The New York Herald Newspaper, November 29, 1873, Page 11

THE COURTS. ncaa Ingersoll and Farrington Sentenced. The Great “Ring” Ohairmaker Sent Five Years to State Prison and His “Tool” Farrington a Year and a Half, FOLEY’S INJUNCTION Irregularities Charged Against the Comptrol- ler aud City Chamberlain, THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGES. Case Sent for Argument to the Court of Appeals. James H. Ingersoll and John D, Farrington, Jr., ronvicted in the Court of Oyer and Terminer on Wednesday, were yesterday brought before Judge Mavis, in the same Court, for sentence, He sen- benced the former to State Prison for five years nnd the latter for ome year and a half, Their coun- wel at once set to work to obtain a stay of proceed- ings in the case, It is believed, however, that the order of the day In the Courts will be railroading the “King” to State Prison with all possible celer- ity and no drawbacks, Mr. John Foley succeeded in getting a hearing yesterday in Supreme Court, Chambers, before Judge Fancher, on his application for an injune- tion against the Comptroller and City Chamber- Jan. The irregularities which he charges against these officials and the nature of the injunction he asks for wil be found tully set forth in the report elsewhere of the argument kad in the case, ‘The question raised in the courts as to the right of the newly appolntcd Police Justices to hold the Court of Speciai Sessions was yesterday brought before the Supreme Court, General Term, AS a matter of favor, and to enable a speedy decision upon this important question, the judgment in the Jower Court, from which the appeal was taken, wvas aflirmed, and the case sent directly to tne Court of Appeals. The case of Sharkey was called yesterday in the Bupreme Court, General Term, the argument upon the motion for a stay of proceedings having been set down for argument then, No counsel re- Bponded, and the case was ordered to go over till next term. In the United States District Court, Judge Blatch- ford yesterday granted an order empowering Abram 8, Hewitt, as receiver of the New York and Oswego Midland Railway Company, to sell, by public auction, after the same nas been duly ad- vertised according to law, the pier at the foot of Vesey street, with the buildings thereon, James Gallaher, Mary Doolin, Aun Riley and Peter Dailey, who had been charged with selling whiskey without paying the special tax, were dis- | charged yesterday on their own recognizances by Hommissioner Davenport. Benjamin P. Todd, a boot and shoe maker, who had done business at 444 Grand strect, filed his yol- untary petition in bankruptcy yesterday, in the ‘United States District Court. The case has been yelerred by the Court'to Mr. Jonn Fitch, one of the registers, As the fees in matters of this kind are heavy Mr. Todd has concluded to be his own coun- Bel and conduct his own case. In the United States Circuit Court yesterday, in the matter of the Union Paper Bag Machine Company against George L. Newell and G. H. Mailory, Judge Blatchford granted a special injunction, restrain- ing the defendants from using the plaintiff's patent bag machine. The arguments in the case were conducted by George Harding, of Philadelphia, tor the Paper Bag Company, and by M. P, Norton for Newell and Mallory, Yesterday, in the United States District Court, he case of The United States vs. Maurice Joseph and Frederick Maurice Joseph was concluded be- fore Judge Blatchford anda jury. It was an ac- tion brought by the government for the purpose ‘of condemning four diamond rings, three diamond studs and one uncut diamond, of the value of about $6,000, on the ground that they had been Smuggled into the country by the claimants, who are jewellers in Birmingham, England, There was @ verdict for the claimants, releasing the goods, Frank L, Taintor, who bad been convicted at a recent term of the United States Circuit Court of embezzling $425,000, the property of the Atlantic National Bank, of which establishment he bad been cashier, will be sentenced to-day by Judge Bene- dict. The Journeymen Printers’ Co-operative Associ- ation yesterday, through their attorneys, Messrs. Thompson ana Van Wyck, filed a petition in the Unived States District Court to have themseives adjudicated voluntary bankrupts. William Parker- was committed yesterday for examunation by Commissioner Osborn on a charge ofhaving deserted from the American ship Casca- dilla, after having shipped as second mate on board that vessel for a voyage to Cuba. ‘The books and papers of Vantine & Co., import- ers, No. 814 Broadway, have been seized for alleged . undervaluation of 20 per cent in the importation of goods, The books and papers of Napier & Co., No. 65 White street, have also been seized for alleged undervaluation of 10 per cent on importations, RAILROADING THE RING. ‘Two More Victims of the Judicial Guillo- tine—Ingersoll Sentenced to State Prison for Five Years and Farrington One Year and Six Months, A large crowd, eager to sce the final scene in the trial of James U. Ingersoll and John D. Farring- ton, Jr., assembled at eleven A. M. yesterday in the Court of Oyer and Terminer. At the appointea hour the great chairmaker and his quondam clerk came into court in charge of two deputy sheriffs, They shook hands with their counsel and put on the appearance of being in pretty good spirits; but it was very easy to sce through the adimsy gauze. EXAMINATION OF INGERSOLT. Directly after Judge Davis had taken his seat on the bench Mr. Sparks, the Clerk, asked the prison- vers to rise, which they did, “pid you ever learn aby mechanical trade ?”’ he asked Ingersoll, “No, sir,’ was the prompt response, though ‘uttered in a low tone. “what have you now to say why judgment of the Court should not bg pronounced, according to Jaw 1” pursued the Clerk, EXCULPATING FARRINGTON, Mr. Root said he was directed by Mr. Ingersoll to say, as matter of justice to Farrington and matter of knowledge on the part of Mr. Ingersoll, that Rarrinaton did not write any signatures to this Mui or warrant, and was entirely ignorant of all steps taken in relation to it after the bill was made out. Me thereiore suggested that sentence on Farrington be suspended, Mr. Fullerton added that Farrington had never rofited by the bill, and had no Knowledge of the Business of the firm sufficient to inform him of the fact that this Was Iraudulent except vy infer- ence, Judge Davis said this would operate to mitigate Farrington’s sentence. Mr. Ingersoll said nothing in his own behalt, SENTENCE OF INGRRSOLL, Jadge Davis now proceeded to pass sentence upon Ingersoll, as follows:—Ingersoll, it has often devolved upon me, in the course of many years! administration of the judicial oMce, to pronounce gentence upon convicted criminals, and often times on men who, under certain ‘emotions of pas- sion had committed crimes, or were driven by reat privation, or in danger by poverty or abso- ute Want, to commit crimes affecting property; and I have always felt in such cases that White the law must be administered for the protection of sootety, yet the Judge was at liberty, in considera- tion o1 the weakness of human nature, to be as lenient a8 a proper sense of justice would permit, But your crime was of avery diferent grade, You ‘Wore appointed to a VERY IMPORTANT PUBLIC OFFIOR. You were made a Commissioner o/ (ae Court House NEW YORK HERALD, Of this county, and you Took a solomn oath to sup- rt the conalitution ef your country ‘our vate and to be iaithful in ischarge the “ . BF the duties of your office, according to the ber your ability. By aecepting the efice you entered into a contract with fe poopie of your county that you would, to the bei your ability, protect them ainst great wrongs ahd frauds, and you solem- Q that contri an oath, The violation of that oath, it is true, not involve inlaw the crime of perjury; but im sound morality tt is a vio- lation of it in the sight of God and man. How did qop periorm (that contract and oe that oath’ instead St greesens the people from plunder you your: became @ plunderer, united with others, as eared before the Court in the evi- dence ip another case, in the greatest scheme of pluader ever known in this or, perhaps, in any Other country. From the eviuence laid before the Court in the case of Tweed you ap} to have been the recipient, through charges laid agamet the county for the County Court House, of 3,841,891 18, ont Of which you turned over to oodward $1,817,467 49, leaving apparently in your hands of county funds over $1,000,763 31, Of ‘Unis fact the Court cannot fail to take notice; not tor any purpose affecting the question of your gutlt, but a8 affecting your connection with the ENORMOUS FRAUDS ON THE COUNTY that have been perpetrated. What was the char- acter of your crime’ Instead of being always, what you promised, ready to protect the county and to perform the duties you undertook to dis- charge, you deliberately, as appears in this case, caused to be prepared a claim against the county which had little or no just foundation in fact; you prepared it in the name of a long extinct copart- vership, not daring to pat your own name on your own jomt stock association fo tt, lest the tact of ‘our being president of the latter should develop its true character, and then you carried out the scheme through the various stages, until finally the warrant had been procured and the money obtained, and a8 one step in obtaining the money pou endorsed upon the warrant the name of the rm by whose name you) obtained that account, and thus committed the crime of forgery. The crime thus committed does not stand by itself, but involves the crime of nore eee a or the violating of your official oath, and the crime of fraud in fabricating an account which had no real existence, and obtaining the money under false pretences by that course of conduct to which I ave adverted and as @ necessary step in the progress of the offence, you were necessarily obliged to commit THE CRIME OF FORGERY, upon which, by the facts beiore the Court, the law was able to lay its hands upon you. But looking at the whole thing and surveying the whole course of your conduct in respect to the single transaction there is that degree of deliberation, consideration and preparation that there could be no two opinions as to the justice of your conviction and the sentence to be pronounced upon you. We are very unfortunate in this State in not having laws that enable courts to properly punish crimes of this character; I mean, not forgery, but crimes that officers commit: in violation ' of official ‘duty, dor ola of necessity, moral perjury, and involying deliberation and intent. We are, as I said, very unfortunate in not having laws ade- quate to punish that class of crimes. I trust another legislature will not pass through its ses- sion without enacting laws to preserve official purity and to levy penalties against crimes such as tuis, All the Court can do in your case is to MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF YOU to the extent the statute permits. Jt seems a very small penalty, considering the character of the crime, You occupy a good position in society; your friends and relatives, as I am informed, are not only respectable but estimabie citizens of this com- munity, You have a wiie whom the Court pities, tenderly _pities, under this terribie ca- lamity, You have friends who will feel this blow more deeply, perhaps, than you do; but even they, in the hours of their deep- est agony, must admit the justice of the law and the sentence pronounced eon you. The sentence is, that you be imprisoned inthe Prison at Sing Sing at hard labor for the term of five years, which is the utmost penalty that the statute permits the Court to infict, NTENCE OF PARRINGTON, I am very glad that the prisoner jointly con- victed with you has had the manhood to admit What seems to me he ought to have admitted in the progress of this trial, and thus, perhaps, have saved you from conviction. Iam glad of it because it enables me to do what I contemplated doing— making a distinction between your sentence and his, You do not appear to have been, so far as any evidence discloses, otherwise connected with the great frauds committed against the county of New York than as disclosed by this single transac- tion. Nathing in the case shows that you ever re- ceived any of the money that was obtained even on this Claim of $15,138 40, in the course ot obtaining which the crime of forgery was committed, What does appear to the Court, however, is this—that you were ia the employ of Ingersoll, a tool of his, and altogther subject to his control; that you were willing to do his bidding, to serve his interests; and when this account of $15,000 against the county was made out you knew, according to your own statement, its feal character— that it was a fraud; thar it was made out without the existence of any substantial claim, if any claim whatever; and was largely increased. You are guilty, there- lore, of participation tm the fraud, even if you did not follow the matter further and did not partici- pate in the usr pea steps which the Court held to be lorgery. Now, I have taken into considera- tion the tact of your relation to this transaction, Which is very diferent from that of Ingersoll, and Iam determined to diminisn your sentence very cousiderably in view of that lact. It may be true, as now stated, that you didn’t participate in the actual making up of the endorsement and with that moral crime of forgery standing by itsclf, that you were not a party to the transaction upon which the crime of forgery alone was predicated. Nevertheless, Lam satisfied you were me wf 80 far as to suffer yourself to be a tool in the hands of Ingersoll in the commission of that fraud, From the information I have recetved in respect to you, Tam very much imclined to be merciful in gour case, because the punishment which the siatute permits to be meted out to the principal under the crime is totally inadequate to his offence, and it seems scarcely consistent with the fitness of t] ings that, if the principal can only be punished for so limited a period, your sentence should be equally severe as his, I shail, on that ground, make a distinction, and shall Make a serious difference, in order that, while the punishment may be adequate to your offence, it may restore to you the fullest oppor- tunity, after the time shall have expired, to redeem yourself and regain your standing in society by a career in the future of honesty and integrity, I would not be thus lentent if I thought you were a ‘uilty participant in the proceeds of the fraud, or I thought you had connection with those trans- actions beyond what pepearen in the trial. There wasa conflict of testimony whether you actually signed the name of Heath & Smith, but I think the jury were right in what they did, and, in fact, could not have done otherwise. ‘The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned in the prison at Sing Sing, at hard labor, for the term of one year and six months. AFTER THE SENTENCE, The two Preers, soon after being sentenced, were taken in charge by Order of Arrest Clerk Jud- sou Jarvis. After they had partaken of a hearty meal, Mr, Jarvis took them to the Tombs, where they will remain until transferred to State Pris- on, which will be in @ day or two as soon as they have “arrranged their busi- ness affairs.’ it i8 the general opinion that Farrington will get a new trial, owing to the statement made by Ingersoll yesterday that Far- rington made out the bill of items against the Court House by his prder, and had nothing to do with the torging of Mleath & Smith’s name. Late yesterday aiternoon Mr. Root, one of Farrington’s counsel, was sent for by Mr. Tremain, and a long interview between the two was the resuit, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS. Scarcely had the prisoners been taken from the building when their counsel went in to see Judge Fancher, sitting in Supreme Court, Chambers. They had a whispered conlerence with the Judge for some littie time, and then he signed an order, it is said, to show cause why a stay of proceedings should not be granted, The opinion was generally expressed that no such order would prevent the speedy carrying out of the sentence, FOLEY'S LAST INJUNCTION. —s The Charges of Irregularity Against the Comptroller and City Chamberlain— Alleged Violation of the Charter in Drawing City Checks and Payment of Various Clerks. At length, after several adjournments, the appli- cation of Mr, John Foley for an injunction against the Comptroller and City Chamberlain was argued yesterday in Supreme Court, Chambers, beiore Judge Fancher, For Mr. Foley there appeared Mesara. A, R. Dyett and Oliver W, West, and for the Comptroller Corporation Counsel A, Delafield Smith and ex-Judge Bee! Mr, Dyett in opening bis argument said that the public spirited citizen who asks this injunction is the same one who, single handed obtained, the celebrated injunction against the Ring, and spread. ing dismay and confusion among the conspirators caused) it to come to grief, and led surely to the catastrophe of the mighty chicttain who to-day ia a@ prisoner and @ convict, with none so poor todohim reverence. It was Mr. John Foley who, by @ second injunction, exposed and stayed the waste of the city funds by a former Chamberlain, who kept in his private ac- count the interest on the deposits and com- pelled the banks to yield up tne enormous profits they were making from those deposits, calling public attention so closely to these abuses that the provisions of the present charter in ques- tion here were inserted in it. And, as a faitnful sentinel, he for the third time sounds the alarm and asks that it be heeded, After this preface he provgeded to say that Mr. Foley brings this action Vader the Laws of 1872, entitied, “An act for the bbb) of taxpayers against the frauds, em- ezzlements and wronglul acts of public oficers and agents," passed April 2, 1872. The new charter, assed April $0, 1373--section 38 of said act creates ‘a buceau for the reception of all moneys patd into the treasury of the city, and for the payment of money oo warrants drawn by the Comptrolier and countersigued by the Mayor; the chief oficer of SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1873—TRIPLE SHEET. Which shall be catied the “Chambertain.” Section S4 says that “the Chamberlain shall receive all moueys Which shall trom time to ume be paid into the treasury of the city; he shall deposit all moneys which shall come into bis hands in su h banks and trust companies as shall have been designated ag deposit the Chamber! and = Mayor joiutly.”* ‘the money 80 deposited shall placed to the account of tie Chamberlain, . Tue Chamberlain shall pay all warrants drawn on the treasury by the Comptroller and countersigned by the Mayor, and Lo money shpll be paid ont of the treasury ex- cept on the Warrant of the Comptroller so counter- signed, It further says that “the Chamberlain shail not draw @ny moneys irom said banks or trust eae: uwhless by checks subseribed by him as Chamberlain, and countersigned the Comptroller; and no moneys shall be paid by either of the said bauks or trust companies on account of + treasury, except upon such checks.” Chamberlain shall re- ceive $30,000 annually, and no more, for all ‘his services and for such clerks and agsistants a3 may be necessary, whose salaries, together with all the expenses of ‘his office, sbail.be pai wholly by# aad shallin no case be a public charge. By provisions of law the powers aud itive defendants as Vomptrolier and Chamberlain are clearly stated ana set forth. It is the duty of the Comptroller, upon a claim against the city being properly audited and certified, to draw his warrant for the amount, which warrant, being countersigned by the Mayor, 18 to be delivered to the Chamberlain, Whose duty it then ts—provided there 14 an appropriation to meet the same and the drawing ol the warrant is authorized by law—to pay the amount thereof by carn the sum required for this purpose trom one of the depository banks or trust companies, oy and upon a check or checks subscribed by hin as Chamberlain, and counter- signed by the Comptroller, in favor of the creditor named in such warrant, the banks being expressly pronleied from paying any moneys on account of he city except upon such checks. He insistea that the said provisions of law as to the drawing of money from the depository banks are wholly disregarded by the Comptroller and City Chamberlain; that the warrants drawn by the Comptroller and countersigned by the Mayor are the sole authority upon which the Sepa banks and trust companies have, since the said 80th day of April, 1873, with the assent and concur- rence of both defendants, paid and now pay to the creditors of the city the amounts specified in such warrants respectively, without any check of or by the said neeree. W. Lane, as such Chamberlain, as required by the thirty-fourth section o1 the act of April 30, 1873, aforesaid; these warrants are not presented to and are not even seen by the Cham- berlain until alter they are paid by the banks out of the moneys of the city. ‘That, iu further disregard of the said provisions, of law, the defendants acting collusively, have, since the 30th day of April, 1875, 80 arranged that Various Charges ind expenses connec’ed with pay- ments by or on behalf of the Corporation are borne and made, not at the expense o! or as a burden ‘upon the said $30,000 alowed to the Chamberlain annually for his services and that of his deputy and ali other clerks and assistauts as may be neces- sary, together with all the expenses of his office, but through the Comptroller and M8 appointees and at the expense of the general treasury of said city, such expenses being made by the Comptroller a public charge. In Particular, the Comptroller has appointed and sinoe the 30th day o! April last has continued in ofice, in the Financial Department, viz. :—Moor Falls, at a salary of $4,000; Christian Classen, at $1,800; David J, Van Winkle, at $1,500, and others. These salaries are paid monthly out of the ap- propriations for salaries for the Finance Depart- Thent, and not out of the $30,000 paid to the Champerlain, Moor Falls is desig- nated City Paymaster. The duties performed by him and his assistants consist wholly in making payments on behalf of sata OnE Tatton aud appertain solely to the Bureau of the Cham- berlain, and are such as of right ought to be per- formed by the City Chamberlain, and paid out of the $30,000 allowed annually for that express pur- pose, In addition to the salaries paid to Falls and his assistants, there is also contingencies of the Finance Department, a sum, monthly, of ‘bout $100, to cover his alleged expense in making the payments, which are properly expenses of the Chamberlain’s bureau and ought to paid by him, He states, lurther, that large sums of money have from time to time, for the past two years, been allowed by the Chamberlain, with the connivance of the Comp- troller, to remain in the hands of Mr, Falls and his assistants, without rendering any account ofthe same during the time he has acted as City Pay- Master; also various sums which he failed to pay to the creditors of the corporation entitied to regeive the same, and which sums amounted to about $28,000 on the 9th day of October, 1873. This money, it was claimed, ought to have been ac- counted for by said Falls or his assistants and paid over by him to the Chamberlain to be deposited in bank, as required by law; but through the con- nivance and collusion of the defendants this money has been allowed to remain in the possession of Falls or his assistants, the city being thus deprived of the use of the same and of the interest which would accrue thereon, besides undergoing tie risk of losing the principal. The argument was con- tinued at much greater length, but the above em- braces its leading points. Lengthy responses followed by Messrs. Smith and Beebe. The former insisted that the portion of the charter referred to admitted seemingly of two constructions, but he claimed that under the correct construction there had been no violation of the same by either the Comptrolier or City Chamberlain. He eulogized both as most faith- ful public officers, and said that they were acting uuder his interpretation of the charter. Ex- Judge Beebe confined bis remarks to the strictiy legal aspect of the case, and urged that there was no shadow of ground for bringing any complaint against the two officiais in question, and no possi- ble legal reason for granting the injunction asked for. Judge Fancher, at the conclusion of the argu- ment, which, notwithstanding its being long pro- tracted, he listened to with patiepce to the end, took the papers on both sides, reserving his deci- sion. THE SPECIAL SESSIONS IMBROGLIO. Right of the Newly Appointed Police Justices to Hold the Special Sessions— The Case Sent to the Court of Appeals. At the meeting of the Supreme Court, General Term, yesterday—Judges Ingraham, Brady and Barrett on the Bench—there was a large crowd in attendance to hear the argument as to the right of the newly appointed Police Justices to hold the Court of Special Sessions, The cage, a8 will be remembered, came before this Court on a writ of certiorari sued out on behalf of Bernard Wangler, who, notwithstand- ing the objection interposed by Mr. William F. Howe, his counsel, that the act unger which the Judges holding the Special Sessions claimed to hold the Court, was tried by them, convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Assistant District Attorney Allen, on the case being called, asked first its postponement, on the ground that, owing to the pressing nature of his other duties, he had not had time to prepare an argument, and this objection being overrwed he insisted ais the matter was not properly before the Court. Mr. Howe insisted that the proceedings were en- tirely regular, and asked the Court to either hear the arguinent, as he was confident that his position would be sustained, and that it was clearly evident that the newly apppinted Police Justices, who held their positions throtgh nomination by the Mayor and confirmation o/ the Board of Aldermen, could not hold a county court, or that the General Term should, in view of the paramount importance of this L pape question, afirm the judgment in order that the cause might be carried at once to the Court of Appeals. He added, further, that it was most essential for the interests of the public that a decision should be at once rendered in order that it could be known whether the thousands of prisoners now being tried before the Court of Special Sessions were or were not legally convicted. Alter brief consultation Judge Ingraham stated that m consequence of the extreme urgency of the guestion involved the Court had concluded to adopt Mr. Howe's latter Le alge and would afirm the conviction, so that the case might be speedily passed upon by the highest tribunal of the Sti ate. On the rendition of this decision Mr. Howe at once filed the necessary papers, and the case will in all probability be heard at the present term of the Court of Appeala. Mr. Howe's points are that the act of May 17, 1873, 1s unconstitutional, because it takes from the people the power to elect the Police Justices, and confers the Pret of appoint- ment on the Mayor; that if Police Justices be Justices of the Peace, within the constitutional provision, then the act 38 unconstitutional, also for the reason that the term of those ‘in office’ when the amended judiciary article took effect—viz., January 1, 1870—is destroyed besore its expiration, which is @ violation of the twenty-fith section of the constitution; that prior to and when the amended judiciary article took effect Courts of Special Sessions were in existence, and im this city were to be held by Police Jus- tices; that the Court of Special Sessions of the Peace is a county court, and that being County Court, the Special Sessions is continued, id the Judges thereof in office when the amended article tooketfect, were to honi until the expiration of the terms for which they had been elected. He argues further that whether the statute of 1873, be unconstitatioual for the ea alg assigned or not, the Justices appointed by the Mayor have no power to holda Court of Spectal Sessions. No such power he, insists is expressly conferred upon them. If they take it at all it is simply by the Merest implication from the terms “when sitting in the Court of Special Sessions of the Peace,” em- ployed in the first section. These words confer no power, Tho rule is well settied that courts and Officers of limited jurisdiction take nothing by im- plication, Their power must be found eaareny, conlerred by the statute, or it does not exist. If the act did'in terms confer such power to hold Special Sessions, it would, to that extent, be un- constitutional. It would violate section 16, article 3 of the constitution, which provides “that no pri- © or local bill shail embrace more than one subje that shall be exprossed in its tives mais ae @ local one. its title is “An act to secure the better administra- tion in the Police Courts of the city of aid said Falls, out of $ ‘New York. Police Courts are one thing; Courts of Special Sessions of the Peace are another. Under a title referring to Police Courts there can be no legislation as to Courts of Special Sessions. Tac Act of 1858, which originally conferred the power on Police Justices to sit in the Sessions, was an act exclusively in regard to the Court of Sessions, providing by Whom it should be held, aud autbor- izing the appointment of a clerk, &c. But the pres- ent act relates not only to Police Courts, accordin, tu its title, but to Courts of Sessions not embraced Et ad its title and not permittea by the constitu. jon. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS, ‘SUPREME COURT—GENERAL TERM. The Comptroller and the Board of Supervisors. Before Judges Ingraham, Brady and Barrett. In this Court the long-discussed question, What, ifany, powers has the Finance Department over the Board of Supervisors’ nas been substantially answered in favor of the Board by opinions in Martin B. Brown vs. The Comptroller, These cases were argued two terms ago by A. Oakey Hall .for Brown, and Delafield Smith for the Comptroller, The opinions are very long, but thetr conclusions can be briefly stated. The Board acts judicially and without appeal upon amounts provided tt has statutory jurisdiction. The Comptroller cannot reduce nor increase the amounts. He is simply to inquire into the juris- diction, and ir this be clear, then to collate the youchers without disturbing amounts, His duty is clericai and ministerial only. The decision re- lieves Mr. Green of a great deal of assumed responsitility. One of the Brown cases the Board had jurisdiction over in supplies of stationery furnished to the Register and alter the Auditor shail examine the vouchers, the amount ordered by the Board must be paid, tn the other Brown case the supplies were for the Sheriff, and the Court decides that the Board of Supervi- sors was without jurisdiction, because sheriffs must pay for their own stationery out of office fees. ‘The decision affects some thirty or forty pending snits upon Supervisor audits. But it is vaderstood Mr, Green will appeal to the Court of Appeals, and there endeavor to sustain his ideas of exercising a discretionary supervision over the amounts which the Supervisors audit, SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS. Decisions. By Judge Barrett. In the Matter of Various Applications to Vacate Assessments.—The papers in some forty applica- tions tO vacate assessment are returned to the Clerk, for the purpose of enabling counsel to com- ply with the rules, &c. First, all such applications must be placed on the regular first and third Mon- day calendar of the Court, &c, Sce memorandum of Mr, Justice Barrett. The People, &c., Connell vs. Green and 12 Other Cases.—Orders signed. Inthe Matter of the Application of Burkhalter and Others,—See memorandum. Simpkins vs, Low.—Motion denied, without costs, &c, Miller vs. Bowles.—The prayer of the petition must be granted, Marshail vs. Hammond.—Motion granted, with $10 costs. Schiffen vs. Ferris et al.—Motion granted. Glibert vs. Webster.—Motion to modily order, &c., must be granted, Coe vs. Hobby.—Motion to compel payment, &c., denied without costs; motion to place cause on Special Circuit calendar granted, New York, Utica and Ogdensburg Railroad Com- any et al. vs, Cumimins,—Motion to contiuue in- i ie granted, with $10 costs, to abide the even By Judge Fancher, In the matter, &c,, oj Martin.—Motion granted. “SIn the matter, &c., of Marrian.—Petition gianted dl order signed, In the matter, & et al.—Petitions granted. Linueman et al. vs. Lagrave.—The‘motion in the three cases must be granted, Mutuai Life Insurance Company vs. Salem et a!.— The referee’s report as to the second mortgage is erroneous and the exception thereto sustained. Myers ys. Jones,—The order is not in accordance with the decision. Thomas vs. McEntee et al., 1a the matter, &c., Home Flax Company.—iotion granted and re- ceivers appointed. Chisholm vs. Farrell, et al.—Report confirmed and order granted to pay money, &c. In the matter, &c., of Whitney.—Report con- firmed and order granted, Piolgraf vs. Piolgraf.—Report confirmed judgment of divorce granted. awarded to plaintitt. By Judge Ingraham. Whittle vs, Whittle. —Same decision, SUPERIOR COURT—3PECIAL TEXM. Decisions. ., of Pacey—Sands vs. McGovern and | Custody of cniid Tide B. Lott, € , ol € the trusters of the Flatbush. Mr. BE. F. Samurl B. baryea, and counsel tor U yraeha L. Brown and Mary story, aoy- B deceased, Abraham Lott and formed Church of the town of Hyde. Attorney aud Couusel tor - Murdock, nimeon B. 2. den aud Wiliam Il Taylor and Charles Jones, #sq., ert, attorney and unsel for J, pa 7, i & Walker, aud Philips. ceingp hte g Crooke, attorney and counsel for B. Winekley, and aman other“ in the town ai “Flatbush. whoobestete fro suit ing of such assessment "in said” town, and aps file ‘writen ‘objections ot the of “the seve art ral objectors. It Is ordered that thecaia ‘tepart so tae fa! pony ee pat spon lands and premises : va. y the first two voluines of the salt report, and thy ean illustrating the same, amounting. in 1,236,655, be and the 'sdine is here; said report as 4s intended to lay an property in the town of Flatbush, and is contained. in the third volume of the said report, be not confirmed, but be set aside and beld for naught. A Judge Who was Not Paid his Salary, Before Judge Tappen, City Jadge Pierce, of Long Island City, aot hav- ing received his salary for Nye mouths, yesterday applied to Judge Gilbert for a mandamus to compel the Mayor of that city to draw @ warrant im lis favor for the amount due, Opposition was made by the Corporation Counsel on the ground that the bill of the Ju must be first audited by the Com- asvessment upon mon Council. The argument revealed a somewhat demoralized state of affairs in the aforesaid common Council, A great deal of difficulty ts experienced in getting a quorum together, and on one occasion, im order to secure the requisite number for a busipcss meeting, it was necessary to take one of the mem- bers oul of the station house and bring him into the Council Chamber. The Court yesterday saniea the mandamus, on the ground that Judge Pierce's bill was audited by the statute itsell and any auditing on the part of the Common Council was not necessary. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, WASHINGTON, D.C., Nov. 28, 1873. No, 121, Willett'’s Executors vs. Fister—Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Colum- bia.—This was a bill to set aside a judgment con- fessed by-Fister to Willett, deceased, onthe ground that he had not been credited with $1,500 which he paid to Willett on the account before conies- sion of judgment. The decree was for Fister, and the case here presonss only the question whether the evidence below estabiished his claim to the credit alleged. Kendall, Durant and Homer, for Appellants, Jugie & Webb, tor Appellee, No, 123, Fraser vs. Prepeller Wenona—Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York.—This libel was to recover damages sus- tamed by @ collision between the schooner Fre- mont and the propeller, on Lake Erie, in Novem- ber, 1869, The District Court, by its decree, de- termined that the collisson was occasioned solely by tne fauitof the propeller, The schooner and cargo, consisting of salt, were lost, and the decree awarded damages for their value. The Circutt Court reversed the decree on a question of fact (whether or pot the propeller was at faut in the exercise of care when the danger was immi- nent), holding that the propeller was in no wise at fauit, and that the collision was occasioned by the schooner in having bad signal lights and by chauging her course contrary fo tne rule of naviga- tlon. The appeal presents the sume facts for re- view, John Ganson for appellant, George B, Hib- bard for appeliee. The Court adjourned until Monday, el Who Are Next To Be Tried and Proba- bilities as to the Resulte—Trcmbling and Consiernation Among the In- dicted—What Genet Says. The conviction of Ingersoll and his clerk, Far- Tiugton, has at last compelled the remaining Ring robbers to talk less boldly as to their anxiety to be tried. They, one and all, fee! that the matier is no longer a joke, and that to be put on trial does not mean an almost certain disagreement of a be- fogged, not to say purchased, jury. Indeed, judg- ing trom the way they now look at the success of the District Attorney in his prosecution of the thieves aud their abettors, an unsophisticated person would be led to believe that the jury in botu Tweed’s and Ingersoli’a case were pledged to convict the accused when they were sworn. “1 tell you what it is, sald one of the unfortu- nate individuals who is now under indictment to a HERALD reporter yesterday, “things begin to 1ook bad, and, for my part, 1 don’t think there’s asquare dealat all for anybody who's been in- By Judge Sedgwick. Corley and Another vs. Griffin.—Motion denied. Weish vs, Swift.—Motion granted, Hoppe vs. Hoppe.—Order of reicrence. Beawick vs. Dale.—Order that plaintia’ have an aicted, DON'T LIKE THE OUTLOOK. “There’s a kind of a scare going round; so that when a feliow’s put on a jury and some one is additional allowance of five per cent upon recoy- ery. Fitzgerald vs. Valentine; Bick et al. vs. Niebuhr etal. ; Kittle vs, Van Arsdale ;O’Donnell vs. Lindsay and Another; Kelly aod Another vs, Ferguson; New York Guaranty Company vs, Rolston et al.— Orders granted, Alexander vs. Oddie.—Pike vs. Lent (4th Sand 650) does not support the application that defeud- ant in his case should give bail for appearance.— Motion granted. Baker vs. Clarke et al.—The plaintiff should file a new bond in same amount to the dcfeudants aud each of them, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions. By Judge Larremore. Foster vs. Foster.—Reference order. Lenihan vs. Garvey.—Motion granted on pay- | ment of all costs and disbursements incurred to date. Feitner vs. Hallett.—Motion to vacate order of arrest denied. Bail reduced to $500. ° Northwestern Express Company vs. Lorntman.— Motion granted on payment of $10 costs and dis- bursements; cause to be tried on December 19, 1873. In the Matter, &c., Repplier.—See memorandum, 'By Judge J. P. Daly. Barnes et al. vs. Mott et al.—Order signed, The Pople, &c., New York vs. Ahern.—Application denied. The People, &e., New York vs. Another, e opinion, HARLEM POLICE COURT, A Chronic Wife Beater. William Dean, of 112th street, was yesterday ar- raigned before Judge Kasmire charged with beat- ing his wife, Margaret, and also with assaulting William John, of 334 East Sixtieth street, who in- terfered in behalf of the long suffering wife. Dean was committed to answer in default of $500 bail on each charge. The accused has repeatedly served terms of imprisonment for the same offence, the records of the Court showing that Judge McQuade had many times committed him to the Island on the same charge. Grand Lareeny. Mrs. Mary Hudson, of No. 2,195 Third avenue, caused the arrest of a young woman named Eva Eichenbecker, of the same number, charging her with stealing from her apartments a pocketbook containing $70. Mrs. Harriet Holland, milliner, of 2,264 Third avenue, also preferred 4 charge of lar- ceny against the accused, she having, it is alieged, stolen a quantity of feathers and ribbons from the | complainant's store. When arrested a number of | the articles taken were found in her possession. | On the first_ charge the accused was held for trial at General Sessions, in default of $500 bail, and on the second in $300. BROOKLYN COURTS. SUPREME COURT—SPECIAL TERM. The Prospect Park Assessments—Impor= tant Decision by Judge Gilbert. Yesterday morning Judge Gilbert rendered an | important decision “in the matter of an assess- ment for the benefit of lands outside of Prospect Park, which lands are benefited by the opening of the said Park, made in pursuance of an act entitied ‘An act for the further extension of Prospect Park,’’’ &c, The case was reported in the HEKALD atthe time the arguments of the Flatbush oppo- nents were heard by Judge Gilbert, Below will be found the Judge’s decision :— On reading and filing a report in writmg in the above entitied matter Bre by Teums G. Bergen, Crawtord C- 5 . Slocum, Henry C, Murphy, Jr., and Awin K. Sctanten, Commissioners of Assessinent,’ duly pointed by this ‘Court, which reportis embraced in these several volumes fiaed the s0tn day of September, 1873, and 1s accompanied by three volumes of maps ot the’ property intended assessment with the additional 5 Jommnissioners, dated the 3th day of October, aud forming Part of the sald assessment report by whicl reports it appears that the said Commission- ers have apportioned aud assessed all such lauds and Fenyses outside of Prospect Park In the city of Brook. lyn as they deemed e-bonetitted by the opening of said park in proportf¥n to the bencilt received by such lands and premises trom such opening, and have, in all respects, complied with the provisions ot the act above referred to. by winch report also it appears that the whole wmmount of the said assessment Is $1,433,302, and that a portion of the said. amount, to witi the’ sum of $243,737 has been laid and assessed dine a hd in the town of Flatbush, and ater reading ond filng aMdavits showing the due pablication in all the daily newspapers printed and published in the city of Brooklyn of notice of A meeting of suit Commissloners to near objections to said reportand to review and cortect the same, and on reading and Uling amtdavits showing the due publica- ton in sald newspapers of notice of present e said report at this time and place for confirmation. Now, on motion of John N. Taylor, of counsel for the Commissioners, and aiter hearing Abraham Lot, attorney @nd counsel John A. Lott and Catharine L., his wife, Anna M, Lewis, Jane M. Wilbur, Leffert Martense and John A, Lott, ‘trustees Golden and sala 1878, 4c., Cornelius J, Bergen and Anna M., his wife, Gert | chances, | boldness that n charged with having been one of the Ring and 48 arraigned he (the juryman) thinks if he doesn’t convict he'll get arrested for bribery, or at least get the name of one who was bribed. This, I say, is rough. It ‘aint fair and it's not jus- tice. Why, I knew a man who said to me this morning that if be was even suspected of being connected with the Ring frauds and was under bail, he’d leave the country at once,’ and as the reporter's interlocutor uttered these words he gave him a Jook that was full of meaning. “And what about yourselfy’’ was the reporter's juery. v Well,” came the reply, “Iam under bail, and I am charged with doing things that I never did. With a fair jury 1 would have no fears, but with a jury intimidated beforehand to convict—what chance can anybody nave?” “Then go you mean to follow your friend’s advice and leave te country?” : “That's rather @ blunt question." “But a fair one.” “Tam ready tie to trial and will stand my Ii should run away people would say I was like Cook and Woodward, and ‘slid’ because 1 was guilty. Inv innocent, and with fair play (’ll come out all right.” ANXIETY TO BE DEALT WITH PROPERLY. It will be seen by this cunversationthat the in- dicted party referred to does not talk with that ‘ly all the Ring men assumed be- fore the “Bost ast trial. In fact, a change hus come o'er the spirit of the dreams of the remain- ing members 01 the old circle of fraternal pap and profit, and it is now more than probable that when. the next trial comes on a few persons whose pre- sence is an absolute necessity to make the trial interesting, as well as legal, will be ound wanting. It should be stated in this connection that Harry Genet is as confident as ever that he can prove that he is not guilty of the charges preferred against him, when he is put on trial, “I am very anxious,” he remarked yesterday, ‘to have the trial come off at once. The District Attorney Knows well that I have, through my counsel, re- peatedly asked—nay, beseeched—him to put anend to all this talk about my guilt and my irandwent transactions by Ieee me tried Wyronha But no; the men who are Kk of this prosecution, as far as Lam concerned, feel saier and triumph more by having me linger along under their accusations than they would if I was on trial, for the simple Teason that then I would be able to show my inno- cence. ‘As usual, yesterday the District Attorney and his amiabie assistants refused to state what they in- tended to do during the next term of the Oyer and ‘Terminer tn relation to the remaining cases, How- ever, the general belief in well informed circles is that Genet is to be placed on trial next, that Coman’s trial will follow, and that Mike Norton's and Waisi’s—the other two Court House Commis- sioners under indictment—will be next in order, In relation to Genet’s anxiety to be tried, one of the District Attorney's officials yesterday remarked to a HBRALD reporter:—“I have no doubt tuat he is auxious, but I think he dissimulates when he says that his anxiety proceeds solely from his desire to be tried. My opinion is that he fis rather doubtful as to what the result of the trial will be. It is by no means a sure thing tor him, and I assure you that he has no idea of tie evi- deuce in the possession of the District Attorney conclusively xing the guilt upon him. His anxiety will soon be relieved, however, and when the trial comes off he will see something that will snud out his hopes very suddenly,” A FRIEND'S PECULIAR SUGGESTIONS, Mr, Genet was in one of the ante-rooms of the new Court House yesterday when the Judge sen- tenced Ingersoll and Farrington, An old friend of ll FORTY-THIRD CONGRESS-~-1874-5, FIRST SESSION. Session Commences DMon- day, Dec. 1, 1873, LIST OF MEMBERS. ——- Senate. Administration i» Roman—49; opposition te Ktahoa—2s, ALABAMA, te MISSOURL pet pid BO 9, Louis ¥. Bogye ARKANSAS. NEBRASKA, 1877, Poweil Clayton, 1875. Thomas W. 1579, 5. W. Dorsey, 1871, P. W. Hitchcock, CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, 1875. Engene Casserly. 1875, Wm. M. Ste! 1879, Aaron A. Sargent, 1879, John P. inn CONNECTICUT, NEW HAMPSHIRE. 1875, W. A. Buckingham, 4877, Aarou H. Cragin, 1879. Orris 5. Ferry, 1879, B. Wadieigh. DELAWARE. NEW JERSEY, 1875. Thomas F, Bayard, 1815, John P. Stockton, 1877. Bu Saulsdury. 1877, F.1T. Frelinghuysem, FLORIDA. NEW YORK. 1875. Abijah Gilbert. 1875. Reuven E. Fentom 1879, Sumon B. Conover. 1879. Roscoe Conkling, NORUH CAROLINA, W877. MW. Rai GEORGIA. 1877. 7. M. Norwood, BOM 1879. A. S. Merrimom Ollo. 1875, A. G. Thurman, 1879, John B. Gordon, LLLINOIS, 1877. John A. Logan, 1879. R. J. Ogiesby. ~ 1870. John Sherman, INDIANA, OREGON, 1875, Daniel D, Pratt, 1877, James K. Kelley, 1879, Oliver P. Morton. 1879. Join H, Mitchell, 1owa. PENNSYLVANIA, 1877, George G. Wright. 1875. Joba Scott. 1879, Wm. B. Allison, 1879. Simon Cameron, KANSAS, RHODE ISLAND, 1877. Robert Crozier. 1875. William Sprague. 1879, John J. Ingals. 1877. Henry B. Anthony. KENTUCKY. SOUTH CAROLINA. 1877. John W. Stevenson, 1877. T. J. Robertson. 1879, Thos, C, MeCreery, 1879, John J. Pattersom LOUISIANA, TENN ESSEB. 1877. J. Rouman West, 1875. W. G. Brownlow, 1879, *P. B. S,Pinchback, 1877. Henry Cooper, MAINE, TEXAS, 1875, Hannibal Hamlin, 1875. J. W. Flanagan, 1877. Lot M. Morrill. MARYLAND. . M. 0. Hamtitom, VERMONT. 1875. Wm. 7, Hamilton, 1875. G. #, Edmunds, 1879. George Rk. Dennis, 1879, Justin S. Morrill, MASSACHUSETTS, VIRGINIA, 1875. Charles Sumner, —_ 1875. John F. Lewia, 1877. Geo, S. Boutwell, 1877. John W. Je MICHIGAN, 1875, Zachartaa Chandler 1877, Thomas W. Ferry, MINNESOTA. 1875. Alexander Ramsey 1577, Willlam Windom, MISSISSIPPI, 1875. Adelbert Ames. 1877. James L, Alcorn, * Seats contested. (Of those Senators whose terms expire in 1878 Messrs. Brownlow, of Tennessee; Flanagan, of Vexas, and Boreman, of West Virginia, wili be suc ceeded by democrats, that party having full con- trol of those States. Of the liberal republicans Carl Schurz will probably be replaced by a democrat, making. a gain for the democrats of five United States Senators by the victories of the present year, with the prospect of @ democratic successor to Mr. Carpenter irom Wis- consin, There are four liberal republicans in the. Senate—viz., Messrs. Sumner, of Massachusetts; Schurz, of Missouri; Tipton, of Nebraska, and Fen- ton, of New York—who are classifled with the op; position, the balance being democrats.) WEST VIRGINIA, 1875. Arthur 1, Boreman, 1877. Henry G, Davis, WISCONSIN. 1875. M. H. Carpenter. 1879. Timothy 0, Howe. Houve of Represen‘atives. Admivistiation in Roman, 193; Opposition tm Italics, 93, ALABAMA. NEBRASKA. At Large—Alex. White, 1, Lorenzo Crounse, C. C, Sheats, NEVADA. 1. Freak G. Bromberg, 1. Chas. W. Ki . 2. James T. Rapier. * NEW HAMPSHIRE, 3. Charles Peiham, 1. William B, Smal, 4. Charles Hays. 2. Austin F, Pike. 5. John H. Caldwell, 3. Hosea W. Parker, 6. Joseph H. Sloss. NEW JERSEY. 1. John W. Hazleton, 2. Samuel A. Dobbing, 3, Amos Clark, Jr. 4. Robert Hamilton. 5. Wm. W. Phelps. 6. Marcus L, Ward. 7. Isaac W. Scndder. ARKANSAS, At Large—Wan. J. Hynes. 1. Asa Hodges. 2. Oliver P. Snyder, 8. Thomas M. Gunter. CALIFORNIA. 1, Charles Clayton, 2; H. Frank Page. ‘NEW YoRK. 3, John &K. Luttrell, At Large—Lyman Trex 4. Sher. 0. Houghton, main, CONNECTICUT, 1, Henry W. Scudder. . R. Hawley. 2. John @. Schumaker, . 5. W. Kellogg. 3. Stewart L. Woodford. 3. H, U. Starkweather, 4. Philip S. Crooke., 4.6, H. Barnuns . 5. William R. Roberts, DELAWARE. 6. 8.8. Cor, 1, James RK. Lodand, 7. Thomas J. Creamer, FLORIDA. 8. John D, Lawson, 1, Josiah T. Walls. 9. David B, Mellish, 2. Wilham J, Purman, 10. Fernando Wood. GEORGIA. 11, Clarkson N. Potter, 1, Morgan kawis. 12. Charles St. John. 2. Richard H. Whiteley. 13. John 0. Whitehouse. 8. Philip Cook. 14. David M. DeWitt, 4. Henry R. Harris, 16. EU Perry. 5, James ©, Freeman, 16, James S. Smart, 6. James H, Blount. 11, Rovert S. Hale. 7. Pierce UM. B. Young. 18, William A. Wheeler, 8. A. H. Stephens, 19, Henry H. Hathorne, 9. Hiram P. Bell, 20, David Wilbur, ILLINOIS. 21, Clinton L. Merriam, 1, Jonn B. Rice. 22, Ellis H. Roberts.” 2. Jasper D. Ward. 23, William E. Lansing, 8, Charles B. Farwell. 24. R, Hoiland Duell, 4. Stephen A. Hurlbut. 25. C, D. MacDougall. 5. Horatio OC. Burchard. 26. William H. Lamport. 6. John B. Hawley. 27. Thomas ©. Platt. 7. Franklin Corwin. 28. Horace B. Smith, 8. Greenbury L. Fort. 29, Freeman Clarke. 9. Granville Barriere, 80, George G. Hoskins, man Xe Basa. 81. . 82. Walter L. Sessions, NORTH CAROLINA, 1, Clinton L. Cobb, lo, Wm. H. may 11. Robert M. Knapp. 12, James C, Robinson. 13. John McNulta, 14. Joseph G. Cannon, 2, Charles R. Tho 15. John R, Eden. 8. AUred M. We 16. James 8. Martin. 4. William A. Smith, 17, Wm. R. Me é James M, Leach, 1s. Isaac Clements, Thomas §. Ashe. 19. Samuel S. Marshan. 7. William M, Robbins. INDIANA. 8. Robert B. Fance, At L.—Godlove 8. Orth. onto. Wm. Williams. 1, Millon Sayler. 1. Wm. E. Nidlack, 2. Henry B. Banning, 2. Simeon K, We 8 John Q, Smith. 3 Wms. 4. Lewis B, Gunckel. 4. Jeremiah M. Wilson, §. Charles NV. Lai 5. Joho Coburn. 6, Isaac R. Sherwood, 6. Morton 0. Hunter, 7. Lawrence T, Pog 7. Thomas J. Cason. 8. William Lawr 5 8. James M. Tynor. 9. James W, Robigson, 9. John E. Neg. 10, Charles Foster. 10. Henry B. Sayler. 11, Hezekian 5S. Bundy, 11, Jasper Packard, 12. Hugh J. Jewett. 1OWA. 13, Milton I, Southard, 1. George W. Mc Crary. 14. John Berry. 2, Aylett R, Cotton. 15, Wm. P. ne 5 3, William G. Donnan. 16, Lorenzo Danforth, 4, Henry O, Pratt. 11. L. D. Woodworth, 5, James Wilson. 18. James Monroe. 6. Wm. Loughbridge. 19. James A. Garfield. 7. John A, Kasson. 20, Richard 0, Pecos, 8. James W. McDill, OREGON. y. Jackson Orr, 1, James W. KANSAS. PENNSYLVANIA. 1. David P, Lowe. At large—G. W. Scofield. 2, Stephen A. Cobb. Lemuel Todd, 8. William A. Phiilips, Chas. Albrighs KENTUCKY. 1, Samuel J. 1, Edward Crossland, 2 Obaries O'Neill, 2. John Young Brown, 8. Leonard Myers. 3. Charles W. Milliken, 4. Wi. D. Kelley. 4. Willtam B, Read, 5. Alfred C. Harmer. 5. Elijah D. Standeford, 6. James 8. Biery. 6. Wiliam E. Arthur, 7. Wash. Townsend. 7, James B. Beck, 8. Heister Clymer, 8. Milton J, Durham, 9 A. Herr Smith, his, on catching sight of him, went up to him and remarked, rather too frankly, it must be con- essed :— “Don’t you think you're putting your head in the lion’s mouth, Harry ?"” “How so f'’ queried Genet, tn apparent wonder- ment, “Why, was his friend’s reply, “coming here just at this time when Ingersoll is goin, up and your case is supposed to be the next in order.” Genet flushed crimson at the words made some angry reply and deliberately turned his back on his friend. “Weil,” said the latter, tapping him on tne shoulder in a friendly way, as he himself turned to leave, “I don’t mean any offence, Harry; but I don’t'think a man, under present circumstances, shows any courage by staying here to stand trial, I think he shows more by going away.’’ This ended Genet's friend's advice, Which was evidently con- sidered insulting by Harry, who left the building in high dudgeon, A GENERAL GOBBLE OF ‘RING’? ABRTTORS. tis ed, on food authoriry, that alter the re- maining Court House Commissioners shall have been tried several Pte} who profited by the Ring’s stealings in 1870 and 1871 are to be hauled up on the strength of indictments which, it f said, have already been procured against them. | tt 1s also given out by well informed jay -J |i evidence is being accumulated every day by at sons in the employ of the District Attorney ofa : certain firms and members of firms who had deal ings with the Ring, aud that the Grand Juty will robably indict them on the strength of this evi- Noon Certainly there are breakers ahead for many of the abettors of old Tammany. % George M. Adams, 20, John W. Killinger. 10, John D, Young. 11. John B. Storm. LOUISIANA, 12, Laz. D, Shoemaker, At a ae H. Sheri- 13. J. D. Strawbridge. Ls om (lib. rep.) ap ag m4 A npn . Lawrence, . Jonn A. 3 2 RL. 16, John Cessna. 11. R. Milton Speer, 18, Sobieski Koss. 19. Cariton B, Ourtis, vo. H. L. Richmon 21. As Walgon Taylor, 22, James 3. b 23, Eben. Mesunken: 24, Wm 8, Moore. RHODE ISLAND. 1. Benjamin T, Eames 2 Jas. M. Pendleton, Gt 8. Chester B. Darrall, 4. , Dav ee 5. Frank Morey, MAINE. 1, John &, Burleigh. 2. William P, Frye. 8. James G, Blaine. 4. Samuel F. Hersey. MARYLAND. | 1, Ephraim K, Wilson, roner's SOUTH CAROLINA, x Seen Brien. At Large—Rich’ais 4. 7 Swany 1, Joseph H. Py A 5. Wm. J, Albert. 2, Alonzo J. ir. 6. Lioyd Lowndes, Jt, 8. Robert B. Elliot, MASSSACHUSETTS. 4. Al’x 8. Wallace, 1, James Buffinton, 2. Benj. W. Harris. 3, Hepry L, Pierce, 4. Samucl Hooper, 6. Dantel W. Gooch. 6, Benjamin F, Butler, At ‘TENNESSER. rd, 1. Roderick R. Bauer, 2. J.T, Thorn! le 38. William Orutehfeld, 4. John M. 6. Horace H. Harrison, 7, Ebenezer R. Hoar. 8. J. M, 8. Williams, 6 W.C. 9. George F. Hoar, 1. John D.C. Aliens, 10. Alvah Crocker, 6. David A. Nuon, ll. Henry L. Dawes, % Barbour Lewis, MICHIGAN, TEXAS. 1, Moses W, Field. At Large—Asa H, Wile 2. Henry Waldron, Mila 8. George Willard, 1. William 4 Julius 0, Burrows. 2 Wiliam B