The New York Herald Newspaper, November 27, 1873, Page 5

5 THE COURTS. teeta THE RING TRIALS. “Boss” Tweed Bringing His Chickens Home to Roost—Ingersoll and Far- rington Convicted. Important Decision in the Grinnell Bankruptcy Case, The Comptroller and County Auditor in Court, Yesterday George Albert Smith. who had been charged before Commissioner Osborn with having forged two receipts—one for £52 and the.other for £1 188.—with intent to defraud Messrs, Bass & Co.. the eminent brewers of Middlesex, London, in ‘whose employment he had been, was sent back to England under the xtradition law, having waived am examination, ‘The prisoner was taken on board the steamship Cuba in charge of Sergeant Daniel Davey, of Great Scotland Yard, London, The prisoner stated that he was perfectly willing togo back. Michael) Wheclahan, who .had been arrested by Deputy Marsha) Hackett on a charge of having been concerned, with others, in assaulting Deputy Marshals Dowley and Hackett when they went to make a seizure in connection with a distillery, at the toot of Thirty-ninth street and Third avenue, ‘Was committed yesterday for examination by Com- missioner Osporn, Subsequently the accused ap- peared before Commissioner Shields, and gave bail Jor his appearance to answer thé charge. It is reported thet Commissioner Davenport has issued warrants for the arrest o1 certain politi- cians for alleged violations of the Election law at ‘the recent election, and that the accused parties will be brought before him to-morrow. The Foley injunction against the Comptroller and City Chamberlain, which was to have been argued yesterday before Judge Fancher, in Su- preme Court,Uhambers, has been again postponed. The postponement was at the instance of the op- posing counsel, and the case was set down for a peremptory hearing to-morrow. The trial of James J. Ingersoll and John D. Far- Tington, Jr.,in the Court of Oyer and Terminer, ‘was concluded yesterday. Alter hearing the state- ment of Farrington, the only witness called for the defence, and some rebutting testimony, the coun- sel proceeded to sum up, which was followed by Judge Davis’ charge. The jury were out only 36 Minutes, and brought in a verdict of guilty against Doth of the accused. Sentence was deferred till to-morrow, to allow counsel to prepare a bill of exceptions, and meantime the convicted culprits were giventin charge of the Sheriff. Judge Fancher, in Supreme Court, Chambers, yesterday granted an alias writ of certiorari in the case of Bernard Wengler. The object is to test the constitutionality of the appointment of the Judges holding the Court of Special Sessions and to pre- vent the raising of technical objections in the argu- ment of the general question before the Supreme Court, General Term, to-morrow. THE INGERSOLL-FARRINGTON CASE Summing Up of Counsel—The Judge's Charge—Verdict of the Jury—Guilty— Sentence to Be Pronounced To-morrow. The general anticipation that it would take but &@ short time to finish up the trial of Ingersoll and Farrington has proved correct. It was probably ths anticipation and the accompanying eagerness to know the result that drew a large crowd yester- @ay to the Court of Oyer and Terminer and kept them there till the bringing in of the verdict, Oniy one witness was called for the delence, which was Farrington, one of the accused, and then, after some rebutting testimony, the counsel proceeded to sum up. This and the Judge’s charge occupied most of the day. The accused assumed an air of indifference, but it was easy to see that they felt no small degree of nervousness as to the result. The celerity of the trial and the promptness with which a verdict of guilty was brought in was commented upon as inaugurating a new and auspicious régime—the quiet railroading to prison of all the old “ring’’ raiders on the City Treasury. The following are yesterday's proceed- dng in the Court:— TESTIMONY OF FARRINGTON. The only witness called for the deience was John D. Farrington, Jr., one of the defendants. He tes- fied that he was employed by the Heath & Smith Manufacturing Company; he sometimes, though rarely, made ont bills for them, and sometimes made purchases for them; know that they supplied goods to the County Court House; he admitted that the billon which the warrant was obtained was drawn by bim, but demied that he made tne signa- tures to it; he made out the bill on mem- oranda furnished by E. A. Heath; Heath told him that he did not want it made ont in the name o! the company, as Ingersoll,‘the President, was one of the Court House Commissioners; he gave the bil) as made out to Heath, and never saw 2t afterwards tiil after the indictment; he knew of his own knowledge that some of the goods were sent to the Court House, among them umbrella stands and ash kettles,” Q How long were you in the employ of the Heath & Smith Manufacturing Company ? A. Since Heath & Smith went into bankruptcy; Ingersoll came there very seldom; all the business was car- ried on by Heath; Ingersoll was in the chair manuiacturing business and knew Very little about the business of the Heath & Smith Manufacturing Comppuy ; the endorsement on this warrant is not im my handwriting. ‘o Mr. Tremain—I may have seen the books of the company three or jour months ago; I did not send for them now; before { went into the busi- ness with this big ed I was clerk with the New York Steam Sugar Refining Company: I was not a defaulter in that company, but went away because another one was defauiter; I went to St. Loui and from there to Canada; after I came back served as clerk for a year in a mercantile firm, and then I was clerk for the Heath & Smith Manufac- turing Company; Heath told me to put in a gooa square per centage to this bill of $15,000; | added 60 per cent; Heath was in the office at the time sitting at another desk; Heath gave me the form to make out the bill. Q. You consented willingly to be a party to make up & bill where you knew it was intended to de- fraud the county out of 50 per cent of $15,000, A. I don’t know that 50 per cent profit wouid bea fraud; I don’t know that it would be a fraud at all aw I could sell the goods and get the money for them; I knew some of the goods had been de- Kivered, but didn’t know that all of them had been; it took me two or three hours to make out the bill; some goods for the Court House were delivered in December; don’t know who delivered them; knew they were de- livered because I saw them in the Court House; they were umbrella stands and ash kettles; Inger- soll ordered the umbrella stands from the com- pany; he gave the order to me; I was with Heath either when wheelbarrows were ordered for the Court House or when they were ordered to be re- paired ; I would not like to swear this signature is Heath’s; [am notan expert in handwriting and ‘wouldn’t like to give an opinion; the “BE.” in “EK. A. Heath” is very much like his; that is the only thing I say; judging from the character of the man, I can answer that I believe he would do such a thin to the signatures, I can only as say I don’t believe anything about them; that 4s hot his signature as he generally writes it; that signature would’nt be good In tne bank; the Wheelbarrows were ordered of the company; I Knew Ingersoll was one of the Commissioners; I did not know there was anything iraudulent or Jaise about it; I knew some of these goods were farnished by the com any. To Mr. Fullerton—I went to the New York Sugar Refinery when @ boy; this letter now shown me is tn Eugene A. Heath’s handwriting. is letter 4 a direction to Farrington to go to Chicago and await instructions from him (Heath) and report to him). ies ais Pegg BY COUNSET. ir, Follerton 8 © presented it Doth to show that the relations of Peery oo 7} Heath and the company were entirely different from those represented by Heath, ana also that the qury might compare the signature: letter “F? on the letters and e bill and endorsement to the warrant. This and other let- ters directing Farrington about the same matter ‘were admitted. PARRINCTON’S EXAMINATION RESUMED, By Mr. Tremain—There are here, I see, two ash kettles charged at $50, and on this bill to the com- any they are charged at $11 50; wasn’t thata inte more than 60 percent addition? A, I sup- Pose KO, Q. You say you were present when these nm- Drcily stones Were ordeed by Mi. AAKCTSO) Wexe J ASCONDUSH an and Which necessarily Involves agus they not sent to Bollar & Go.? A. That I can’t say. This closed case of the defence. UTTING TESTIMONY. The prosecution called Roland A. Robinson, of the firm of Robinson & Lord, who testified that the goods for which bills were made out to Heath & Smith were really sold to the Heath & Smith Company. Mr. Heath was recailed and denied the testimony of Farrington that he had directed him to make out the to the county; he denied absolutely any conversation about the bill with Farrington; Ingersoll did buy some umbrella stands from tne company, but he paid for them with his own check, and they were sent to Boilar & Co,.; these is bought for the Court House and so marked yy him were charged to Ingersoll. To Mr. Fuilerton—I did not myself keep the I_understood they were charged to hig name ; I kvow he directed some goods to be charged to him ; I did not see the umbrella stands delivered to Bellar & Co., but I know they were; I don’t | think | was present when Ingersoll gave the direc- tion to deliver them. Mr, Bird was recalled and testified that all the umbrella stands of that pattern which they had on hand were considered to be the property of Inger- soll and he paid for them; Farrington told him that Bollar & Co.'s man would be down for them, and that Bollar’s carman did come down for them, id he Birdy delivered several lots to him; Far- rington told him that be was independent of any One around there; that Jimmy” would take care ‘of him, and showed him checks of James H. Inger- soll on the ower Bank; these umbrella stands were charged to James H. Ingersoll in the books of the company, and he believed were never trans- ferred to any other account, SUMMING UP FOR THE DEFENCE. The above closed the testimony on both sides and Mr, Fullerton began summing up for the de-_ fence.; He began by calling attention to the accu-’ sation to guard the jury from being misled into try- ing some Other issue than that in the indictment. ‘The charge was not for fraud or procuring money from the city unwarrantably.” The question wi simply, whether the name of Hegtn & Smith hi jbeen forged by the defendants within the legal meaning of the word “for Ping | it~ be so fo they had ut. ae it rged, jtered it, That was the“ question, and he believed no 12 men could answer it in the afirm- ative, After the care they had taken to secure a jury he trusted they would, as they had stated, be without bias. One of the circumstances embar- rassing counsel was the weight of prejudice under which one, and perhaps both, of the defenaants came before them from other charges and other circumstances. He therefore warned the jury earnestly that they should avoid yielding to pralte dice or bias. He recalled to them the tacts, the ex- istence of the old firm of Heath & Smith, and its union in the Heath & Smith Manulacturing Company, of which Ingersoll became President; but Ingersoll gave no personal supervision to it; Heath carried on the city part of the business and Smith the manutacturing part in Connecticut; In- prsoll merely occasionally vésited the place, some- mes not for weeks nor even months. He was entirely unacquainted with the details of the busi- ness; he never sold goods for the company nor bought goods from the company; except in a very general way he did not know the prices of their goods; Heath, however, knew. Bearing that in mind, he asked the Jury to look into the evi- dence. ‘This bill was made out by Farrington, and Farrington had given them the history of it, That history, Heath, it was true, denied. Farrington told them that Heath had brought him a memorandum on two or three slips of paper, and to:d him to make out this account in the name of Heath & Smith. That wasa natural story. n was! @ clerk under Heath’s control. It was to show that the letters ordering him to Chicago ana order- ing him what to do in Chicago were introduced. Heath told him why the old name of Heath & Smith was used. He was not here to defend that bill now. Its propriety might be examined in another proceeding, but this direction by one of that old firm, whatever its motives, put an entirely different face on the transaction. They must be- lieve Farrington or Heath on this point. He re- caljed to them the litigation ana personal hostility of Heath against Ingersoll; his threat against In- fous proved by Hall and his denial of any recol- lection of it, and claimed that this denial of &@ recol- lection must be false. That was not the only con- tradiction of Heath. Mr. Ives told them he saw this billin the Pimes,and at once called Mr. Heatn’s attention to it and was told by Heath that the bill was all right. Here was another flat denial of Heath, and besides that it showed that Heath did know something of the bill, Why should he say this was all rignt? There was no other bill of like amount. Had there been 1t would have been pro- duced. When Heath came on the stand in execu- tion of his two-year-oid threat to send Ingersoll to the State Prison, he (counsel) was constrained to gay that he was perjured. le was influenced by three motives, to deny the hill which he had told Ives was all right, the desire to exculpate himself and the desire to carry out his revenge. He was not going to argue from the similarity of the “E” that these signatures of “E. A. Heath’’ and “Heath & Smith” were written by Mr. Heath. It was not necessary they should do so. There were some witnesses who testified to a belief that they were written by Farrington, but he claimed that this testimony was altogether untrustworthy, Expert testimony was imgatiitenerpa of little worth, and the other testimony was that of excited wit- nesses, In the light of the contradictory testi- mony it had no weight whatever. Four per- sons familiar wh his handwriting swore the signatures were not like his handwriting. He personally swore he did not write them. It was proved that this company did furnish goods to the Court House. He showed them the bills of goods bought by the Heath & Smith Manufacturing Com- pas for the Court House. They were bought, not yy Ingersoll, but by the company. They knew what was the reason for using the company’s name and Smith & Heath’s name. He was not here to defend that reason, Ingersoll might answer for that elsewhere. But here some one had furnished goods. Some one was entitled to pay ment. That some one was James H. Ingersoll. if he put at the head of his own bill Heath & Smith and signed their name to the receipt or to the warrant, that crime was not lorgery. And they would remember that Heath gave his consent to the use of his name. The last trace of the bill was in Heath’s hands until dug out from the Comp- trolier’s office. And here was a significant point, that Farrington, careful and cau- tious in expressing any opinion, thought the “HY in the signatures looked like Heath’s own. Did not every possibility point to Heath himself having presented this bill and got this warrant and then handed it over to Ingersoll? Was it not probable that Heath, pressed for money, said to Ingersoll, “I shall have this warrant to-morrow ; advance me part of it to-day?” They would see that there was such an advance of $15,000. He ex- pisined Mr. Farrington’s running away when @ oy, after the bookkeeper to whom he had paid over what he had collected had become a defaulter and fled; tne absence of the books was a mere mis- take, in counsel’s judgment. Mr. Fullerton was here compelied to sit down through an attack of vertigo, and the Court took a recess. SUMMING UP FOR THE PROSECUTION. On the reassembling of the Court Mr. Tremain summed up lor the prosecution, beginning, like Mr, Fullerton, by explaining the indictment. The indictment contained two counts—one for) making atorged signature, the other for uttering the paper knowing it to be forged, They could find either or both detendants guilty of either or both counts, or each of a different count, or a general verdict of guilty against one or both He pointed out to the jury that it was not necessary that both should have written the Jorgery or both shonld have acted im uttering it. If they acted in complicity with each other, one signing and the other advising, or one gave it to the other to utter, this was a joint forgery and a joint uttering, under which both were guilty, They were, it Wastrue, not to trv the defendants on any crime but the crime charged; bat, on the other hand, if the proof of the crime developed thet it was but the consummation of another flagitious erime, which the counsel for the defence could not defend and would not deny, then they had made @ great step towards proof of that final act. Of course they could not produce proof of the actual writing by the defendants, Criminals were ordinarily too cunning for that to happen. The proof must almost always be circumstantial. ‘The possession of forged papers unexplained wai enough, and men were constantly convicted of uttering forged Pear knowingly on that alone. They nad, first of all, the fact that James H. In- gersoli was an ofiicer in high position, and that he certified that he had “audited”—that is, ‘‘exam- ined and investigated”—the bill. He certified on this bill that be had done so. Had he examined it its fraudulent character must have been at once apparent. He was president of the Heath & Smith Manufacturing Company. He knew that the Heath & Smith partnership had ceased to exist in the summer of 1869, before the first of these articles purported to be supplied. He had every means to inquire into it. He was familiar with Farrington’s Se He was intimate with him. He was in the habit of giving him checks, This bill wasin the hanawriting of Far- rington; it was without affidavit, without dates of items, in a false name, and yet, Knowing all this, he audited it and was driven into the extraordinary position ofsaying he falsely audited it, but with the consent of leath) =& Smith. They might lay aside Heath's testimony, and =the case was still proved, Both Ingersoll and Farrington knew there was no firm of Heath & Smith. It was not even pretended that the en- dorsement was written by Heath or Smith. He presented to them a@ genuine signature of Heath and asked them to compare it with the endorse- ment and also the signature to the voucher, and asked them to compare that with the for, en- poet k ah] to see the dissimilarity of the first and second and the similarity of the second and third. Mr, Tremain spoke at length on the fatiure of the defence to produce the books and argued that the weakness of the defence was stronger condemnation than the strength of the prosecution. Our statutes, he continued, CHARGE BY JUDGE DAVIS, IJndge Davis began his charge by stating that our statutes make forgery oy, instrument by which any pecuniary demand il be created or purported to be transferred forgery in the third degree, Where the punishment is not already fixed, and the uttering bas affixed to it the same penalty as forgery; and another section mal it in the power of the jury to find guilty in the fourth degree, Until the warrant was presented with the endorsement of Heath & Smith the money would remain to the credit of the com- pany, ‘and tne warrant must be treated as a paper Hed with direcuons to pay. As to whether the defendants jointly made the false endorsement, it is not necessary it should be proved that they both | wrote the name across the back of the warrant, It is enough if it be proved they were in concert to NEW YORK HERALD, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1875.—TRIPLE SHEET. that are criminal, and set about accomplishing an object, to accomplish which papers should be pre- pared some at one time, some at another, and that they participated in this. But it is nece: to prove one of the par- ties did the act of endorsing or procured the doing of the act by which the paper was made what purported to be @ legal instrument. The act of signing is chargeable to the person who directs to sign as well as to the person who signs, even though the former never touched pen to paper, for it is a maxim of law that what one does by another he does himselt, and if the person signing believes the person who directed him had full authority, all the responsibility would fall om the other. If the jury should find the defendants made the endorsement under circumstances in which defendants are chargeable they should find that they had no authority from Heath & Smith, and that it was done to injure and defraud; not the person whose name ig used. Necessarily, if the invention to defraud exists, that is enoug! and the intention is laid in the indictment as one to injure this county, The county would not be Mable without the endorsement, even though the ‘Warrant was got by fraud; and Ingersoll would have no claizn on the county without the endorse- ment of Heath & Smith, although the par- ties ht be arrested at that stage, if the truth was known, As to the second count, it was sufficient’ to establish that the defendants uttered the warrant knowing it to be forged, for the purpose bed Tay money the credit of the county in the Bowery Bank to the credit of Ingersoll. The theory of the prosecution 48 that the bill was made out with that intent, and Ingersoll being a Court House Comunissioner, the name ofthe extinct firm of Heath & Smith was used, the bill being a fraudulent one, It bears at the toot a skeleton of an aMdavit not filled out and signed by E, 8. Heath, and certified by ichael.,Norton,, Thomas Coman and John J. Walsh, said’ to be Court House Commis- sioners, and hag attached a receipt not filled out at all, It 1s claimed that, having made this’ raudulent warrant, the defendants consummated the crime by forging the endorsement of Heath & Smith to the warrant, Although a person cannot be convicted of a crime charged in the indictment, by proving that he committed another crime, yet it is often necessary to prove facts historivall; , and show the forgery necessary to consummate otner act, There was no proof of Heath & Smit being used as a firm name for any purpo! the dissolution of that firm and their being succeeded by the Heath & Smith Manufacturing Company. e old firm had no dealings with the county, and the members knew notbiug of the use of their name. The question for the jury, then, was whether the defendants had a right to set down and use the name of the extinct firm any more than Stewart & Co, The defence say the ac- count was with the Heath & Smitn Mamnincraning , y; Company, and that Heath knew all about and Ingersoll, being President ef the eompan: received the amount, and that the day bejore he had given his check to the company for the amount. Ifthere wasa dona side claim and Heath consented to the use of the old name, for any purpose, to get the money for the Heath & Smith Manufacturing Company, though the pre- senting of the bil in a false name would be fraud- ulent, there would be no forgery in endorsing the warrant. In reply to this the prosecution say the claim never existed at all. One would expect proof that the work was done and the charges fair, One of the Jast items in the bill, without any date, was “repairing boilers, putting in tubes, resetting, labor, &c., $1,970,” Some one must have done the work. Here are 300 umbrella stands charged against this Court House at $3,000; then re- pairing and packing cylinder, $1,700; then 100 ‘water Coolers, $2,000 (ome one might be called to prove these things were done or delivered) ; then “pipes, fitting and labor, $299," &c, All these items afford suggestion as to how they might have Renn preyed correct, Then, if the books were pro- duced, that might be a proof of the ac- count There were $100 e proved they were so purchased and delivered. the bill was a genuine one and Heath consented to it, he would probably have receipted it and en- dorsed the warrant and allowed it to be collected for the company; but, though the case was not free from doubt, the evidence was that the writing was not Heath’s or Smith’s. Mr. Farrington, it is considered, wrote the body of the bill, and the ex- pert testifies that the signatures were written by the same person. It does not become so material whose the writing was, provided it was done by the agency and under the control of both or either of the aelfendants for both to ives acommon object. The signatures were Ina feigned handwriting. The paper got into Ingersoll’s hands December 30, Itrequired the endorsement for payment and was endorsed, and in the absence of explanation the jury had to decide on these Jacts. Ifthey believed the defendant, Farrington, had leave of Heath to use the name of Heath & Smith, the jury could not convict of forgery. Not- withstanding the enormous frauds on the city that, we all believe, were proved in were conunitted and which another case, you are to look on this case rather upon the evidence before you; but if you find it one of a number of frauds you should remember it ia of the highest importance that public officers should be held to strict account and punished. Such offences show not the yielding to sudden anger, to want or weakness, but the coolness and deliberation in robbing those whom they were bound to protect, which sbould call tor condign punishment. If you find both or either not guilty, acquit; if otherwise, convict. VERDICT OF THE JURY, The jury left the court room at ten minutes to five o’clock, and by far the greater portion of the audience, which was small, at once left the build- ing. Ingersoll appeared extremely nervous while the jury were out, although it was apparent that he Was endeavoring to look unconcerned. His lather and several of hie irtends gathered around him and chatted with him about the prospects of the case. but Ingersoll, do what he could, was unable to totally conceal bis anxiety. During the Judge's summing up he looked pale and flurried, but hits face had a Jeverish flush after tne jury had leit, and for the greater part of the time he sat twirling his hat Dervously about in his hand and gazing about un- easily. Farrington, though evidently nervous, wore a calmer Jook than Ingersoll, and conversed freely and gayly with his friends. However, at one time he became a little downcast when one of his friends referred to the determined look of the jury, and rallying finally with an effort into an appear- ance of composure remarked, ‘‘We must Keep it up now, John,” apparently referring to the necessity of Keeping up his courage. At 25 minutes after five the jury returned. The two prisoners at once took seats close beside one another and anxieusly scanned the faces of the 12 men. The Clerk was absent and an officer had to be sent for him, and for upward of five minutes the jary sat in their seats awaiting his appearance, the prisoners meanwhile closely Observing them as if to ascer- tain beforehand the fate tnat was in store for them—whether it was good or bad. But every juror sat stolid and unmoved and by no outward sign giving the shghtest evidence of what the verdict was to be. Finally the Clerk arrived and the jury was polled and then came the end. “What say you, have you agreed upon a ver- dict ?? asked the Clerk. “We have,” was the Joreman’s reply. Then, in answer to the usual question as to the finding, the fate of the two prisoners was an- nounced in the word “guilty.’’ Farrington turned deadly pale as the verdict was given, and Inger- soli bowed his head in his hands and bent down over the table at bis side. His face Mushed scariet, and, despite his efforts to contro! himself, terror bh dismay were shown in his every look and ac- on. The District Attorney moved fer sentence at once, but the Court, at the request of counsel for the prisoners, postponed it tw Friday next. The commitment was then made out and handed to Order of Arrest Clerk Judson Jarvis, who repre- sented the Sheriff, who immediatety took charge of the prisomers and conveyed them to the Tombs, where they will remain until to-morrow (Friday). And thus bas ended the second “King” trial with another victory for the people. “Who is to be the next?” inquired a HERALD re- member of their firm, nor any person on their be- hall, received any payment, satisfaction or se- curity on account thereof, except the secur- ities ‘aforesaid, and that there 1s now due and owing from the bankrupts to Brown Brothers & Co. the just and fall sum of $200,000, with interest thereon from the 29th day of July to the 27th day of October, 1873, at the rate of six per cent per annum, and thereaiter at the rate of seven per cent per annum. And it further appearing to the Court that the said securities are of a fluctuating and variable Value, and that at times during the past three months the aggregate of the market values thereof has been less than the amount of the said debt, while the present market values thereof will in the sagrogate exceed the same, but that such value is liable at all times to deprectation. And it further appearing to the Court that at the time and place appointed for the meeting of the creditors of the bankrupts to choose an as- ee, tle choice of an assignee was, by the vote of the unsecured creditors and against the protest of Brown Brothers & Co., adjourned to the oth day of December next, and that there is now no as- signee to whom creditors can give notice of sale or arrange with for the redemption of the bank- rupts’ property. nd it appearing to the Court that It is alike the right of the said creditors and for the best inter- ests of the estate of the bankrupts that the amount of thetr debt and claim should now, where the same is practicable, be realized upon the sale of the ald Securities so far as the sale thereof may be necessary to that end. Andon reading and filing the petition of the bankrupts and the mover thereto by Brown Brothers & Co,, with due proof of the service of notice of this motion on the attorneys of the un- secured creditors wno bad proved their cl ex- cepting a creditor to the amount of about $500, and after hearing Mr. Martin for the petitioners, Mr. Potter for Mesers. Brown Brothers and Co. and porter of Mr. Phelpsas the prisoners were taken | trom the room. “1 don't know,” was the curt reply. “Of course the parties now indicted for frands against the city who have not been tried yet will be tried next term?” “| dare say they will all be tried in time,” was the answer, and Mr. Phelps went his ways peace- fully and smilingly. 1t may be of interest for the uninitiated to know that the highest penalty for forgery in the third degree—the crime Ingersoll and Farrington have been convicted of—is tem years im the State Prison, THE GRINNELL BANERUPTCY, wore enti The Secured Debt of Brown Brothers & Co. fer $200,000. Yesterday, in the United States District Court, Jude Blatchiord granted the foliowing important order in the matter of George B, Grinnell & Go, and G. B. Grinnell, bankrupts :— This matter having regularly come on to be heard, upon the petition of the bankrupts, that Messrs. Brown Brothers & Co, be required to de- liver to them certain bonds and shares (of stock) which they hold as securities for a debt of the bankrupts, and it satisfactorily appearing to the Court that the bankrupts did, on vhe 20vh day of July, 1873, borrow from Brown Brothers & Co, the sum of $200,000, payable at 00 days thereafter, with interest at the rate of six percent per annum, and no more; and as security t erefor de- posited with Brown Brothers & Co, 2,600 shares of the capital stock of the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railroad Compan; at the par value of $100 per share, $10,000 in nomi- nal amount of the registered sinking fund bonds of the Lake Shore and an ee Sonthern Rail- road Company, 100 shares o1 the capital stock of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Company of the es value of $100 per share, 100 shares of the capital stock of the Lilinois Central Railroad Company of the par value of $100 per Share, and 90 of the first mortgage bonds of the Lake Shore and Tuscarawas Valley Railroad Company of the nominal value of $1,000 each, being tie same securities stated tn the bankrnpt’s petiten to have been delivered to Brown Brothers & Co. by the bankrupt firm of George B. Grinnell & Co, And it farther appearing to the Court that Brown Brothers & Co., alter the maturity of the loan, de yment and the redemption of the secur- vat the Same has not, nor has any ATP Uayreo!, Loew Da; MOF dave Lew tar way . cranbed, Mr. Bangs for 22 unsecured ereditors who have proved claims amounting to $71,000 and upwards, No one else appearing. It is now by this Court considered and ordered that the bankrupts be authorized, upon notice to . N. Bangs, one of the attorneys of the un- secured creditors now Cipriede to sell the said 2,600 shares of the capital stock of the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company and 100 shares of the capital stock of the Illinois Central Rallroad Company, and 100 shares of the capital stock of the Chicago and North Western Railway Company, and algo the $10,000 of the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern registered bonds held by Brown Brothers & Co., as aforesaid, or so touch thereof as ey, be necessat to pay the indebtedness of the rupts herefn aforesaid and the costs and ex- penses thereabouts (hereby fixed at the sum of 750), such sales to be made at the New York Stock xchenge, from time to time, in the regular way, at the market prices at the times of such sales, but for prices that will make in the aggregate a sum not tess than the amount due Brown Brothers & ., @S aforesaid. And it is Jurther ordered that Brown Brothers & Co. be authorized and directed to deliver the said stocks in pursuance of such salesso to be made on receiving trom the purchasers thereof the proceeds of such sales, unless and except so far as notified to the contrary by the said Bangs; such proceeds to be retained by them and applied in or toward their claim against the bankrupts and their estate, Brokers’ notes of such, sales are to be delivered to said F, N. Bangs as fast as sales are effected, and before the deliveries upon such saics are oupere respectively. It is Surther ordered that the said sales so to be made shall be deemed made under the authority conferred upon the Court by section 20 of the eakeop ray: act and otherwise, and shall be deemed conciasive evidence as against the assignee of the value of the securities so sold; and such sales shall bind and operate to convey as well the in- terest, estate and title of the assignee when ap- pointe as the interests, estate and title of the ankrupts and Brown Brothers & Co. in the said securities so sold. morning this order contained is to impair the rights o1 Brown Brothers & Co. to realize and dis- pose of the pledge they held, of prevent them to make any application to the Court in the premises as they may be advised, and bankrupts’ attorneys, Messrs. Martin & Smith, are to report to the Court the result of the sales so made, THE COMPTROLLER AND COUNTY | AUDITOR. Powers of the Auditing Bureau of the | Finance Department—Inportant De- | cision by Judge Fancher. In a case heard recently before him in Supreme Court, Chambers, Judge Fancher rendered yester- day an important decision, The point of the de- | cision is that the Burean of the Finance Depart- ment cannot arbitrarily refuse to appreve of a proper voucher to a claim or reverse the action of the Supervisors, Patrick Martin was appointed as- sistant janitor of the County Court House at $3 per day, and served for some time, when he stopped service, payment for the iast eighty days having | been refused, At the time of making this demand there was an unexpended balance of the appro- priation of 1873 applicable to this class of claims, | and the Supervisors in 1872 audited his bill, Ap- plication was made for a mandamus directing the Auditor to examine and audit the account and to the Comproller to pay the amount of the claim. JUDGE FANCHER’S OPINION. Judge Fancher gave quite a lengthy written | opinion embodying his decision, the substance of | which will be found in the subjoined abstract. In passing on the legal questions he holas that the acts of 1867 and 1870, though requiring ‘‘vouchers,” do not substitute the auditing power of the Comp- troller for the Supervisors’ power. In this case the Auditor bas not examined and allowed the voucher, and the Comptroller has not approved it, Yet the relator, having rendered tne gervices, has aright to have nis voucher audited, allowed | and approved ana his claim paia. The Auditing Bureau in the Finance Department cannot arbi- trarily retuse to examine and approve the proper vouclier for an audited claim, The Auditing Burean cannot reverse the action of the Supervisors. Where the amount has been ascertained and fixed by the Board of Supervisors, and tne services tor which the claim was made have been rendered to the county, it is not competent for ihe Auditor to reluse to audit the voucher, nor for the Comp- troller to reuse to uppropriate or pay the claim, The intention of the statute plainly is to grant the Auditor power to examine and ascertain whether claims have been audited and allowed by the Supervisors. If so audited the voucher thereof should be produced to the Finance Department. ‘There may be an audit by the Supervisors where the amount is not extended. The Auditor’s duty | would then be to extend or state the aggregate | sum allowed to the claimant, but he would have no power to change the rate nor to entirely refuse to audit it He compares the case to that of the directors of a private corporation direct- ing a billto be paid, and their auditor then re- fusing to examine their voucher and the cashier refusing to pay 1t He examines at length some minor points raised, and especially the allegation ot the County Auditor that there is no muney ap- pitcable to this claim in the treasury, ana con- cludes that the Auditor's oath is a mere swearing toa legal conclusion that the sum now in the treasury cannot be applied to back claims and that such an oath is nugatory. He therefore orders a mandamus to the Auditor to examine and audit | and to the Comptrolier to approve and pay the claim, the order to be settled on two days’ notice, BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS, Decisions. By Judge Barrett. In the Matter of the Application of Gold Hili Min- ing Conpany.—Report confirmed and order granted. In the Matter of the Application for the Appoint- ment of a General Guardian of the Person and Es- tate of Turner Mauty.—Keport confirmed and | guardian appointed. Buddensick vs. Frost.—The order is defective. Webb vs. Webty et al.—Memorandum for counsel. Dilliber et al. vs. Bolen et al—Motion denied, with $10 costs. The People, &c., Hilton Clews.—The aMdavits | cannot be received until the returo is traversed in due form. Tne People, &c., Roe et al. vs. Green.—Motion for reference denied, with $10 costs, to abide the event, Risley vs. Indianapolis, Bloomington and West- ern Railroad Company.—Order settled. ‘ Laimbeer et al. vs, Clark.—Relerence ordered, C Stone vs, Seagrave ct al.—De'anit opened on payment of the reieree’s fees. Govren vs, Govren,—Keferred back for further proot, &c. Rarry vs. Mutual Life Insarance Company, &c.— Motion granted to the extent stated in the opinion, SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions. By Judge Sedgwick. Watson ys, Clark.—Order of reference, Palmer vs, Bayard.—Motion for injunction de- nied, with $10 cosis, and temporary injunction vacated, Mendleson ys. Stont.—Order denying motion for stay. schneider vs. Paragon Match Company.—Motion to punish party for contempt denied, without costs, Order entered. Hegeman vs. Kiebisch.—Order of reference. McCamant vs. Smali.—Order that answer of de- fendant be overruled as frivolous and for judg- ment. Inson vs. Robbins et al., Rhodes vs. King and Another, Morbach vs. Morbach, Jarrett vs. Kellogg, Weiss vs. Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company, bliis va. Biack.—-Order granted, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM, Decisions. By Judge Larremore, Tyler vs, White,—Receiver appointed, Strong vs. Demorest,—D it Opened on pay- meut of costs of motion Guggenhejm — ye. Goggenheim.—Application 5 Clancy vs, Randall.—Motion granted and canse ordered on calendar for December 19, 1873. COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS. Nathan Murder Notoriety, Arraigned for Burglary. Betore Recorder Hackett. ffis Honor the Recorder presided in this Court yesterday. John T, Irving, of Nathan murder fame, was arraigned upon two indictments charging him with burglary in the third degree. The first charge was that of burglariously enterin: the store of Wilson & Green, a the 18th of ‘Maye 1870, and stealing 20 watche§, worth $150 each; 100 chains, worth $60 each, and 500 diamonds, valued at $75 each. The second indictment was tor a similar offence in breaking into, as is alleged, the store of Henry A, Caspertfield, on the 1st of June, 1873, and stealing 91 watches, 54 gold rings and 20 lockets. Irving pleaded not guilty, and his trial Was set down tor next Monday. Burglary. William Miller pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree. He was charged with breaking into the lager beer saioon of Francis J. Miller, No. 128 First avenue, on the night of the 4th!inst. When arrested burglars’ tools were found with him and Irving, of a package of letters which showed that he was in correspondence with some of the inmates of Sing Sing Prison. He was sent to the State Prison for four years and six months, Grand and Petit Larcenies. » John Fagan, who was charged with stealing a gold watch and chain valued at $600 from the per- son of John M. Carroll while standing in front of his own residence, on the 28th of October, pleaded guilty to an attempt at grand larceny. The sen- tence imposed was two years and six months in the State Prison. William Bennett was tried and found guilty of grand larceny. On the 11th of November, while Charles Stout was passing through Twenty-first street, the prisoner ran up, snatched his watch chain and succeded in running away with a gold watch worth $160. Mr. Stout identified Bennett in the station house two or three days afterwards. His Honor sent him to the Penitentiary for four ears. John Sullivan and Frank Williamson were con- victed of petit larceny from the person, the evi- dence showing that they acted in complicity with a little boy named Michael Lloyd in picking the pocket of Oliver ©. Jones on the 30tn of October, at the corner of Chambers and Centre streets. The youthful “‘prig” only got 20cents. OMcer Connor saw the crime committed, and knowing the youths to be professional pickpockets arrested them. William- 80D, Who assaulted Lioyd when he was in the prisoners’ box, was sentenced to the Penitentiary for four years. Sullivan was sent to the same in- stitution for three years. Lloyd, who pleaded guilty before the trial o1 his confederates com- Menced, was sent to the House of Refuge. Jobn Fitzgerald, who was indicted (or stealing a watch worth $100, which was in the custody of the Adams Express Company, for the purpose of being delivered to Cooper, Fellows & Co., pleaded guilty to an attempt at larceny. The prosecuting officer stated some misgadne circumstances, which led the Court to send the prisoner to the Penitentiary for one year. Edward Malien, who stole $5 from the person of Elizabeth Hickey on the 8th of November, pleaded guilty to petit larceny. He was sent to the Peni- tentiary for six months. An Assault. The same punishment was inflicted on James H. Doonan, who was charged with firing a pistol at Joun Leonard, but was convicied of only a simple assault. A Wedding Ceremony in Court. After all the cases on the calendar were disposed of, Assistant District Attorney Russell said that he had an indictment against Thomas Ellis for seduc- tion, but he understood the de‘endant had suc- cessfully pleaded his case in another court; or, in other words, he was desirous of marry- ing Mary McDavert, the complainant, who was a good looking girl. Ellis pleaded guilty to the indictment, after which His Honor inforined the accused that if he ill-treated her and did not sup- port her as a loyal husband should he could be sentenced upon the piea of guilty, Having in- terrogated the parties and on their assurance that they were desirous of living together as man and wife, the Recorder periorn:ed the ceremony of marriage. The certificate was handed to the “fair bride” by the clerk, and the “happy pair” tmme- diately left the court room, COU T CALENDARS—THIS DAY. SUPREME CovRT—CIRCUIT.—Part 1—Adjourned forthe term. Part 2—Heid by Judge Van Brunt.— Nos. 1424, 2146, 3102, 2764;, 1548, 1486, 2:70, 2564, 2568, 2610, 2632, 2710, 2870, 2898, 2968, 3036, 3116, 312034, 3142, 3158, SupREME CouRT—CHAMBERS—Held by Judge Bar- rett.—Nos, 38, 41, 49, 50, 60, 72, 78, 85, 99, 124, 133, 160, 169, 170, 185, 189, 190, 199, 203, 206 SUPREME COURT—SPECIAL TERM.—Adjourned for the term. Court OF COMMON PLEAS—TRIAL TerM—Part 1—Held by Judge Robinson.—Nos. 2260, 39, 332, 2265, 2348, 1912, 570, 2116, 2008, 2546, 2176, 2185, 1 MARINE CoURT—TRIAL TRRM—Part 1.—Adjourned for the term. Part 2.--Adjourned for the term. Part 3.—Adjourned for the term. COURT GF APPEALS. ALBANY, Nov, 26, 1873. The following is the Court of Appeais dav calen- dar for December 2:—Nos. 115, 120, 69, 70, 87, 110, 108, 111. The Court took @ recess until Tuesday, Decem- ber 2. BROOKLYN COURTS. oo SUPREME COURT—CIRCUIT. A Contractor Mulcted. Before Judge Barnard. Mrs. Catherine Little yesterday brought suit against Patrick Smith, a contractor. The plaintu® resides at Eleventh street and Fourth avenue, and last August the defendant’s workmen, who were engaged in building a sewer, threw up a heap of dirt in iront of ner house. During a storm that followed the dirt was washed into her house, and the result Was that ber carpets and furniture were badly damaged. Counsellor William Hemstreet claimed $600 damages, COURT OF SESSICNS. The Havana Bank Robbers Sent to the Penitentiary. Before Judge Moore. Antonio Inero Alvarez and Enrique Cacarus, the Spaniards convicted of the robbery of the Commer- cial Bank, of Havana, were yesierday sentenced to the Penitentiary for two years each. The amount of the robbery Was nearly $100,000. A Female Bigamist—A Forgiving Hus- band. Eliza Henning, a middle-aged woman of respect- able appearance, pleaded gulity to bigamy. It was during the month of September that Eliza took ad- vantage of the absence of her husband from the conntry to run away with a young man who lived in the same huuse with her in Spencer street. The guilty couple were married by the pas- tor of St. Mary's Episcopal “enurch and fled to Philadelphia where they remained un Mrs. Henning’s money gave out. She was then de- serted by her companion and forced to return to Brookiyn, During her absence her husband had returned from Engiand, where he had been spend- ing several months, and when she reappeared at home he fully and freely forgave her, aud took her unto himselfagain, Unfortunately, however, he had previously obtained @ Warrant for her arrest, and she had not been home many days before an officer arrested her. The husband protested strongly against being deprived of his wife again, but Mrs, Henning was taken by the strong arm of the law, and on Saturday next Judge Moore will impose sentence un her. SURROGATE’S COURT. A Sudden Settlement. Before Surrogate Veeder, Robert Stackpole died last July, leaving an estate worth about $30,000, the bulk of which he be- queathed tea brother. He left his sister $500 only, and she, therefore, contested the will, on the grounds that he was incompetent and that he had been subjected to undue in- fuences, A hearing was had before the Surrogate, and, pending an adjournment, the contestant ,aud- denly relinquished all opposition and bound her- elf to make none in the iature upon the payment of the amount bequeathed ber in the will. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, —-—2 The jury gave $540, 01 WASHINGTON, Nov. 26, 18 No. 115. Mason vs. Moore, Administrator, &c. Error to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. ‘This was an action On an unstamped promissory note, made in 1863, by Mason to Ira Moore, plain- ti intestate, and the question was upon objection to the note as evidence, whether its admission without a stamp was legal. The Court, taking the view that the clause of the act of Congress which provides that instrum requiring @ stamp shall not be used evidence until duly stamped applies only to federal courts, admitted the note, and the jndgment was for the plainti® It is here maintained that the intent of the laws of Congress Was to prevent the use of such instrament as evi- dence in any Court, whethe te or national, and that the end had in view by Congress In enacting the law—to wit, to provide revenue t pport the government—justiies and saucuions tle act asa proper means to that end. It ts, therefore, con- stitutional and valid. £. B. Smith for plaintiff in error; defendant not appearing. No, 600, Atlee vs. Northwestern Packet Com- pany—Appeal from the Circuit for the District of lowa.—This was a proceeding in Admiralty, in which the company claimed damages resulting from a collision of its boat, navigating the Missis- sippi River, with a pier placed in the river by Atlee. The evidence in the case was voluminous and conficting, but the case was decided without reference to most of it, the Court holding that Aulee, as riparian owner, had aright to place in the river, in front of his lands, the piers in question, in order to secure sufficient room to fasten log raits, in the prosecution of his business; that as there was a sufficient water way outside the piers, and the usual track of boats was some distance beyond the piers, they presented no material obstruction to navigation. But inasmuch as the riparian owner must in the exercise of his rights take care not to expose to unnecessary peril persons and prop- erty on the river, aud inasmuch as Atlee had not ¢ given notice of the existence of the piers by plac- ing lights upon them he was uty of negligence which should make him partially liable tor the damage done. And the vessel of the company being so far out of her way as to strike the piers, when the ordinary track was so far east of them, was not without blame. Under these circum- Stances the decree divided the damages between the parties, Atlee appeals, maintaining that, ag riparian owner, he was entitled to extend his pler to the navigable water and thaghe was therefore Without blame. Messrs. MeCreary, Miller and McCreary tor applicants; Messrs, Howell, Rice & Davidson for appellants. No, 577. Chicago City Railway Cgmpany vs. Al- lerton—Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Northern District of 1inois.—This bill was brought to restrain the road from increasing its capital stock from $1,250,000 to $1,500,000, The complain. ant, a stockholder, avers that such am increase would depreciate the value of his stock, and denies the right of the Board of Directors to make the increase, asserting that it is forbidden by the constitution and laws of the State. The Court below sustained this plea, and it is here main- tained that the Court erred tn its construction of the provisions of law relating to railroads in hold- ing that they applied to corporations organized to operate street railways for the carriage of passen- gers at afixed rate, and that if the Court was right then those provisions are void as impairing the obligations of contract under the federal con- stitution; for the charter of the company in this case, obtained prior to the provisions of State law relied upon, expressly provides that the company may increase their capital stock at pleasure. Cause submitted under the twentieth rule. C, Hitchcock for appellant, E, A, Sorrs tor appellees. TWEED BECOMING ACCLIMATED, Few Visitors Outside of His Own Fam- ily—He Has Resigned Himself to His Fate—Those Facts About the Mysterie ous Commissioners. The visitors to Tweea yesterday were fewer, per haps, than any day since he has been incarcerated. His son William and his brother called early in the morning, and his wife and daughter about twelve o'clock. They remained with him tll after three Ex-Coroner Schirmer was also with him and pre- scribed for him, as he is said to be suffering from bilious colic, His counsel spent @ good part of the day with him, morning and afterneon, and are making strenuous efforts in his behalf. Not- withstanding his presumed iilness he took his meals a8 usual, and seemed to enjoy them, Every preparation possible has been made by his Telatives to make him fee] comiortable on Thanks- iving eve, He wishes to see no one at present ut his most intimate iriends and relations, and Is endeavoring, as best he can, to retire within bim- self until ALL CHANCES IN HIS FAVOR of being bailed out are exhausted. Numbers of people applied for admission yester- day to see Tweed, but were refused. Alderman Flanagan and ex-Alderman James Barker, how- ever, presented passes signed by Commissioner Laimbeer and were admitted. The same exciusive rules and red tape business of the last few days are still kept up. Rather a ludicrous occurrence, how- ever, happened about half-past one o’clock yester- day afternoon. Mrs. Fanny Copperman, wife of Hyman Copper- man, at present under sentence tor five years as a receiver of stolen goods, presented her pass at the gate, The pass was signed by Commissioner Laim- beer, and it stated that the object was to see “some person in the prison,’’ without mentioning any hame. This woman was recommended by no one, at least the name of the party guaranteeing was blank on the pass. She was examined by the keeper and " 4 BOTTLE OF WHISKEY found on her person. Warden Johnson’s attention was called and he declined to countersign the pass. Hyman Copperman has been a well known receiver of stolen goods for the last twelve years, aud his wife has been associated more or less with him, His confreres are working their utmost for his re- lease, and at present it is said he has at least nine lawyers engaged in his case, Late in the afternoon Sheriff Brennan called on his prisoner, Tweed, and had about an hour’s con- versation with him. Nothing definite could be ascertained as to the time of I'weea’s removal to the Penitentiary. Aa the “Boss”? is at present situated he 1s as comfortable as he could posstbly expect, and if the law will allow him heis willing to take up his winter quarters in his little room on Centre street. SHARKEY’S ESCAPE, Writs of Habeas Corpus Dismissed Keeper Finnan Baiied in $1,000. There is still nothing new about Sharkey’s case at the Tombs except that Warden Johnson was summoned before tne District Attorney yesterday to deliver up all evidence he possessed, and also to be re-examined on what he knew about the mat- ter. As the Warden has been faithfully working to obtain evidence against the three prisoners now in the Tombs for aiding and abetting in the escape, itis probable he bas been able to place @ great deal of important matter before the autnori- ties. However, to subser've the ends of public jus- tice, whatever information has been gathered will not be disclosed at present. Maggie Jourdan and Lawrence Philipps were brought before the court of Oyer and Terminer yesterday on a writ of habeas corpus. Counsellor fHlowe appeared for them and argued their case. Judge Davis, however, decided to dismiss the writ, and the prisoners were remanded tothe Tombs. An argument for reduction of bail in ‘ohn Jourdan’s case will be made on next Monday. eeper Rich- ard Finnan was admitted to bail yesterday in the sum of $1,000 by the District Attorney. When Maggie Jourdan and Philipps were brought back 10 the Tormbs, about three o’clock yesterday after- noon, quite a crowd had collected at the entrance, Philipps looked Very much downcast, and bent his head as he passed. Maggie, however, tripped up the steps quite nimbiy, smiling as dal, and said to the persons standing around ood after- noon, gentlemen: I'm Jeeling ea: how are you” at the same time getting inside the gate as soon as possible, out of the cold. THOSE WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS. For the third time Maggie Jourdan, Mrs. ‘Wes’? Allen and Lawrence Philipps, accused of complicity in the escape of Sharkey, Were yesterday brought before Judge Davis in the Court of Oyer and Ter- miner. Assistant District Attorney Allen insisted that the suits of habeas corpus shouid be dismissed, in- asmuch as the Grand Jury had found indictments against them. Mr. William F, Howe said he would consent to this on the ground that the suits were now not within the jurisdiction of this Court, but he added that he should make speedy application in the Court of General Sessions to have the partics | brought to speedy trial or their bail reduced, Attempted As sination of the Comp- trollermAn Infernal Machine Sent to Him. That Comptroiler Green has made many enemies since he has been at the head of the Finance De- partment no one can deny. Yet, although be has administered his bureau in a spirit of unpardon- able smallness, the attempt made yesterday uporm his life Was at once dastardly as it was unwar- ranted, If great caution nad not been exercised, probably one or even more lives might have been Sacrificed, which the person intending to kill the Comptroller had probably not the most remote idea of accomplishing. Yesterday alternoon a box was received at tho Finance Department addressed to “Hon. Andrew H. Green, Comptroiler-Personal.” The addres# Was made up or printed letters, evidently taker from some posters or handbilis, The nature of this excited the suspicion of the employés, and the one who undertook to open the box did #0 with the utmost caution, asthe whole arrange- ment Jooked very suspicious throughout, ‘The box measured eight by four inches, and om. being opened was found to contain powder and metullic cartridges in suficient quantity when exploded — to nihilate 20 persons. This internal machine was intended to ne covered from the top by @ siiding cover. Underneath the same were placed. matches, which a plece of sandpaper pasted of the sliding cover would ignite on scra across the phosphorus and light the powder, ai by these means scatter death and destruction around among those unfortunate enough to be im the vicinity, In view of the mistrust created by the bungtin address, this petard was unloosened from the bot~ tom, when the discovery of its true character waw happily ascertainca and the flendisn atvempt at murder frustrated. Captain James Leary, com~ eodet Twenty-sixth precinct police at the City Hall, has taken charge of the affair, and ha will leave no stone nntorned to fathom the mystery as to who perpetrated this “infernal” outrave. Na doubt the Compfrolier will dispiay great devotion to-day at the Thanksgiving services for the preser+ Vatiou of his ive. and weil he may, on the reverse