified—I am a printer; I knew Donohee in his lifetime slightly; I Know the prea also; 1 was in the pool room at the time of he firing, on November 2 last; I did not see Dono- hoe there; L saw Scannell there; that was eight or ten minutes before the firing; 1 was fifteen or twenty feet irom the door and opposite it at the time of the firing; I heard the shot but did not see who fired it; it appeared to be penind me an toward the door; | think I heard five shots ‘fired; 1 did not know that it was Donohoe who was shot until I got into the street; { heard no exclamation; I had perhaps been in the room about five or ten minutes when the first shot was fired; tt was a littie after nine, I think, when the ring took ce. ‘he defence declined to cross-examine this wit- ness also. Richard ope dad was next called, and, bein; sworn, testified—I reside on Jersey City Heights; knew Thomas Donohoe in his lifetime; I am not acquainted with the prisoner; | was in the pool room on November 2; I did not see Donoliue there; 1 heard some shots fired there about fiteen or twenty minutes atter I went in; I was com- ing towards the door, near the oyster saloon, when tne first shot was iired, but did not see it fred; I turned and saw one man standing over another at the foot of the steps and shooting at him; the shots were fired rapidly; the man was lying down and the man who was fring was standing right over him; I saw the barrei of good sized pistol; when I saw .d Scannell was standing on the steps; alter he fired the third shot he turned to o up the steps, but turned around and took de- liberate ai fired again at the man who was down; bout as the last shot was fired some One said, “Oh, my God, John Scannell has shot (or killed) Tommy Donohoe ;” I don’t know who said that; I saw the body taken to the station house; I saw DO motien of the body alter It was on the floor. Witness said the pistol resembled the revolver produced in Court. Cross-examined—I became acquainted with Donohoe in Fulton street, near Ann; I am in no business; I have been South for some three years; I sold out my grocery business in 1869; I ‘was on a piantation in Yorktown, Va., from 1860 to May, 1872; 1 frequently came on visits to New york; it was on one of those visits that I became acquainted with Donohoe; I don’t remember whether I was here in November, 1860; I was not here when Nesbitt and Scannell ran against each other; I was perhaps ten feet from the door when the shooting took place; I went there with a Mr. Holden; Lalso spoke there with a Mr. Stephenson who hes testifled here; 1 was partly facing the aoor when the first shot was tired; it was avout a mo- ment after I left Stephenson that I heard the shot; 1 only remember four shots, Imay have missed one; lam certain as tothe shot fired from the steps; I will swear that the body of Donohoe was not lying directly opposite the west jamb of the door; he was | more opposite the door; I don’t know whether | Donohoe wore an overcoat or not; he was partiy Fed ga before he was taken away from the pool room; I saw no pistol taken from his clothing; his clothes were torn open; I have sold my plantation to a gentleman numed 0, D, Myers; Thave been in no business since I returned trom | Virginia; I know John J. Bradley; I know Forbes, Hoiland and Mr. Nesbitt, and W. 0. O’Brien also; i have known them for some time; a peliceman, I think, took some things from the body of Scannell, Re-direct—The body was stripped at the pool room by a Deputy Coroner; the things taken from ne body were t Jorones. Rata ee, seeadere Re-cross—I saw some money anda pocketbook that had been taken from the borly; they were in the hands of a policeman. Six conrt officers Were then cailed and sworn to keep proper custody and vigilance of the jurors and to sliow no intercourse with them. All the officers took hold of the Bibie at the same time, but only four ef them “kissed the book,” the other two apparently being in too much of a hurry to wait until the others had got through with the oscula- tory process. Perhaps they will keep their oaths just as faithfally a8 though they had complied with the form prescribed by law—and perhaps they Won't. As seon us the ceremony was over Judge Brady announced shat, in view of certain questions which bad arisen in reference to the tion of some jurors on a recent criminal trial, he had decided to keep this jury together until the Close of the trial, and had provided ior their accom- Modation, under the custody of officers, at the Astor House. Several of the jnrors presented objections and excuses, two of tliem stating that their wives were sick, and said they would like the opportunity of visiting their homes. After some discussion by Mr. Beach and District Attorney Pheips, both of whom conseated te the jury being allowed to visit their homes, Judge eatilaria a so far as to permit them to go to their homes or places of business under escort of oMfcers, cautioning them, however, not to visit or inspect any place or thing in connection with the case on trial during their absence from Court, The case was then adjourned until this morning. THE NEW, JURY LAW. It Ie Declared Constitutional by the Judges of the Supreme Court, General Term—Opinion of Judge Ingraham Embodying the Points of the Decis! Right of Trial by Jury Inviolate, Bat Fixing Upon the Mode of Trial a Legis= lative Fanction. William J. Barclay, who has the reputation of being an adroit expert injhis chosen field of ertmi- wal operations, severat months since effected an didn’t see any one step past me with him; I should | en by the police and the Deputy 1 ©. ll : This closed the day’s testimony and proceedings. | err | he could give a'true verdict upon the evidence and entrance into the room of a guest at the Grand Central Hotel, and stole several hundred doltars’ worth of diamonds and other jewelry. The owner, of the stolen property fortunately awoke in time to ralse an alarm and secure the arrest of the cul- prit, In May last Barclay was tricd before Re- corder Hackett, at the Court of General Sessions tried, convicted and sentenced eight years to State Prison. His counsel, William F. Howe, appealed from this verdict to the Supreme Court, General Term. Amongother points raised by the counsel for sctting the verdict aside and granting a new trial was the unconsti- tuttonality of the act passed by the Legislature at its last session, entitied “An act in relation tochal- lenges of jurors tn criminal cases,” er, as it is now generally known, the new Jury law. The argument ‘was very fully reported in the H&BALD at the time. The Court yesterday renaered its 4 J Ingraham Sivan ane opinion of the Court. I¢ will be seen from thia opinion, which is given in full below, that the Court aMirm the constitationality of the new Jury law. They grant the new trial, however, but this waa on another poll which the ingal ious counsel was sharp enough, it seems, to je. The following is the opinion :— Tenieslasenaesaiadaned tn araeaineen and fora sTnarged, that tho pris second offence. The indic' nt ed Sih of November. i966, had’ boeu convict ‘iat Stiamot ip opm grant eny, aad had Deen duly ‘discliarged and. romitiod of auch Jud fe further ob on the ilth of ir, ras cullly of grand larcen: in stealing ite praperty o¢ Bante Hei cot been ‘red athe Gonoral Sos: ons for the same offence, and.had LENG or unons in criminat cases (Laws 1872, ch. 475), is unconstitutional and void, for the reason that the constitution, article 1, section 1, doclares the trial by Jury shall remain inviolate Mall bs dopeivedc ot liberty: as. reckons of ed OF r' thout due process law. The construction of Yao slzth ‘A upon by Bronson J., in xazie va. Porter, 4 Hill, 140, where he says, “The meaning of this section seems nomember of the State shall be disfranchised or do- rived of any of his rights or privileges uniess the mat- r be adjudged against bim upon trial had according the course of the common law. It must be ascertaine judicially ;” and again he says, “The words due process of law cannot mean legs than a prosecution or suit instl- tuted and conducted Docent MD the prescribed forms 9 and solemnities for ascertain it”” In Wynehamer ys. The People, 13 N. Y. Judge Selden says—“The clause in question was intended to secure to every citi- zen the benefit of those rules of the common law by which judicial trials ure regulated, and to place, them beyond the reach of legisiative subversion, and Hubbard 3. iehines due process of Inw jas’ meaning an ordinary judicial proceeding. Im a criminal case af arraignment, formal complaint, confront ing | of, Witnesen, regular conviction and Judgment, Such trfals, therefore, are to be regulated and conducted accordiug to the common law—viz., by indict- ment, trial by jury. proof of guilt, unanimous’ verdict of gislature as to the rales of evidence, the qualifications of jurors, the nature of crime and the punishments to be inflicted ‘for its commission. All these are matters left to the discretion of the Legis. lature. Any other rule would prevent the Legislature from changing the qualitication of jurors, altering the age at which they should be excused’ trom’ serving, pre- scribing who may and who may not be witnesses, and many other regulations in regard to trials which do not necessarily violate that provision. In Walters vs. Tho People, 82 New York, 147-158, Wright, J., say: to these constituttonal provisions :—"'There are no limita. ton of or restriction upon legislative power except as to the Tight guarauteed—viz., @ Jury trial in all cases in which it had been ‘used before of the instrument Trial by a pensed with in criminal i obvi- ously within the scope of legislation to regulate such trial.” If these views are correct then there is no force im the objection that the act referred to isin violation of the constitution in regulating the right of challenge to jurors and providing the necessary quallttea- tions, even if it docs alter the rule of the common law on that subject, But does tho law reterred to make any such alteration? In regard to challenges to the favor they remain unaffected by that statute. That statute is confined 40, challenges for principal cause on}y, and in ho way changes the law as to challenges to tht favor. It provides that “the previous formation or expression of an opinion or impression on which a y criminal action at law is based, or In reference fo the guilt or Innocence of the prisoner, ora present opluton or impression in refer- ence thereto, shall not be @ suMcient ground of chal- Jonge for pritiefpal cause, provided the person proposed asa juror shall declare on oath that he verily believes thatho can render an impartial verdict according to the evidence; that such opinion or impression will not bins or influence his verdict; and provided the Court shall be satiated that the proposed juror does not entertain such a present opinion as would inuence, his verdict asa juror. t is difficult to see how this law changes the common law rules as to the qualification of jurors. If we go back to ‘TUE COMMON Law, as it existed prior to statutory provisions, it must be re- hiembered that jurors were always, selected from the yicinage. In Coke's Littleton, vol. 3, p. 464, It is said, “Every trial shall be out of that town, ‘parish ‘oF hamlet, or place known out of the town within the record, within Whieh the matier of fet issyable is alloyed, which 1s most coriain and néarest thereto, the inhabitants whereof may have the better and more certain know!- edge of the fact.” And in Clv, Eliz., 260, it is said, "So es- sential did the common law deem ng sorte of the polghpors.oa the Jury thatir the vise apueafed on the record to bea mpong place J Wag 4 mistrial.” Atterwards by statute, 16 Chas. IL, it was provided thatthe cause Might be tried by a jury from any part of the county, These provisions show that by the common law {t was 8. matter of right that neighbors should form the jury, be- cause they had more Knowledge of the accused and of the facts Connected with tho aileged offence. These pro- visions have been altered irom time to time, so that now partly by the English statutes before the formation, o his government, and since then by laws passed by. the Legislature, the qualliications of Jurors have been changed, and ail that is now required is that a juror shall be {mpartial, unbiased and capable of rendering a true verdict upon ‘the evidence. THE ACT oF 1872 makes no different provision and takes away no qualif- cation which existed previously. ‘The same rule which is incorporated in this statute has | been repeatedly adjudged by the Courts, and adepted for ears previous to the passage. In Durell vs. Mosher, 8 . R., M7, & juror of challenge said that he had said that the Werendant was wrong and the plaintit was right; but he also said, ihe had no personal knowledge of the matter in dispute, but if the reports were cor- Tect the defendant was wrong and the platotiif was right. The Court held that the objection was unfounded. In Freeman vs. The People, 4 Denio, 9, % the juror had an impression that the privoner was guilty, but not an ab- golute opinion, The challenge was not sustained, ‘In Sohewell vs. The People, 1 Com., $84, and the People vs, Rodine, 3 Den., 122, questions were put to jurors whethe; they could try the case render an impartial verdict—no withstanding their impressions or opinions, and on answering that they could they were held to be good In the Commonwealth vs. Webster, 5 Cush., 295, ‘where the juror had an opinion, but said it was not strong enough to cause him to prejudge the cuse, or to revent a candid judgmenton the evidence, he was held b be competent. “Such seems to be ‘THE GENERAL RULE where the opinfon {s tormed from mere rumor or news Paper statement and would not influence the juror in de- Riding on the evidence, and ho would not be disqualiied thereby, The statute dt 18/2 does not require anythin different. The juror isnot only to dectere on oath tha he believes he can render an impartial verdict on the evidence, and that the opinion oF inpression he kas will not bias or influence his verdict, bat the Court must also bo satisfled that such Juror dots not entertain such @ nt opinion as would influence his verdict. These tes Would seem to demand that the juror, before he cepted, must be free trom bias and must satisfy the Court of his impartiality. The alteration of the qualifica- tion as to the juror, if any such alteration is made by this statute, only applies to the challenge for cause, The ob- jection is not taken away from the other chalienge, and the same canbe made available on the challenge to the | favor, if it really exists. It amounts, then, to nothing | more than providing that if the juror says he'can try the | case without being influenced by such impressions it shall not be a good cause’ tor rejecting the Jurer on that challenge, and does not. com- pel the trial by a juror not quatified, if the arty challenging sces ft to use the chailenge to the favor. it it be cenceded that THR CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION included in its provisions the right to have impartial juries, as stated in the maiter of Vermilyea, 8 Cow., 555, Still there is nothing in this law whien takés itawiay or | interteres with its exercise. Itis a mere regulation of the | challenge for principal causes, prescribing whatshall not | be a sufficient ground to sustain such challenge, The Legislature may change or regulate the mode of chal- lenging. So long as the right of a jury trial is preserved and means provided by which impartial juries can be ob- | tained there is no violation of the coustitutional guaran. by jury. ‘There is no ground, therefore, on actroferred to can be held to be unconstiutional, The objection to the jurors who were held to be com: petent on the second trial, when they had tried the cause previously and had fyund’a verdict against the prisoner, | Of ge TREE Aen y ¥, ~% 4 DIFFERENT CHARACTER, : tephen Price was challenged for principal cause, Te stated hie was on tho first jury and heard the case. ‘That he then formed his opinion; that the view he then had of | the case would control Him, regardless of what the ight be. ‘That his verdict would be the same evidence, and if sworn that he would render f guilty.” In answer to a question from the Court whether, without, regard to, previo Le ge r the case fairly and impartially, he answered that ie could do so. The opinion or impression which is reterred | to im the act of 1572 is not artes Soleo tosuch a case. The words are, “Tho previous formation or expres- ‘sion of 8n opinion or Impression in reference to the cir- cumstances upon which any criminal action at law is Dased, or in reter to the guilt or innocence of the Prisotier, shall not be & suMeient ground of chalienge for principal cause, 4c.” Such an opinion or impression was hot iniended to imclude the case of jurors sworn and. acting sa jurors in the same case ee . The duty they have discharged is the ren rine. solemn judgment view the guilt of the rigoner, and that under oath. With the same evidence, it hard to see how any other verdictcan be rendered on second trial by an honest juror. 2m formed an opinion. ‘The rendered judg- ment againat the prisoner that he was guilty. Such hi: been the uniform course of decision at the common lat as to jurors who had acted as such om previous tri the same case. So long "go as the case of The King va. Titus Oa’ (10 Howard st T., 1,079 it was held that a man who had beeu one of the indictors could not sit on the petit jury. in the reign of Edwara Ill, this wi made a statutory provision, and the same has been corporated in our stat Blate @ Rev. 027) ‘tutes and is now the law in this ». The objection to a Grand Jurer 8 when applied to a rd one side of the has not adjudged the prisoner guilty, that the facts proven | were put the prisoner on frial it ja, hath been an arbitrator in the cause he caanot sit on the jury @ &.. U, and the reason givon for it is that # man w up hig mind and has declared it 4 Placed tupon the record will not be hmpartal ag & juror ni to be (2 Rawle, 46), So it was held that if the Juror given a verdict'before in the same case, albeit it be rsed by a writ of error, or if judgment be " And the reason given aed aD he camnot sorve on the second trial is that the juror had not only formed and expre opinion, but had given A DECIDED JUDGMENT, under the solemnities of his oath, on the merits ter he had heard and examined all the testimony. cases might be cited where it has been held who had formerly givon a verdict on th tween the yal tact ghd rial (C0. Let st; Ci ee | s 8 Cited t a juror bY, Ra’ Ga ON ase has ”, jot one o: ror has been held to be competent We are of the opin- ne that the Chalieage Should’ have been Sustained that | mandate of the Court. | learned gentleman referred to the deeds by which The Glenham Hotel Failure—Appoint- ment of a Receiver amd His Dishurse- ment of the Funds—How the Money Was Gobbled Up by Lawyers—Judg- ment Creditors Left Out im the Cold— Suit to Compel the Receiver and Coun- sel to Disgorge Their Allowances. In connection with legal prosecutions there ia, excepting not even Sheriffs’ an@ Marshals’ fees, more complaint of abuses im tho matter of re- oeiverships than in any other branch of litigation, A case in point has just been developed in an action brought before Judge Van Brunt, holding Supreme Court, Circuit, by James V. Schenck and John R. Ryan, as judgment creditors of Messrs, Miller & Loeb, former proprietors of the Glenham fal te belt D. P. Ingraham, Jr., tra Shatfer and FACTS OF THR OAS. griong ae fore in the Compleat of the pints r i nt of the pial bith docamaen Bi seo Chak ties & Loeb were cutie Ihdebtod to them in the sum of $2,954 71, and thata judg- ment was obtained inst them for this amount. Meantime the interest of Loeb was sold to Mr. D. P, Peters, and shortly thereafter Mr. Miller took the usual legal steps incidental to windiag up the copartnership. Application was made be- fore Judge Barnard ior the appointment of a re- As Mr, Peters was one of the defondants in these initlatory proceedings hoe was appointed receiver. He held this position, however, only a few ars, when was removed and ‘D. P. Ingral Jr., appointed in his place. The latter appointment was made by the same Judge on the 20th of December, 1869, aud he held the position till the 18th of rch, 1870, a period, as will be seen, Of about three months. On the last named date ‘‘on motion of Ira Shaffer and no one appear- ing in 9p osition thereto”—so rung the official record—his accounts were passed and himself and sureties ‘discharged trom all lability’ upon their bonag, There came, as shown in the account ren- dered by D. P. Ingraham, Jr., into his hands $8,415 04, The following are the leading disburse- ments:—""D. P, Ingraham, Jr., as receiver and man- ager, $1,900.” ‘Ira Shaffer, as counsel to receiver, 1,900,” “Ira Shaffer, as counsel to D. P. Peters, 950." “Nelson Smith, attorney for receiver In- ESnAG, $1,468... “Mr. J, McAllister, attorney for efendant Peters, $225." “Henry B. Morange, at- oh firm atonuet. that the lator bo torney for defendant Loeb, $225.” ‘John Y. Gridley, Collector of Intermal Revenue, 816.7 “G, H. Chatterton, as superintendent, 500.7 After this follows payments to Clerks, waiters and porters, altogether aggregating $448 98, The result is,as the account winds up, an “excess of payments over funds of $17 94." The plaintiffs, the execution upon their judgment hav- ing been returned, wholly unsatisfied, make an ATTACK ON THE ALLOWANCES. This attack was based on the following grounds:— ‘rhat they are bo els creditors of the partics owning the fund; that no order authorized the re- ceiver to employ counsel; that his appointment of counsel representing the parties in the litigations was illegal and improper, and that the substantial nature of the matter in which the services were rendered being before the Court by admission, and the allowances being also admitted, and it appear- ing that these allowances were to the receiver and his two counsel, involving necessarily an agree- men* between them, and such allowances having. shipwrecked the original canse, leaving it strande: in mid-voyage, the captain’ and crew appro- priating the cargo instead of forwarding it to its destination, thereby becoming personally liable. Upon this state of facts was submitted that the Court ought to decide that these allowances were fraudulent, and decree such allowances to be the property of the judgment creditors of Miller & Loeb, rather than the property of officers of the Court, who claim the same under an order collusive, and obtained in an action wherein they and the parties to that record, and they only, were permitted to appear, and in which, for all practical urposes, they acted as Judges in their own behalf. esers. A. OC. & M. H. Ellis appeared for plaintiffs, and Burrill, Davidson & Burrill for defendant. Ase Van Brunt took the papers, reserving his ecision, C “This case,” & lawyer in commenting on the case narrated, “is a complete yerification..of the truth. fulness of Lord Brougham’s definition or a lawyer.” “What is that?’ asked another lawyer. “A gentleman who rescues your estate from your enemies and takes it himself.” A STREET CLEANER’S CONTRACT. cere Motion to Punish the Board of Audit for Contempt—Will Have the Whole or None of His Claim.: Mr. Charles Guidet was the fortunate, or rather unfortunate individual, as the case looks now, who got the contract for cleaning West street. The amount of his bill was $31,000, but the Board of Audit, according to his views of prompt business despatch, was too dilatory m2 passing upon his claim. Wearied of waiting its movements he some time since, through Mr. West, his counsel, applied at Supreme Court, Chambers, for a writ of bercmp tory mandamus, ek itto audit his bill. It seems that the writ was disregarded, and accord- ingly’ motion was made yesterday before Judge Davis, helding Supreme Court Chambers, to punish the Board for contempt, in thug disregarding the Mr. Strahan, who appeared on behalf of the Board, submitted a return to the writ, stating that the Board had andited the bill. ‘My. West insisted that this return came in too late in the day. Judge Davis (to Mr, West)—You ought to be satisfied your bill has been audited, Mr. West—I am not satisfied at all, dndge Davis—Why not? Mr, West—At the amount, Judge Davis—What is the amonnt allowed? Mr. West—Only $13,000, and we demand $31,000. Judge Davis—Tney have only turned the figures around, (Laughter.) Quite a prolonged discussion ensued upon a fur- ther motion to compel the Board to audit the bill for the full amount claimed. At the close of the argument the Judge took the papers, promising to give his decision in a day or two, THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. The Suit of Bowen vs. Chase—Closing Argument of Mr. Charles O’Conor for the Defendant—Plaintiff’s Counsel to Reply To-Day. The hearing of the suit of George W. Bowen vs. Nelson Chase was resumed yesterday in the United States Circuit Court, before Judge Shipman andthe special jury. Mr. Chatfleld, Mr. Chauncey Shaffer and Mr. Sawyer appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and r, Charies O'Conor and Mr, J, C. Carter for thg @efendant, — % ee es Oe cLoss OF MR. o'coNOR's SUMMING UP FOR THE DE- FENDANT. Mr. O’Conor said in the remarks he Bad made to the jury on Friday he had closea what he might call the first chapter of this caso and the relation of the parties to the estate in question. He was not there to ask any deviation from the law; but natural justice, social equity and the affections of the heart demanded that these things should have weight in the consideration of the jury. He had argued that this case had been instituted for vexation, oppression and delay, and for the pur- pose of forcing the defendant to a settiement. All this property was acquired by Stephen Jumel, in fee, in 1814, and purchased by hisown money. The the property was conveyed by Mr. Jumel to Mary Jamel. He explained the contents of the various deeds, the trusts created under them, and sald that from 1828 the property was conveyed to Mary Jumel, by deed of appoimtment. Mary Jumel had the confidence of Madame Jumel, and Madame had the confidence of Mary, whom she loved dearly, No deed was produced conveying the ninety-four acre ‘unproductive lot te Mary Jumel, or to or for the benefit of Madame Jumel; but there was the dence of John Caryl to the effect that, in 1) Jumel told him all the property was to go after hisdeath, he having a life use of it, M Jamel insisted on having the deeds put in a pi ir and legal manner, and this was done by Chancellor Kent one of the greatest law authorities that ever lived in this country. Madame Jnmel were inclined te do anything wrong with the pro Le it was eminently proper that Mr. Jamel should have it so placed by explicit deeds, as to the meaning of which there could be no mis- understanding. In 1846 and 1861, while soundnes end ity remained in Madame, she left by will the bulk of the property to the chilaren of Jumel (Mrs, Chase). He asked My Jadge to asi jumé jy a that Ma ad no legal i terest fn the lands which were cendable to her heirs. Counsel on the other side had asked them to admit that the plainti was the som and heir of Madame Jumei, and then cail upon him to carry Out the trusts under those deeds, The da. what he circumstantial Bese ne rc cease cra bho was beautiful and might have’ tlie, ‘ at ahe and en was ear in a den of ‘1 aioe & single t of evidence in the case to Bho’ Madamo Jumel ever lived a-life.of yin Proviaeace. Was the fact that she was a yor woman, beauti- fulaad Se tir phd at th b zs that she walked | largonwint shamot Damed Beets who fled. Jumel in New York ftgil vr) pny 8 80 you ir what bay ine a Madame—whether tt was a two story or a ono story houge, but ch ae oe oer wont on to vert to 6 dence of the 10 Vv they hea ad i vidence man fact chaste. She was then only twoive ra old. 16 7 net Proved that ahetoves Knew any Of the Counsel went thi the remaintn; of peed fot ee Fi test co, to. any of those Wwe to be asked he must aay Wr iis otter was. But ‘having been Seasined er was. Bu ex: contradicted Mr, Devine, whose tes ¥ defendant the jury would remember, Hav! mented on the evidence at great le: ant Ealaross by’ referting to. the point of esa by referri of resem) ouamaes Bt a Nata ee tp iidine Jae a ltl ‘aph of whom een ex! e Jar; fe er with one of i plaineify, It wabargued! that cause the plaintif had long flaps to his ears, the tips of which were on a line with the tip of hia nose, therefore he was like Madame, for whom a similar peculiarity was claimed. The jury would See that the picture of Madame produced was he lithograph, and that in the ear there was an artif- clal pendant, art from the natural pendant. ‘The poor man, Plaintiff, was made to late and simile before the jury to show a and his counsel went through an investigation O| some kind to show certain marks on his eye. grown absurdity. He hoped the jury the defendant out of the possession of his property on the absurdity that he was like Madame Jumel because he had long flaps to ears. . ‘The Court then adjourned till this morning, when counsel for plainti will wind up with the “last word.” Itis possible that Judge Shipman will charge the jury to-morrow. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS, SUPREME COURT—GENERAL TERM. Decisions. By Judges Ingraham, Fancher, Brady and Leonard. Mary Bain, Executrix, va. Ebenezer H. Brown.— Judgment afirmed, with costs. Thomas H. Yorker et al. vs, Phillp N, Ver- Planck et al.—Same. John G. J, Ackerman vs, William H, Lillenton.— Same. Horace W. Carpenter vs. Charles Minturn et al— Judgment of Special Term on demurrer to seventh and eighth defences affirmed, with costs, Judg- ment on demurrer to first and sixth defences re- versed and judgment ordered for plaintiff, with costs. Richard 8, Roberts, Survivor, vs. Aaron A. Fisher et al.—_Judgment affirmed, with costs, Lewis 0. Witron vs. John H. Lester.—Judgment reversed and mew trial ordered, costs to abide event, Hunter vs. Hart.—Judgment affirmed, with costs, William H. Raynor vs. Reeves E. Selmes et al.— Order reversed and motion granted, with costs, and without Brenden to motion by receiver. David Orr vs, William Gilmore et al._—Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event, John J. Crane vs. Charles N. Bandiman.—Ju ment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event; order of reference vacated. Atlantic National Bank vs. Joseph F. Franklin.— Judgment reversed and new trial ordered at Cir- cuit Court, costs to abide event, and order of refer- ence vacated. George M. Barnard et al. vs. George W. Camp- bell et al.—Judgment reversed and new trial or- dered, costs to abide event. ‘he American Bank Company vs. The New Lim ey Company.—Judgment affirmed, wit ti. Hugh W. Coleman, Survivor, vs. Mr. B. Dins- more, President, &c.—Same. George Pennington vs. National Spring Com- pany.—Same. Wm. J. Barclay vs. The People.—Judgment re- The People.—Judgment Joseph Thomson vs. Edwin Wilcox et al,—Judg- ment modified as stated in opinion. In Matter of Petition of Addison Smith to Vacate Assessment.—Order reversed, with costa, Hannerley vs. City of New York.—Reargument ordered. Danie) Price vs. Daniel W. Wilson et al.—Judg- Ment aflirmed, without costs of appeal. Prendergrast, Administrator, vs. Bout.—Judg- Ment affirmed, with costs. MARINE COURT—PAST 1. A Landlord and Tenant Case, Beiore Judge Joachimsen, Moynahan vs. Hughes.—In the Spring of last yeat the plaintiff sublet te the defendant part of a stand and cellar in Fulton market which he rented from the city, and it being subsequently vacated by the defendant without payment of rent, this suit was instituted to recover for seven months’ tenancy. The main defence was that the piaimtif! neglected te stop up a leak to which his attention was called, und that therefore the defendant oy? up the premises as untenantabdle, But this the Court dis- allowed, holding that the case before it did not come Within the statute. The only other defence lay in an attempt to reduce the term of tenancy, which, together with acounter-claim for lager beer, was submitted to the jury. Verdict in favor of plaintiff fer full amount claimed. MARINE COURT—PART 2. Action on an Insurance Contract. - Before Chief Justice Shea. Charles Gaume vs. The Firemen’s Fund Insur- ance Company.—This action was brought by the Plaintiff, a machinist, to recover from the defend- 34 2 e3eee # al Johnson vs. | ants the sum of $1,000, It appeared that on the 22d of December, 1872, the plaintiff effected a policy of insurance with the defendants for $1,000 on his machinery. On the 28th of March following a fire occurred on the premises in which tue plaintid carried on the manufacturing of electrical engines, and injured what it did not entirely destroy the property insured. To recover the value of this property destroyed and injured the Plaintid brought suit. The defence was that the Policy only covered cri Srjicles enum Tye and not the property in the factoty. Chie as tlee iS hel, Cy. ing the jury, taat the Meaning ef the policy coveréd all the mychinery in the premises, whether used in the conatruction of machinery for the factory or for sale, but not the material used in the construction of any machines, ‘The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff for $300, with interest. Important Decision Affecting the Va- Md@ity of Decisions in the Marine Ceart. On several occasions applications have beea made to the Judges of the Marin» Court ‘o: ov lers to effect a substitute of service of process under the act of 1853. Yesterday a similar application was made to hye og Shea while presiding at Trial Term. The Judge declined to grant the order, on the ound that the act of 1353 did not apply to the rine Court, nor to any other Court, except the Supreme Court of the State, and held that a judg- Ment entered upon such constructive service Would be vold and of no effect. COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS—PART I. The Grand Jury Empanelied. Before Recorder Hackett. The Grand Jury summoned to serve in this Court, and who were discharged at the commencement of the term till yesterday, were sworn in, Mr. Charles H. Delavan was selected to act as foreman. His Honor the’ Recorder delivered a brief charge, simpty callin their attentuon to the statutes which the presiding Judge is required to mention. As the Grand Jury of the Oyer and Terminer are Still in session these geutiemen were discharged till Thursday next. A Dishonest Servant Sent to the State Prison. Mary Jackson, @ colored servant in the employ of John Moere, 35 West Forty-ninth street, was tried and convicted of stealing a pair of diamond earrings valued at $260, on the 2d inat. She was sent to the State Prison for four years, An Assault, John Doyle, who on the 17th of September cat John Laneor in the arm with @ knife, pleaded