The New York Herald Newspaper, February 25, 1873, Page 8

THE COURTS. —— + - THE SCANNELL-DONOHCE KILLING. Testimony for the Defence—The Insanity Plea—Novel Proposition of the District, Attorney—Scannell To Be Exam- ined by Physicians—What Counsel for the Pris- oner Thinks of It. MURDERERS ARRAIGNED ‘Nixon, for the Murder of Phyfer in Chatham Square; John Morgan, for the Murder of His Wife, and Wm. Hl. Barker, for NEW YORK HERALD, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1873.—TRIPLE SHEET. those admitted, being rigidly, but courteously car- ried out, At the opening yesterday the jury, after their two days’ rest, were promptly in their seats. Judge Brady was punctual as usual, so were the counsel, District Attorney Phelps, for the people, and Messrs. Beach, Howe and Spencer for the prisoner, Mr, Scannell was brought in by the Deputy Sheriff in charge of him, His wife, mother, sister aud other relatives were alse in at- tendance early and remained throughout the pro- ceedings. ‘The evidence yesterday was mainly directed to the mental excitement of the prisoner following his brother’s death, and the feeling thathe had that he himself was the object of political persecu- tion, and that he would not receive any justice tor his brether’s death at the hands of the authori- ties, The evidence, though directed to prove the insanity of the prisoner, nas, as yet, been confined to the testimony of laymen—acquaintances and in- timate friends of Scannell. ‘The professional testimony on this point will be commenced to-day, the examination to be confided to Mr. Howe, who expects to prove emotional insanity, and on which will be based the principal point in the defence. ‘The examination of witnesses for the defence was resumed, the Killing of John D, Schaf- fer, Indicted for Murder jn the First Degree, THE CASE OF THE BARON DE BRIMONT. A French Son-in-Law Sunes His American Parents-in-Law for Maintenance—A Qurious French Local Law— The Frenchman Defeated, THE CLEWS-BAINBRIDGE SsvIT. A Leaf from Wall Street—How a Ref- eree Reported and How the Re- port Was Set Aside. SUIT AGAINST A CITY RAILWAY COMPANY. A Driver Shoves a Passenger Off a Car— A Broken Leg and an Action for Damages—The Suit Dismissed and Why. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. In the Court of General Sessions yesterday James: Cusick, notoriously known as the “Eighth ward man eater,” was put on trial for an assault upon one Isaac Robinson. The complainant wished to withdraw the complaint but this Recorder Hackett would not permit. The case went to the jury, but as both the complainant and the defendant were Insulting to each other, Cusick was acquitted of the charge. Cusick was then sentenced upona pre- vious conviction of assaulting @ young woman and sentenced to ten months’ incarceration in the Pent- tentiary. In Part 2 of the General Sessions the counsel for Greenthal, whose conviction by Judge Bedford’s “extended jury’? was reversed by the General Term, claimed that his client having already been put in jeopardy could not be tried again. He therefore withdrew the plea of “not guilty” already made. The full argument on the case is to be heard to-day. The case of Patrick Carroll, who is charged with attempting to oltain money from the city and Cor- poration of New York by fraudulently representing himself as Patrick Burns, a laborer on the “big pipe” works, was then tried, but the Ceurt ad- journed betore the prosecution had clesed their case. This is a test case, and if it goes against the defendant many other “dummy laborers” will be prosecuted. The Court was crowded with small fry politicians, many of whom are said to be ap- prehensive of the consequences of a conviction in this case. Yesterday ex-Senator William M. Graham, who is charged with having, while acting in the capacity of President of the Wallkill National Bank, embez- Hled $100,000, the property of that institution, was ‘arrested on a bench warrant issued out of the United States District Court. The dati had been fixed at $50,000. Counsel for the defendant asked for a reduction of the bail, and this matter is now before the District Attorney for advisement. The accused, pending the decision of the District At- torney, has been committed to ‘the custody of the Marshal. In the United States Circuit Court yesterday Judge Woodruff delivered his judgment in the case o1 De Brimont vs. Penniman. M. De Brimont had married in Paris a daughter of the defendant, who died after the birth of her first child. The question tobe determined was, whether the law or the United States would uphold a judgment of the French Courts obliging the defendant to pay an annuity to the plaintiff, as his needy son-in-law. Judge Woodruff’s decision is in favor of the defendant. An important decision was rendered yesterday by Judge Fancher, of the Supreme Conrt, in the suit by Livermore, Clews & Co, against Richard Bainbridge. The original suit, commenced ten years ago, was to recover some thirty-five thousand dol- Jars, alleged to be owing the plaintiffs by the ae- fendant through operations in stock speculations on his account, A referee'-reported the plaintiffs, however, as owing the defendant $120,000, and motion was made to set thisreport aside, Judge Fancher grants the motion. His decision, em- bodied in a lengthily written opinion, is given in full in our jaw reports, Among the many suits jnstituted against Mr. W. | M. Tweed was one on behalf of the city to compel him to transfer to the city. without payment, cer- tain property which he is said to have purchased | in Putnam county for the purpose of erecting thereon a storage reservoir for the Croton water. The case came up yesterday before Judge Van Brunt, holding Supreme Court—Special Term. Counsel for Mr. Tweed demurred, on the ground that the complaint did not state suMcient cause of action, and that it united two causes of action. An order was entered sustaining the demurrer. In a suit brought yesterday, in the Common Pleas, before Judge J. F. Daly, to recover $20,000 damages against the Third Avenue Railroad Com- pany, on account of the loss of a leg through being pushed off one of the cars of the company by a driver, the complaint was dismissed, The ground of dismissal was a recent decision in the Court of Appeals exempting the company from liability in a Similar case, and holding the driver responsible. Yesverday William H. Burke, alias George Moore- house, of 34 Amity street, was held in $1,000 bail by Commissioner Shields to await the action of the Grand Jury on a charge of having been concerned in what is calied the “sawdust swindle—to wit, sending circulars through the United States mails to parties offering to sell them counterfeit money on liberal terms, and, in reply, forwarding cigar boxes stuffed with sawdust, A recent act of Con- gress makes it a punishable offence to use the mails in furtherance of a scheme of fraud. THE SCANNELL-DONOHOE KILLING. Continuation or Peattinday for the De- fence—The Question of Insanity to be Relied Upon—No Medicai Testimony as Yet. The trial of John Scanneli for the shooting of Thomas Donohoe in the Court of Oyer and Ter- miner was resumed yesterday before Judge brady, The proceedings in the cuse have been conducted with singular order from the first, Judge Brady's instructions to the Court oficiais to prevent all Tush and disorder at the doors, and vo allow only #0 many to enter the room a8 can be acco: dated with seats and with such standing room as may not interfere with quict ogress and eprors of 0+ TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH KING, Joseph King, formerly in the employ of Scannell, was called to prove, from acts of the accused, that he was insane—On one occasion the prisoner sent witness to purchase some carpets and matting; when he returned tie prisoner got in a rage, an wanted the money back which he paid for them; Scannell thought they were Loo dear; witness re- cited strange acts and curious conduct of the ac- cused after the deeth of his brother; witness con- sidered him insane sometime: TESTIMONY OF PETER CARRO! oysterman, of 116 East ‘wenty-lirst’ street:— I belonged to the bemocratic General Com- mittee in bhe year 1869; Donohoe also belonged to it; Idon’t think John Scannell belonged to it; Donohoe and the Scannelis were good friends pre- nell the day Florence was shot; he was very wild and excited; brought him up stairs in the Comp- ton House> saw mt afterwards in the hospital, while Floreace was lying there; he would atways sit a distance from Fiorence’s bed, would gaze in- tently on him and then drop his head on his breast in @ melancholy and abstracted manner, Mr. Beach—Did you witness the profaseness of the perspiration of the detendant? Witness—Yes; perspiration would come out heavy on his hands and forehead. Mr. Beach—Without any physical exertion? Witness—Yes, Mr, Beach—When was this? On cross-examination witness gave his own earlier history from the time he lett his father’s house, at thirteen years old, down to the present time; he had heard of Scannetl’s being wounded, but he be- Meved he was a policeman then, George W. Hojer testified to a talk with John Scanrell at Elizabeth, N. J., during which Scannell showed great trouble, Witness met Scannell last Autumn at Catskill, and noticed that he leoked haggard; Scannell com- plained of headache and weakness; witness no- ticed that whenever anything was said about his brother be looked very curious and became excited ; the subject of the death of his brother was always avoided as much as possible; Scanneil’s mind wan- dered a good deal; he wouid talk politics, and sud- demy turn the conversation to religious subjects, Andrew Sheehan testifled to the great affecuon the prisoner entertained for his brother, and to the changed demeanor of the ner from the day of the shooting of Fiorence Scannell, John Hennessey stated that he was in the pool- Toom on the night of the shooting; saw both Scan- nell and Donohve, and heard the latter say, “Come on, John; thought Donohoe was standing still when he said this; he might have been moving about, however, ‘The Court here took a recess, Afier Recess. The first witness called upon the reassembling of the Court was JOSEPH R. REED, who, being sworn, testified—!I reside at No. 5 Bre- voort place, and am @ butcher; have known John Scannell jour or five years;-knew Florence Scan- neli also; John was in the habit of visiting at my house both before and after the killing af Florence; T noticed a change in the manner and appearance of John alter the killing of his brother; he visited me irequently, and used to get up at all hours of the night and'stay up; once when his wife came and asked him to go home he said to me, “Joe, I can’t go home, for they want to murder me;” anether night..when he gotup and I wanted him to go back to bed, he said to me, “Joe, you know I can’t go to bed for FLORRY KEEPS ON COMING TO SEE ME;"? he lost flesh very much aiter the shooting of Flor- ence, and was very pale; he was subject to exces. sive perspirations also without any apparent cause. Cross-examined—I sometimes trade a little in horses; when John visited me I lived at 450 West vious to the campaign of 1869; saw John Scan. \ Witness—in August. pre in of this city. ination. He (Mr. Beach) had objected to some of the gentiomen named, He supposed, how- ever, that the law provided a manner in which such an examination should be had; but it was, undoubtedly, not intended to be brought up in this public way, Judge Brady said he knew ef no precedent for stopping & trial on the general jssue to deter- mine such a question, but he sapposed such an ex- aminatien could ‘be had at any time by private veement between the counsel, r. Beach said it might be done in a proper way, but he would never consent to have a number of physicians go to the prisener’s cell and examine him by ail sorts of questions and then come on the stand to testify against him, Judge eo ete 18 not necessary that anything further should be said on that question now. The Court was then adjourntd til this morning. Subsequently Mr. Beach, in reply to & HERALD re- Porter, said:—‘Yes, we have consulted avout it, and Dr. Hammond and Dr. Echeverria are to go down to the Tombs and examine him; but he won't Open his mouth to them.” MURDERERS ARRAIGNED. The Chatham Square Murderer Nixon; Morgan, fer Wife Murder, and the Boy William W. Barker, for the Shooting of the Boy Schaffer, Indicted for Mur- der in the First Degree. At the opening of the Court of Oyer and Terminer Yesterday morning Michael Nixon, John Morgan and William W. Barker were arraigned for murder in the first degree. On the evening of the 2ist of January Nixon drew a pistol and shot down Charles H, Pfeiler, on Chatham square, because he would not get out of his way, Morgan, on the 31st of canuery. while drunk, beat and killed his wife Catharine, in their shanty in Forty-second street, He is about twenty-three years of age, and has a vicious and dissipated ap- pearance, Barker 1s the boy who shot another boy, John D. Schatler, some weeks ago in the Riding Academy on Sixth avenue while they were playing. They all pleaded ‘not guilty,” and were taken back to the Tombs to await trial, BARON GASTON DE BRIMONT. we The Case.of De Brimont vs. Penniman— Curiosities of French Law—Are Pa- rents-in.Law Obliged to Support Needy Sons-in-Law t—Important Decision by Judge Woodruff—Dismissing the Suit. Not long since there were published in the HERALD the particulars of the case of Baron Gaston de Brimont, the husband in her lifetime of Pauline Penniman, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. James F, Miss Penniman was mar- ried in Paris to M, Gaston de Brimont, in.which city her parents were then living, and where they M. De Brimont alleged resided for several years. out that he was nothing of the sort. On the 7th of February, 1869, shortly after giving birth to her first child, Mme, De Brimont died, under circum- stances which were supposed to reflect unfavorably upon Her husband. M. De Brimont began an action against Mr. and Mrs. Penniman to compel them to pay him 10,000 trancs per year under tae law of France, which says that “fathers-in-law and mothers-in-law shall provide | for their needy sons-in-law.” On this action De | Brimont obtaiped a judgment, from which the Pen- | nunans appealed to the Imperial Court of France. | That Court afirmed the judgment of the Court be- low. The Pennimans, having disposed of their property in France ina way in which it could not be affected by execution, declined to Pay De Bri- mont anything unless he would give up his child to their custody and care. This De Brimont de- clined to do and he then came on to thiscity, Here he commenced against the Pennimans a suit in the United States Clrcuit Court, based on the execu- | tion obtained in Paris. The pirpose of this action | was to obtain a decree compelling the Pennimans to pay De Brimont an,annuity for his support as | their son-it Ww. Yesterday Judge Woodrut! ren- dered his decision on the question. He says;:— JUDGE WOODRUFF'S DECISION. The broad question is—Can a citizen of the United States, whose dangliter marries in France, be prosecuted here upon a decree of a French Court requiring him and his wife to pay an annuity that hewas eimai onitie, aercn vue ie taenea ae notexplained. The question here arises whether the reteree had power to order such an amendment. It seem te that the referee exceeded his power. amendment was allowed there was no defence of the nature of aconstruction contained in the issue which could be enlarged by such an amendment as was al- lowed, nor was it possible for the referce to allow such a construction to be introduced in the answer, as it then stood, without, permitting a substantial change defence. In effect the ndment amounted of the a in the Jal, either by # judge or a referee. rh” Woun oa 0"? Hash "fot; Johnson tosh, 31 Barb., 272; Walton vs. Bennett, 200; Whitford * vs, Hungerfoxd, Ford, 35 How. Re| new cause of action or x. Y,, 19% Ford vs. Pr. Rep. namendment which propose EA itround on. oF answer, as it deience should not be allowed. supposition in this case that the amende now appears on the judgment roll, was not prepared untit aiter the decision and report of the referee. It iy asserted by the plaintiffs’ counsel that they never saw it tll it appeared on file in the roll. Had itbeem compe- tent for the referee to allow the defendant the privilege of making such an amendment the answer should have been drawn and vei and served as aménded. Then an opportunity to reply to it would have been afforded to the plaintiffs. Perhaps the statute of limitations or other reply would ‘have been interposed to the counter claim. In Johnson vs. McIntosh, supes., the referee ad- mitted proof of a defence not asserted in the answer, ani on motion after trial the Special Term allowed the answer to be amended to cover the defence. But the judgment Was reversed and the amendment pronounced to be im- proper. 80 “Woods vs, Dickie, 31 How B., 164, t Was held that an amendment is the correction of some error or mistake in a pleading already betore the Court, and there must be something to amend by, whereas the imsertiomof facts constituting a new cause of action or defence ywould be a substantial pleading, and not an amendment of an existing pleading. It was further said in that decision that there are no which furnish satisfactory reason for holding such an amendment to be within the power of the Court to grant it was not necessary that Bainbridge should set up, by way of counter claim, his supposed demand against the plaintiff. He was at liberty to bring a cross action for the same. (Peck vs. pe Rob., 323; Lignat vs, Red- Smith, 28; Gillesple vs. Torr 2 N. 48. D. i Collyer vs, Gollin abandon and withdraw his to bring a cross action on his alleged demand, ‘That action is still pending. After he had thus made his election it was not Competent to allow a further amendment of the answer inthe original action by reinstating the former aban- Hotchkiss Hillyer.—Motion denied, with $10 oom " COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions. By Judge Larremore, Frith vs. Strobel. findings settled, COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS—PART I. An Advertising Agent of the Aldine Con- victed of Forgery and Sent to the State Prison. Before Recorder Hackett, The trial of Kdward B, Banning for forgery, which was commenced on Friday, was resumed and finished yesterday. he accused was an advertising agent in the employ of Messrs. James Sutton & Co., the proprietors of the Aldine, and was charged with forging an order for an adver- tisement purporting to have been signed; Fellows, Hoffman & 60, upon which forged 0 4 he obtained $60 commission. Mr. Sutton, Drant, the bookkeeper; Mr. Vanderhoof, the casuier, and Messrs. Fellows & Hoffman, proved the forgery of the order and the circumstances connected with the reception of the money. ‘The defendant, when on the stand, admitted the forgery, but alleged that it was committed at Mr, Sutton’s request. Mr. Mott, the counsel for the accused, conducted the deience in an able manner, and took some ex- ceptions during the trial. ir, Russell, in summing rp cemmented upon the strange defence presented by the accused, who, according to his own story, committed a forger. upon tife suggestion of the man whom he intende: to defraud. After a clear and impartial charge the jury Promptly rendered a verdict of guilty. Bannthg made a speech previous to the passing of sentence, expressing the hope that His Honor doned counter claim in an amended form while the cross action was pending. The law does not favor double FeXation for the same cause of wctlon. (16 Barb.» 461; 2 Due, 611; Mills vs, Block, 9 Barb., 649; 15 Abb., 191). The plaintits prossates to move to set aside the referee’s re- port tor irregularity before the entry of the judgment. The order to show cause permitted the entry of the judg- ment without: prejudice to the motion, it is therefore proper to consider on this: motion the question of the power, of the referee to allow the amendment without remitting the plaintiffs to an appeal from the judgment. 1 am clearly of the opinion that the referee bad no power tomake the amendment on which the enorinous judg. ment in this case is tounded, and that his report, for that reason, should be set aside. There is another ground of irregularity alleced. One of the plaintiffs states in hix attiaavit that before the case was summed up, the referee came to his office and told him he should advise himrto settle the case, ther states he came to kim a second time, after the | was summea up, and, in one or the other interview, men- tioned the sum of $35,000 AS a proper sum to be paid the defendant by the plantit. The referee himself has made an affidavit on the subject, in which he admits he called on Mr, Clows, but says it was upon another mat- ter; that incidentally he spoke of this su: been long acquainted with the firm of which said Clews was a member, and having been alwa! friendly terms with said Clews aid his partner Livermore, made a remark in substance that he had not ‘at all come to any conclusion about the case as yet, but that there were matters in evidence in thé case which led him to believe that it he judgment for the defendant it would necessarily be for @ very large amount, and he then suggested to said Clews that it might be'well to think the matier over in thatlight, aud, perhaps, it might, be to their in- terest to settle it; that he has some recollection of men- tioning some sum as haying been discussed or spoken of by defendant's counsel, or sme of them, and he thinks the sum was $35,000; but if he did ‘mention such sum, or any sum, as having come from the other side, and’ not originating with him, said referee. A retereé should not_attempt to exercise the functions of a ‘oulator. However honest his intentions or well meant his endeavors. the failure of the attempt may be ground for the supposition that his subse- quent | judgment was, in some degree, influenced by it. ‘The referee is a kentleman of high standing and character and it cannot be supposed that in fact he has allowed his mind to be influenced by the refusal of the Diainuifs to yield to his suxgestions ot compromise, But it has been held that the same rule should be applied to referees as to jurors. (Gale vs. Garmits, 4 How. 3.) Whenever a juror has been guilty of an irregularity which gives any reason to suppose that either party has been preledien by it, the verdict will be set aside. (1 Hill, 20; 1 ., 221; 2 id., 589; 8 id., 355; 5 id., 283.) Courts have ever guarded with jealous watchfulness the right of litigants to the unbiassed judgment of the jury or the referee, It has been remarked that whenever it has been seen that by any means or influence beyond what has transpired on the trial and in the presence of the parties the minds of the jury may have been influenced, their verdict will be set sside. (Dorion vs. Lewis, 9 How., 4.) What was said in that case ‘1s. appro- priate here:—"A referee owes it to himself not only to avoid allimproper influences, but even the appearance of evil.” Whether satisfied with the decision or not, no one uestion its fairness. It is eive the intimation should be left for a moment to certainly unusual for a referee to from o1 arty that $35,000 is a “Bi per sum” to be paid to him by the other, and to be the bearer of the suggestion to the other side with the incitement “that it might be well fo think the matter over,” in the light of the predic- for the support of their son-in-law? The subject pertains to the domestic relations. of our own citi- zens and the dutics and obligations resulting there- | from, and the decree in question proceeds upon | the declaration of an obligation not in conformity | with our laws, not known to the common law. | The courts of this country will, therefore, be slow | to hold unat whenever an Amertcan citizen shall | visit France and reside there temporarily with his | Jamily, his sop or his daughter by a rash or unfor- tunate marriage can cast upon tle parents, mother ‘as well as father, the perpetual burden of an annuity for the support of the Wife or husband. Forty-tirst street; [ do not own any real estate now; John first came vo my house on his own in- vitation, one day, as I met him at Alderman udell’s saloon, when I was returning from the race track; I usually allowed him to occupy any room he chose; he visited me frequently; the first time he stayed there two or three weeks: Jolin was in the | habit of going to bed about daylight; Iam not land- lord of any houses at present; I was landlord of the house I occupied in Forty-first street and of a house in Forty-third street; 1 am not and have not been proprietor of any house used for gam- bling purposes; had ne connection with any such house except paying a visit now and then. PATRICK CLAFFEY Was next sworn and testified as follows:—I am @ painter and reside at 292 Third avenue; I have known John Scannell since 1863; prior to the shoot- ing of his brother he was of a friendly, cheerful, quiet manner and disposition; I noticed'a change in him aiter the death of Florence; he spoke tome once, about January, about painting his barroom, and I gave him @ price; he wanted me to commence painting in the morning, when the carpenters had not yet broken the wall to put up the wood work of the doors he wanted me to paint; I told him he was crazy; on another occasion he was talking pleasantly to me and I happened to mention Douohoe, and Jolin dropped his head on his breast and walked away from me; he was a changed man eer in his manner; he fell | away considerably in flesh; I have seen him wipe | his lorehead, but 1 do uot know whether he was | perspiring or not. The cross-examination of the witness developed nothing of interest. JAMES A. STANDISH Was next examined. He testified:—I have known John and Flerence Scannell about six years; I as- sisted in taking care of Florence while he lay wounded at the hospital; John was there to see him every day; his manuer towards him was very affectionate; at times he acted strangely, and in conversation was often disconnected. Witness | proceeded to describe incidents which led witness | to construe the prisoner’s manner as “flighty; he | fellaway in flesh alter the shooting and death of | Florence. Cross-examined—I took care of Florence at the hospital during the daytime only. R M'‘KNIGHT, | @ long-bearded gentieman,was next sworn and | examined. He said: live at 240 Stanton street; | 1 have been an Alderman and a deputy sheriff; | Ihave known John about twenty-eight years; knew Fiorence since he was a child; J noticed generaily | | their conduct from their youth up; they were ver: cheerful and affectionate toward each other; y | done business for John in the Sheritf’s office; he | once told me he was the happiest man in the world, aad said he had not an enemy in the world; in the Jevierson Market court room at the time | | Florence was shot, John said to me, when I told | him J was sorry to see him there and sorry to hear of Florence's condition, “Oh, my brain 1s burning!” and again, “My soul is on fire!” he was very much excited, and seemed to be deeply | troubled, Witness proceeded to describe various incidents in the prisoner's conduct at and subse. quent to the matters narrated above. He b | fendants are entitied to judgment.” Alter stating that this French law relative to fAthers-in-law supporting their needy sons-in-law 4s a local law; that it 18 based on no universally rec- ognized principles; that it is antagonistic to our institutions, and that it has a tendency to en- courage fraud and idicness, Judge Woodruff con- cludes by saying:—“I am of opinion that the de- | LEAF FROM WALL STREET. Speculations in Stocks and a Ten Years? Suit in Consequence The Suit by Liver= more, Clews & Co. vs. Richard Bain- bridg:—How a Referee Reported and How the Report Has Been Set Aside=Im-= portant Decision by Judge Fancher. ’ The particulars of the suit by Messrs, Livermore, Clews & Co. vs. Richard Bainbridge, growing out of stock operations, have, in the continuation of the litigation during the past ten years, been too frequently given in the Herap to require any extended repetition of the facts. Meantime, as is weil known, Mr. Bainbridge died, and the suit was continued against his estate. An unusual feature im the case was a report of the referee, to whom, after going through various | phases in the courts, it was finally re, | ferred. This report brought the prosecutors | in debt some $120,000 to the defendant, instead of substantiating their claim to large indebtedness by the latter to them. In view of such result, mo- tion was recently made before Judge Fancher at Supreme Court, Chambers, to set aside this report. | Judge Fancher yesterday gave his decision upon this motion. Owing to the novelty of the case and the important issues involved, we give in full the | opinion embracing the decision. The following is | the opinion: j OPINION OF JUDGE FANCHER, The defendant's testator, Richard Bainbridge, in 1862 | commenced dealing with the plaintiffs as brokers! From mber, i862, until May, Isis, the transactions oc- | curred out’ of which this ‘litigation has arisen. ‘The | plaintiffs received from Bainbridge a deposit fora mar- gin and made purchase sales for his account of stocks, gold and United States demand notes. His orig. | inal deposit with the plaintitts was $5,070 44, and. his | agreement was to keep on deposit with them a margin of ten per cent on the amount carried tor his account. On the 27th of May, 1863, the plaintiils rendered to Bain- bridge an account of al! transactions to that date, and on the 12th of August, 1863, a further account was rendered by the plaintifis to Bainbridge detailing the transactions fron?January 1, 1868, ¢ ay 30,1863, By this account a ance appeared to be due to the platntiifs, $15,351 i account consisted of dt | profusely at the nose, and 1 considered thatenat | debilitated nim a great— | wanted, Mr. Howe—Mr. McKnight, an Alderman must of bleeding at the nose, (Subdued laughter.) Witness resumed—His general conduct, manner and conversation led me to consider bin insane. Cros when I went to the Tombs to see him, “Fiorry sleeps with me at night; he is often here and is very cold; I have calied a number of times at the Tombs to him; his manner was sometimes very Strange; when he said that I told him not 7 such things. ie Witness was cross-examined by Mr, Phelps at considerable length, and at the close of his evi- dence Mr. Phelps said that, in view of the testimony Of the last witness, he arose to suggest that a PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PRISONER mental diseases. It could be doné, of course, only by consent of counsel for the defence, and he deée- sired that it should be done at once, Mr. Beach—Has Your Honor power to make such an order at this stage of the case ? Judge Brady—I ain inclined to the belief that the District Attorney has the right, without my order, to send @ physician to sec the prisoner; but, of course, it is at the option of the prisoner whether he will reply to any questions put to him by the clan. 4 ir. Beach—Then why this public announcement ? The Court—That is not # question tobe put to me. e District Attorney Phelps—I have nothing to say to criticism which the counsel chooses to in- dulge in, I will say, however, that the testimony of the last witness, if entitled’ to any credence at all, leads to @ Date recon that this prisoner is now or has been, up to a recent period, insane. If he is in that condition he is manifestly not in a condi- tion to be tried; and it would be the duty of his counsel, a8 well a8 my Own duty, to determine that fact hi have, therefore, suggested it, as already aved by me, | My. Beach said he had already had some discus- | ston with Mr. Phelps privately upon this question, | at winch it Was suggested that Dr. Hammond and s some oluer gebticuwen named should make the District Attorney Phelps—Oh! oh! that is not | not testify us to the eifects upon the human system | Xanined—On one eventing John said, | to talk that way; thatIdid not like to hear him | a be made by physicians skilled in the subject of | 5.68 to the balance due them. Ir ry dinit he should have eredit for anit | due plaintitYs, that being the sum ‘al to him by the arbitration committee of the Stock Exchange in respect | of part of the gold held by the plawtitts on his account. ‘On the 3d of November, 1563, Action was brought by | the plaintif’s to recover the balance thus claimed as due | trom Bainbridge, It was an action. upon an secount stated, and suminons was for a money de- | mand The defendant's answer to the complaint was served on the 19h February, . 1863, | containing two detences. 1 The tirst was to the efect that in the plaintits’ account, and e erred that the sales of the. stocks, | &c., for the detendant’s account were unlawful, and that | the'purchases made to cover short sales were invalid by | reason whereot, the detendant owned he had “sustained damage to @ large amount and equal to the amount, claimed in the plaintiffs’ account, On the loth Novem-* | ber, 1864 Balubridge commenced an action against Liver: more, Clews & Co., to recover damages forthe alleged | | Unlawful sale and conversion of his stocks, gold amd de- mand notes, alleging an improper sale a aversion thereof on ‘t i) May, 1863, and in that action he | clanned for 000. it ppears that on. the | 5, @ motion was made in the original nsel for the de nd defence ‘ ndant Bainbridge, to | 6 mentioned,” ‘the Mr. Hewitt, the ¢ ‘motion made by you Faw your counter claim, the decision i at the time, | have decided to Prejudice to arise in the action to Thereupon an aftidavit was made he dotendant’s attorney and ottor defendant's atto in this case to with of which receiv | geant, not s | the piaintins on the Sd of M used ina moti Clews « Co, ch he | pending betore Jolin P. Crosby, referee, does not involve the issues contained in this action; that about the tine of the commencement of this action this deponent moved betore Mr. Crosby, the referee, to. with draw the second and separate detence therein; that the question of the right of detendant Jo withdraw said defence was submitted to said referee, and aiter due deliberation was decided in favor ot the defendant in that action.” The referee, by a letter to one of plamuffs’ attorneys, dated March 3, 1870, intormed him of the withdrawal of the said second detence. It appears by the motion papers that the withdrawal of the con- nuation or second detence thus referred to was made for the purpose of some supposed benefit to Bainbrid in his action against Livermore, Clews & Uo., and the fact of said withdrawal was made Reperiment of reeeen to stay proceedings in that action, which was decided on the 7th of March, 1870. At some time therealter—but when, the papers before me do not disclose—the referee enterttined and granted a motion made by the defendant’s counsel “to amend the answer so as to include an allegation of damage to defendant by reason of the unlawtul acts of the pluintids,.as set forth in the second detence, to the ammount of $150,000, and a demand of judgment for that punt, With eu This motion was objected to, with- ‘ion now nd | the car, which was drawn by four horses, was tion that if he did give judgment for deiendants it would jarge amount. Whether the plaintifts to comply with the sugge a any influence upon his mind or mot, ee oF jury should be delivered the possibility of bias or temptation under such circumstances. An order will be granted vacating the Judgment entered in this action and setting aside the re- port of the referee tor Irregularity, and also discharging the order of reterence. A CITY RAILWAY CAR CASUALTY. ERS A Driver Shoves a Passenger from a Car and the Latter Loses a Leg—Dismissal of the Complaint tn a Suit for Dam- ages, and Why Dismissed. A case came up for trial yesterday before Judge J. F. Daly, holding Trial Term of tae Court of Com- mon Pieas, the result of which, wnile affording abundant ground for encouragement to our city railroad compantes in cases of prosecutions for damages on account of injuries to passengers, is certainly greatly discouraging to the prosecutors seeking through the Courts damages for their in- juries. The suit to which reference is made is that brought by Adolph Reimer against the Third Ave- nue Railroad Company. Mr. Reimer is a young German, only twenty-three years old, and was em- ployed as bookkeeper in a mereantile warehouse, in the lower part of the city. According~ to his statement in January, 187i, he got on a Third Avenue car with the intention of going to the German Hospital, in Seventy-seventh street. He did go to the hospital, but under circumstances very different trom those he antici- pated. There had been a heavy fall of snow, necessarily be for. a very tailure of the the referee had an} seems proper that a rete! ro) crowded, Young Reimer, tinding no room in the car or on the back platform, took a standing posi- | tion on the front platform, As he neared Seventy- | seventh street he asked the conductor, who hap- | pened to be on the platform, to stop at the next street. Instead of the car stopping, however, one | of the drivers, a8 set forth in his complaint, “gave | his head a push,” and sent him stumbling from the | car, the result of which was that two of the wheels | p@sed over one of his legs, causing mjuries that | compelled its subsequent amputation, After the accident he was removed to the German Hospitai, and remained there ior six months. He brought suit “for $20,000 damages. Alter hearing the evidence on his side motion was nade by the counse! for the road to dismiss the complaint, This motion was pressed on the ground that, in accordange with a recent decision of the Court of Appe: in the case of Isaacs ageinst the same, an action for damages could not lie against the col It was con- fessed that the act of the driv ‘was Wanton, ma- lictous and willul, but as he was: not at the time carrying out any order of the company he alone could be heid responsible ‘or the casualty, Judge Daly said that whatever mignt be his pri- vate views as to the decision in the case referred to by the Court of Appeais, he could not do other- wise than dismiss the complaint, and gave au order to this effect. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. oe UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, Decisions by Judge Woodruff, Stephen H, Cummings vs. Joseph Grafton.—The Judge says that enough ts not alleged by the defendant to make the pleas a fall defence. De- mur?¥r to the first count is overruled with leave to the defendant to withdraw. The United States vs. 1,412 Gallons of Distilled | Spirits.—Defendant’s demurrer is sustained, The United Staves vs. Francis H, Buxom et al.— Judgmeut for the plaintiff! on the demurrer, with leave to defendant to amend on the usual terms, Samuel S. Thorp et al. vs. Samuel 8. Hammond.— Exceptions overruled, In Re Raymond 8. Perrin and Isaac N. Hance.— Order modified so as to recognize the plaintut’s right to the moulding machines in question. Criminal Calendar, Among the criminal cases set down for hearing at the term of the United States Circuit Court, com- mencing March 12, before Judge Benedict, are the followin, John W. Norton, Superintendent of the Money pd Department of the Post Uffice, embezzling 115,000, George 8. Denning, Stamp Clerk in the Sub-Treas- ury, embezzlement. Charles MacKay, mailing obscene literature. Leander and Byron Fox, same oifence, Woodhull, Clafin and Blood, same offence, ¥ Julian K, Julian, same offence, Benoni Howard, counterfeiting, Peter Kehoe, dealing in counterfeit money. SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIL TERM. Decisions. By Judge Freedman. Krouse vs, Gwinge.—Motion denied, with $10 costs to abide event, The proper remedy to test the efficiency of the'defence complained of is a de- murrer. White vs, Talmage.—Motion granted provided Tumis V. P. Talmage, within thtee days after ser- vice of acopy of this order, file security conditioned for the payment, of the judgment in case the said | how. would Nye the punishment in view of the fact that he had served eight years as an officer in the navy and endured the horrors offLibby. He thanked Ne fetantehen for his impartial rulings during the rial y he Recorder Hackett observed that he heartily con- curred with the jury in the conclusion at which they arrived, and sentenced Banning to the State Prison for four years, Acquittal of Cusick of an Alleged As- sault Upon an Ex-Alderman—He is Sentenced to the Penitentiary Upon a Previous Conviction. In the afternoon James Cusick, who, it will be remembered, was tried and convicted last week of assaulting &@ woman and was remanded to be tried upon another indictment, was placed at the bar. ‘The complainant in this case was Isaac Robinson, who asked permission of His Honor to withdraw the prosecution. The Recorder refused to give lus consent. A jury was empanelled and Robinson went on to narrate the circumstances attending the occurrence, which took place on the 4th of last me at Canary’s stables, jn Mercer street. One called the other a sucker, ahd a son of thunder and such like classic phrases were interchanged be- tween the perio, which resulted in Cusick’s touching Robinson slightly on the head. The jury did not believe that Cusick meant to do the ex- pares any harm and rendered a verdict of not guilty. Assistant District Attorney Russell moved for judgment upon the previous conviction, Mr, McClelland reminded His Honor that Cusick had been in prison three months, ‘The Recorder took that into consideration, and sentenced Cusick to the Penitentiary for~ten months Grand Larceny. Henry Martin, who was indicted for grand lar- ceny in having, in complicity, witha man named Clifford, stolen three pieces of iron shafting in No- vember, the property of Robert Irving, was found guilty, In consequence of the previous good chdr- acter of the accused His Honor listened to the recommendation of mercy given by the jury and imposed the lowest penalty allowed by law, which was one year’s imprisonment in the State Prison, Two Branches of the Court in March, [’ ‘The Recorder directed the Clerk to order an ad- ditional pane! of petit jurors to serve next Monday, for the purpose of holding a double branch of the Court. This will enable the District Attorney’s office to dispose of all the cases now awaiting the action of the General Sessions, COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS—PART 2. Another Protest from Mr. Howe—Judge Bedford’s Extended Pctit Jury—The Greenthal C: i Before Judge Sutherland. The first case on the catendar in this Court yese terday was that of Abraham Greenthal, indicted for grand larceny. The prisoner having been called to the bar, Mr. Howe, as his counsel, said he had a most im- portant motion to make tothe Court. His client was one of the fifty or sixty cases that were tried during the extended term of Judge Bedford's grand, patient, elastic, accommodating petit jury; that having been drawn in the panel of November, 1871, was continued by Judge Bedford through De- | cember, in spite of his earnest solicitations and protestations at the time. Greenthal had, how- ever, been tried, found guilty and sentenced to five years in the State Prison. Of that term he had undergone nearly a year’s imprisonment, when the General Term reversed tne judgment on the ground that Judge Bedlord’s action had been irreguiar. A new indictment had, however, been returned against Greenthal, and he hi «pleaded not guilty. He now asked leave to with. draw that plea and interpose in its stead a plea that, having been already been put in jeopardy ef shis Iberty for this offence, he could not ve sube jected to the same ordeal over again. District Attorney Rollins demurred, and said that the motion seemed to him very singular dn its char- acter. Counsel had goue to the General Term and argued that the proceedings were absolutely void, and upon that plea had secured @ reversal of the judgment. Now, however, that @ new trial was ordered, they came into Court amd pleaded that an tte voad proceeding had put them in jeo- pardy. Mr. Howe replied thatthe grounds he had argued before the General Term were of no importance | He might have argued that Judge Bedtord had no jurisdiction. “What Were the proceedings?” and he ciaimed that they were in ail respects regular, except so far as ded the jury, and therefore the pris- oner in fact been put in Jeopardy. An Interesting Municipal Case—One of tho ‘Alleged “Dummy” Laborers Ar- raigned for Obtaining Money Under False Pretences. The rest of the day was absorbed in the trial ofa very interesting and important case, which will be watched with the closest attention by many among the employés ot the city. Patrick Carroil was arraigned for obtaining money under alse pretences from the Mayor and Common Council of the city of New York, There was at once a hush once an important ceremony. Assistant District Attorney Rollins, in opening any others yet tried during the present term. first witness he would place upon the stand would laborers upon the various public works of te city, Inacertain payroll of the engineers, assistants and laborers employed upon the “big pipe” work, between Ninety-third abd 1isth streets, there ap- peared the name of Patrick Burns, of 61 Orchard street, and it would be shown that the defendant had falsely stated that that | Was his name and address, and that he had at- tempted to obtain by that representation tie amount of $27, which was apparentiy due to that name and number on the payroll. The prisoner had even sworn that that was his name and ad- dress, There was a real Patrick Burns, but he had been sick for some months, and when he had re- sumed work tie Jaise Patrick Burns had coutmued to fraudulently draw pay, and had indeed done so fora long period, It was clear, therefore, that thongh the amount charged to have been the ob- ject of a fraudulent attempt by the prisoner was comparatively small, yet the case was a very im- portant one, especially as it was suspected that there were a great many other cases of the same character, involving @ systematic fraud upon the upon an enormous ¢cale. oN. brook . Brooke, jectea to the trial of the prisoner, on the ground was no such offence &s an attempt to ob- tan money under false pretences. Tis was, how- ever, overruled by the Court, ‘The first witness was Mr. Moor Falls, the Pay- master of the Finance Deparatment. He descrived minutely the routine by means of which the pay. rolls are made up and verified, and then statea that his suspicions having been aroused about the prisoner, Who had been drawing pay for some months under the name of Patrick Burns, he re- quired him to swear to his name and residence, which he did: as it was clear, however, that both name and address were false, be had him shortiy afterwards arrested, ,George W. Dresser, the; superintendent of the “big pipe’? works, upon which the prisoner pro- fessed to be employed, testified as to the manner in which the pay roll was made up and verified ; he did not think It probable that a man coukl draw pay unless he did the work; 4 man might work un- def a false name, but the superintendent and fore men were guided by the numbers, not the names of the men; it was possibile that if there were @ conspiracy among the officials men might obtain judgment should be affirmed on appeal, and the a out avail, by t sel for the plaintiff, and the referee on that new di f eporiet aKatrist the plakntitts And ordered a juigmont for $120,000 and Costs. Ro actual amendment Was at the time made by the formal drawing oF servi 1H such amended answer, although the judg- ment roll an Uh ins what purp amended answer, When it was first actually drawal is roceediny nding before the referee shouid Bhally establish the said Tunis V. P, Talmage wag a arther, ~ Ritter va. Phillips.—Motion granted, Same vs. Krickter,—Same, Fitch ve. Fiteby—Order granted, pay without doing the work: he could not remer- T having seen the prisoner at work; le thought he had seen him, but was not sare. Patrick Burns, the Simon-pure bearer of th name, testified that he had been employed on big pipe works, and had lived at 61 Orchard street during part of 4871, in September o! that year, It would not necessarily jol- | | low that such,was the fact. The question was in the court, which was unusually crowded, and | even the selection of the jurors seemed to be for the case, said that it was somewhat diferent from | The | be Paymaster Falls, whose duty it was to pay the | the counsel for the defendant, ob- | was sick, and had been obliged to dis. until February, 1872. He then ree sumed, but he had tn the meantime moved from 62 George H Smith, the next witness, gave by far @ neXt Ww! ve the most i nt testimony against Sarroit He had been the Toinbs, a fellow prisoner of Car- Toll’, on a charge of obtaining money by false pre- tences, which had, however, since in dropped with the consent of the complainant, as it was ut- terly without foundation, Carroll had told him in conversation that he was in prison on a charge of getting money from the city, but what it was exactly he did not know, It might be perjury, he sald, or it might be fraudulently obtaining money, Carroll also said that he used to go to work in the tool shop, but that he went there and left there ag he liked, and that he usually went avout eleve: did very littie, and then, having reported him; came away. He said also that he was one of Noe’s men, and that he divided his pay with Noe. Aiso that other officials besides Noe had other men of the same kind on the pay roll, and that there were about @ hundred such fictitious employés in all. He expected, he said, that Noe and Rice would bail him out. Witness was also present at an interview between the prisoner ana: his mother, His mother said some one had been to sna that morning anf had told her 0 say that her son was employed on the big pt worksand had been for some time; risoner sald that was all right; his mother then said soon after- Wards another man came and asked her about him; prisoner then asked if that,was a man with a mouse-colored cvat, and on his mother saying ‘Yes,” replied, “You must not say anything to him; that is Detective Pariey.”” Witness, on cross- examination, stated that he had written a letter to the Comptroller in reference to the above facts while he was in the Tombs, and that he had sub- sequently been detained in the House of Detention. a8 a witness, but he had no promise of any reward or compensation for giving his testimony. Terence Farley pies gai By this time it was nearly two o’clock, and a gentleman from the Board oF Assistant Aldermen, in whose chamber the Court holds its session came in and informed Judge Sutnerland that tha‘ body were anxious to hold their usual session. Assistant District Attorney Rollins said that as: the Chamber had treated the Court with great con- sideration in voting it the use of their chamber, and as further it was probable that this would be the last session the Board would have a chance to. hold, since it would be probably legisiated out of existence that very-day, it would be a little too pane on them not to give them up their own cham- er, Judge Sutherland thereupon adjourned the fur- nearing of the case until to-day at eleven: o'clock. COURT CALENDARS—THIS DAY. SUPREME COURT—GENERAL TERM—Held by Judges Ingraham and Fancher.—Nos. 186, 11, 201, 245, 246, 248, 39, 251, 262, 254, 255, 256, 259, 260, SUPREME COURT—CIRCUIT—TRIAL TERM—Part 2— Held by Judge Barrett.—Case on. SUPERIOR CouRTS—TRIAL TERM—Parts 1 and 2.— Adjourned for the term. CourT or COMMON PLEAS—TRIAL TERM—Part 1—Held by Judge Loew.—Nos, 1598, 3103, 1685, 1850, 1543, 1645, 1866, 1960, 1965, 1695, 1913, 1989, 1969, 1970, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978. Part 2—Held by Judge J. F, Daly.—Nos, 1517, 1741, 1767, 1596, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1937, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992. Cour? OF COMMON PLEAS—EQUITY TERM—Held by Judge Larremore.—Adjourned to 20th of February. BROOKLYN COURTS. CITY COURT—SPECIAL TERM. Widow Spicer’s Success—A Verdict on Nearly Six Thousand Dollars, and No Prospect of a New Tria! Before Judge McCue, When Elizabeth Spicer sued George Spicer for $40,000, which she claimed was ker dower from the estate of her husband, John Spicer, the defendant's brother, the jury gave her a verdict of $5,777. This was about @ month since, amd the case was re- ported inthe HERALD at that time. The defence was that Elizabeth was not the lawful wife of John Spicer. It appeared that the plaintiff had been married three times, and one of the features of the trial was the sudden reappearance of Hugh Miller, the first husband, whom she had not seen for nearly thirty years, and believed to be dead, Jfhe plaintiff said Miller had abandoned her, and she had subsequently heard that he was dead; but Miller, when called on as a witness for the defence, denied this, and asserted, on the: contrary, that his gee left him. The jury found as already stated. About a fortnight since George Spicer’s counsel moved for a new trial, and yesterday Judge McCue rendered a decision denying the ion, with costs. In the course of his opinion the pare Says:—“The act of Jonn Spicer alone in introducing plaintiff to the world as bis wile, permitog her to join in the execution of deeds as his wife, was sufticlent, with- out other,proof, to esial plaintif’s position as wife and widow gnd to furnish a sui- ficient consideration for delendant’s promise. The marriage with John, therefore, was abundantly established by John’s own acts and dcclarations. Plaintift’s testimony went no further than to fix the time when and the person by whom the mar- riage ceremony was performed. The testimony could not possi affect the transaction between the husband the defendant, and does not come within the rale which induced the enactment that a person should not be a witness as to transactions cocurr tag petween that person and another per- son them deceased. The proposition that the plaintiff could be entitled to an inchoate right of dower in the estates of two husbands living at the Same time, she never having been divorced from one of them, although it may appear novel, seems to be perfectly clear under our statute, ‘The mar- Tiage Of plaintiff with Miller was contracted un- der no disability, amd is valid and subsisting at this day. * * * * * * “The error which it is claimed exists in the com- putation of the value of plaintiffs dower is to be explained probably by the fact that the jury a the testimony assumed the amount expre: | the deeds—to wit, $29,000—as the amount agre | on between the plaintiffand the defendant as the basis of computation when the time came for the adjustment df the plaintif’s rights and not as the | gross value of the entife estate, irom which the mortgages were to be deducted, and then the val- ance remaining to be dividea into two equal | shares upon the theory that John and George were in fact tenants in common, seized each of an equal ! undivided half. [should be wanting in frankness did f not admit that the case presents a variety of | questions as intricate and mixed as appear to | have been the domestic and marital relations of | some of the parties to the suit, but upon a review | of the whole case Ihave not been able to find any | error which would justify me in sending the case | to anotier trial, certainly not until a higher Court | shall have reviewed and «disposed of one or two leading questions which must in the end prove | practically controlling &8 to the respective rights | and obligations of the parties.” ‘The case has elicited considerable interest in | Brooklyn, where the deceased Spicer, who was a horse man and at one time in charge of the Union Course, was quite weil known. ‘ whe Van Syckle Poisoning C Johanna O'Leary, the principal witness for the | people in the case of John Van Syckle, who is | awaiting trialon the charge of having poisoned his, wile to death in October last, was before the Court erday on a writ of habeas corpus, sued out by r counsel, Messrs. Shorter & Ridgeway, who | asked for her release from jail, where she has been | detained since the Coroner's inquest. Her counsel contend that at least she is entitled to a release on her own recognizance, and also question the con- stitutionality of the law authorizing the sumthary | detention of witnesses. In consequence of the av- sence of District Atterney Britton at the Court of | Appeals, in Albgny, the argument of the ‘case was | postponed ‘anct ednesday, and Johanna was re- | manded. She was employed as cook im Van | Syckle’s house. & | COURT OF SESSIONS, Prisoners Arraigned Yesterday. Before Judge Moore and Associates, ‘rhe Grand Jury having finished their labors were discharged yesterday morning. The following prison¢rs were arraigned and the Court ad- Journe George H. Porter, two indictments for false pre- tences. Pleaded not guilty, Trial March 10, David Dowd and Eugene Small, two indictments, one for arsun in second degree and one for bur- | glary im the third degree. Pleaded not guilty. rial March 10, James W.. Knox, one indictment for forgery in the second degree and a od ea pretences. Pieaded not guilty. Trial Mare! Pleacea not Hugh deat Menon manslaughter. jity. Trial March 11. * youn Cloonan, for assault and battery with in- tent to kill, Trial March 11. COUNTY COURT. A Bride of Three Weeks Husband. Before Judge Moore. | Avout three weeks since Charles Sigimund mar- | ried Maria Margaretta Henn, a miss of fitteen, but | for some reason or other she declined to live with her husband, and returned toher mother’s home, No, 165 Boerum street, E. D. Yesterday Charles appealed to the Court, and by means of a writ of habeas corpus sought to obtain possession of his. wife, alleging that the mother was depriving him of her companionship, and illegally detained her.. Maria, however, stated otherwise, saying that she wanted to remata with her ma, So the Judge had. to dismiss the writ, and poor Charles went home without lis wile, Maria said she tnarried Charles because she was “oVer-persuaded.”? COURT OF APPEALS CALENDAR, Ly ry ed ly jn Leaving Her» ALBANY, Feb, 24, 1878. ‘The foltowing is the Court of Appeals day cab endar jor February 25:—Nos, 60%, 580, 6M, 9%. 08 ay 1, 608, Was called and proved the arrest . . i