The New York Herald Newspaper, March 6, 1874, Page 5

THE COURTS.| The King-0' Neil Tria!—Testimeny for the Pros- ecution—Eye-Witnesses of the Shooting, THE ROCK ISLAND POOL CASE. Important Decision in Favor of the Defend- ants—The Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaints. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. Summonses—Cases in Admiralty—Question of Commissions on Usurions Interest—Decisions, abraham Werner, who had been charged with having in his possession a large quantity of un- stamped cigars, was held yesterday by Commis- sioner Shields to await the action of the Grand Jury. Defendant committed in detault of $500 Dail. ‘The oMcials of the United States Ctrcult Court are badly off for adequate accommodation for the @ischarge of their duties, There is neither room enough for the filing away of the public records Ror have the officers suitable apartments for the conduct of examinations in either civil or criminal matters. This, however, will soon be remedied, asthe expectation is that the new Post Ofice building—the upper portion of which is to be used as federal courts, offices, &c.—will be entirely finished and ready for occupation early next fall, When finished the new Post Office will be both an ornament and a credit to the city of New York. It 1g built to last for at least 1,000 years. The trial of Victoria Woodhull, Tennie Claflin nd James W. Blood, tor alleged libel, was com- menced yesterday in the General Sessions before City Judge Sutherland. Some brief and uninter- esting testimony was taken, when the case went over till this morning. Application for reduced bail was refused, The prisoners, being unable to furnish the necessary ball, were remanded to the Tombs, Some cases of burgiary and larceny ended in the conviction and sentence of the parties to various terms of short imprisonment. THE KING-0’NEIL TRAGEDY. 7 Continuation of the Testimony for the Prosccation—Full Explanation of the Divorce and Other Legal Com- plications Leading to the Shooting— Story of the Tragedy as Told by Eye-Witness Now that the trial of James ©. King for the alieged murder of Anthony F. O'Neil nas got fairly under way, the crowd thronging the court | foom is much larger than heretofore. On the opening of the Court of Oyer and Terminer yester- gay, Judge Brady on the bench, the rush to gain | admission revived recollections of the eager crowds present at the trial of Stokes, Tweed and Genet, All the jurors were promptly in their Places, as likewise were Mr. Phelps, the District Attorney, and Mr. Lyons, his assistant. The prisoner, with the same apparent cool indiffer- ence, took bis accustomed seat, and cordiaily greeted his counsel, ex-Judge Beach, William F. | Howe and John O. Mott, as, one after another, they came into the court room, The prisoner's | father was also present, a8 on the previous day, and so, too, was Mrs, O'Neil, the wife of the murdered man. Several other ladies were also in attendance, Of course all were anxious to hear the further developments Of the case as revealed in the teatimony of ad- ditional witnesses to be called for the prosecution. The principal witness was Mr. Dupignac, who seems, atone time or another, to have been em- ployed.as counsel for nearly ali the parties more immediately connected with the terrible tragedy. He gave a very clear and succinct statement of the eomplication of difficulties leading to the shooting. Other witnesses recited the particulars of the | homicide, and some testimony was introduced to | show previous threats of King against the life of | O'Neil. All the important points of the testimony will be found in the report of the day’s proceed- | ings as given below :— FRE MEDICAL EVIDENCE—TESTIMONY OF DR. CUSH- MAN, Dr. Joseph Cashman, Deputy Coroner, testified that he made an examination of the body of An- thony F. O'Neil; be 1ound awound on fhe right | side of the chest, between the second and third ribs; on opening the body he traced the wound Ghrough the upper lope of the right lung, through she right side of the heart, through the liver and into the stomach, where he found a leaden ballet; the direction of the wound was inward and to the | left; the entrance to the stomach was from the bop; that wound was the cause of death. Gross-examined by Mr. Beach—The ball went | through tbe soft parts; the point of entrance tothe | was one to three (perhaps three) inches | bigver than the point of entrance to the stomach; | supposing two persons of equal lees ie standing on a levei, and one, holding the pistol horizontally, fires at the otner, I could not exacily tell the course the bullet would take or the angie, TESTIMONY OF FRANK J. DUPIGNAO. Frank J. Dupignac was the next witness called. Be testified as follows:—I am a lawyer, residing in this city; Ihave Known the prisoner since the | summer of 1869; at that time I was clerk in the office of Mr. James K. Hill, and it was there I made the prigoner’s juaintance; I made the acquaint- ance of O’Neil in the summer of 1872; prior to that time I nad acted protessionaliy for tbe prisoner; | me employed mein February, and I ceased to act | for him in May; he had a@ conversation with me about the ist of August, 1872, relative to his ditti- culties with Mrs. King; this wae before I had met Mr. O'Neil; 1 subsequently—about the 10th of | August, 1872—commenced to act as attorney for | Mr. O'Neil; I had never seen Mrs. King up to that | Gime; asuit was brought by Jesse Foulk against | Mr. King to reclaim furniture secreted sat Mr. King’s residence on the Erie road, andI repre- sented Mr. Foulk; Mr. O'Neil had something to do with the removal of the furniture irom Turner station. THE DIVORCE SUITS. Iwas next counsel for Mrs. King in a suit for divorce from the prisoner, and for Mrs. O'Neil in @suit of replevin by the prisoner to recover a sewing machine irom Mrs. O’Netl; then I repre- sented Mr. O'Neil on @ complaint of subornation Of perjury by Mr. King, and atterwards in a suit for divorce on the ground of adultery with Mr. O'Neil, brought by the prisoner against Mrs, King; Iwas ‘counsel lor Mrs, King; the suit for limited Givorce brought by Mrs. King was in september, 1862; on the 10th September, 1872, the prisoner sommenced a suit for absolute divorce against | her; on the Sh of October Mrs, King commenced | & suit for absolute divorce against him; the re- | plevin suit by the prisoner against Mrs. O'Neil, for &@ sewing Machine, was commenced in August, end the complaint of King against O’Neil, which ‘was tried in Jersey City, was commenced in sep- tember; there was 4 suit brought by King against | O’Netl, in Orange county, for seduction of his wife; Tlearned about this trom King. Wohut did he tell you about that suit; what | aid he say? | The question was energetically objected to by | the deience, but was allowed by the Court, A. He told me he instructed the deputy to arrest Onell in presence of bis wife; that he accompa- nied the aBpUty and O’Neil to the car; that ne sat behind them and had a pistol, and was prepared to shoot O'Neil] if.he made apy attempt to escape or Made any movement. In, coy THE SHOOTING, **" Nar ant Iwas present on benalf of Mrs. O'Neil at thé | Rearing before he Sutherland, November 18, 1873; Mr. aud Mrs, O'Neil and Mrs. Foulke and her sister were present, Judge Sutherland’s partner, two stenographers, the prisoner, an office boy and mys i} there had been two hearings, at ove of which the prisoner was accompanied by counsel, from Brown, Hall & Vanderpoel’s office, at the | other he was not; there was a hearing on the 4th | of November; the prisoner came in, bowed to the | Seamer but did not remain; the hearing on the 18th of November took place’ at one o'clock; the ane Were there; after Mra, Fouike was sworn Mr. : ing came in; she is the wife of Jease A. Foul! ©, residing in Brooklyn; the prisoner was alone ; he carried a goid-headea light cane; on en- | tering he looked at the witnesses, and took a seat on @ reclining chair behind Judge Sutherland; he sat quiet all the time; at the conclusion of each | witness’ examination, lasked him if he desired to cross-examine, and he raised his hand ins wen. | Semanl In@nner and said, “Not now,” or “No; Xthiok Judge Sutherland usked mim ‘if ‘he would cross. ; conversatio; ay, aid “No, but tH and Judge Sutueriand said t was Tuesday ney? Witness then described the order in which they Went down stairs, the ladies in advance; while at the head of the stairs Mr. O'Neil changed places, snd came last, the natural position coming down : ‘the Inst witness saw of the prisoner in the room “he was sitting down; a8 witness was at the head Of the staircase he saw the joner coming out | | | | was fixed nad whte witness was about hall-way aown— three steps in advance of witness at this time; a second report came very quickly, and a longer interval between the second and third shots; by this time witness had got to the vottom of the stairs—jmst before the third frhot—and he saw Mr, O'Neil) standing on the third | step, with his left band on the banister, his right hand hold of his right* arm; witness heard a remark from Mrs. O’Net at is what you are after|”? and immediately the third shot was fired; he next saw Mrs. O'Neil supporting ber husband at the bottom of the stairs; a Catholic priest was sent. for, and O'Neil was baptized before ne died; did not see the prisoner all thie time; he did not sec him be- cause he was looking at Mr. O'Neil all the cime; did not hear the prisoner make any remark; the following mornin bad Follerton, Mrs. O’Neil and witness tound fresh bullet marks on the wall, and, at the ‘oot of the stairs, a hole in the casing of the window, Q. Did the prisoner, subsequent to the 15th of August, say anything with regard'to his wife in connection with O'Neil ? Yhe defence objected, and Judge Brady dis- allowed the question. THE PRISONER'S TROUBLES. Witness—The prisoner wds in my office; he talked about his troubles; thia was about the 1st of Auyust; he took Ce out of his pocket and said, “These folks better look out or there would be shooting going on;” in that conversa. ion Mr, O’Neil’s name was mentioned, Cross-examined a Mr. Beach—I did not become intimate with Mr. King while | was in Mr. Hill’s office ; after I set up an office of my own he used to come there once in & month or two; I lost sight of him jor a while, and then our intimacy was re- sumed in 1871, and continued ar to August, 1873, when the replevin sult against him was taken out by Mr. Foulke; he did not consult me profession- ally often after that—sometimes on matters of his business, sometimes on matters of local or gen- eral interests; he taiked with me in about some eas corpus suits to cure custody of bis children; if was after July 15 that I learned from Mr. King that his wife had left bis house with her children; it was within a day or two of the 15th or 16th of July that he spoke to me about the habeas corpus proceedings; he did not consult me; our intimacy continued; our intimacy began to break otf on the 7th of August, the day after Mr. O'Nell was arrested; Mr. Foulke employed me in his suit against King on the 9th of August; King had three children and @ servant in his household at Turner's Stanon; Mrs, King, as I learned from hearsay, was in New Haven, the day be/ore the furniture was removed from King's house; I talked with Mr. O'Neil about conveying the s‘urniture on the rali- Way; he was not at the removal from the house, and gave no aasistance toward it; amon, the articles seized was o grana piano an’ @ carriage and harness; he had tne carriage with bis wie and children at Jackson's, and alterward at Long Branch, but ceased to keep horses in 1871; on the 19th of August I commenced an action for limited divorce against the prisoner, on behalf of Mrs, King, on the ground of cruelty; l was ip- troduced to ber August 13, at the Grand Ventral depot; | went there by appoiniment with Mr. Foulke; no one was present but Mrs, Foulke and Mrs, King; it was at my office I first consulted with Mr, O'Neil in regard to this separation sult; 1 did not know of any DIFFICULTIES BETWEEN KING AND HIS WIFE prior to the replevin suit; a3 soon as this sult com- menced for limited divorce Mr. O'Neil was datly busying himself on behalf of Mrs. King; 1 knew Jrom Mr. King and Mr, O'Neil that Mra. ‘King was residing in Mr. O’Neti’s house most of this time; O'Neil was about thirty years old and King about thirty-two; Mrs. King must be thirty-five years old; Mr. O'Netl was of gentiemaniy address and intelligent; when we were all going together to the suits tried Jersey City he waiked with Mrs, King; after leaving Judge Sutherland’s oifice, and while we were at the head of the stairs, we all participated in @ conversation; I know John Brown, who was King’s coachman; I obtained trom him letters which were teste to him by Mr. O'Neil; I don’t think I siowed them to any one; Ihave been active ta this prosecution; consulted with. the District Attorney, suggested witnesses aod busied myself in getting them; I am not re- tuined by him, Re-examined by the District Attorney—After Kiny’s admission to the Bar he put up his sign; this was the day aiter O’Neii’s arrest; Mrs, Ktng, | afier leaving ber husband, resided in Mr. Stock- weil’s nouse at Turner’s Station: after the suit was commenced Mr. and Mrs. O'Neil and Mrs, King went to reside in New York; King got pos- session of his children and retaimed possession of them up to the time of the homicide. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JUDGE SUTHERLAND Were part of the divorce suit, and were to recover custody of ver children; there was no open breach in the business relations of King and me up to Mr. Foulke’s repievin suit, but there was dissension. Mr. Beach here. asked the witness (handing him letter) was there any breach before you wrote that? <A, Yes; he owed me money loaned. Q,. Can you state any indications on his part from memory that your business relations were broken of belore that was written? The witness could not. Mr. Beach then read the letter. It was dated August 12, and notified King that Mr. Dupignac would cease to act as his counsel, in consequence of his naving employed other counsel in his bank- raptcy proceedings. ‘The Court here took a recess, and, if possible, on the reassembling of the Court, the room was more crowded thau before. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT BONYNGE, Robert Bonynge, stenographer, testitied that he was waiting for some other business in Judge Sutheriaud’s office, November 18, 1873; when the divorce reference began he went away to dinner and returned at two o’clock, and found all the par- ues there; saw them leave the room a iew minutes alter the proceedings closed; then Mr. King and Mr. Dupignac had some dispute about tue day fixed for the next sitting, aud they referred to Judge Sutherland’s diary; Mr. King was sitting all the time; when ali'the other parties Jeit Mr, kil went out hastily, closed the door after Lim, ‘and Witness, who remained inside, heard a re- port and guessed that he was killing him; Mr. Adams, another stenographer, who was taking notes on the King case, out aud immediately two other shots were heard; almost immediately after the last shot the prisoner -returned to the room, with the pistol in his hand and the barreis still smoking, and handed it to Judge Sutuerland, saying, ‘‘Here, Judge; witness ran down stairs and saw O'Neil lyyng at the toot; came back to the room, and found that King had gone into the private room and locked the door; Mra, O'Neil said to witness while he was down stairs, “For God’s sake, run up and see that the murderer don’t escape:” that was before Mr. O'Neil was dead; an oMicer came and kicked at the door and called to King to open; after the lock was pretty well loosened King opened it, and came out and sur- rendered, and said, ‘You may search me.” Cross-examined—When ‘the first shot was fired Mr. Adams remarked, “He is killing him;” would not like to swear positively that King said “You Inay search me,” but is pretty sure it was said, TRSTIMONY OF OFFICER GIBNEY. OMcer Gibney testified that on the evening of the 15th of November, 1873, a gentleman came up to him in Nassau street and told aim there was a man shot in No. 42 Pine street; he went there, and Judge Sutherland met him on the stoop and told him the man who did tt was in his private room; he went up and called out, ‘Lam a police officer, open;’? there was no answer; kicked at the door and started the panel around the lock; wit ness went back to the table and asked Judge Sutherland for the revolver, and got it (identifies it, a five-shooter) ; there were two charges in the chambers; just a3 he approached the door of the inner room again it was opened; witness stood in tue doorway; the prisoner was partiy behind the door; he wore dark pants, a light overcoat, gioves, his hands in his coat pockets, and a cane sticking up from the left pocket; witness said, “1am an officer, take your hands ont of your pockets and throw them up;” te did so; he said not a word; when witness arrested him Mr, O'Neil was lying in an office below stairs. TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK M. ADAMS. Frederick M. Adams, stenographer, testified that he was engaged in taking the proceedings on the reference. Mrs. Foulke, Mrs, O'Neil and Mr. Q’Neil were examined. After all the parties con- cerned leit, King iollowed, closed the door atter him, and the report of @ pistol was heard. Witness got up trom his chair and then there was another report, Witness started for the door, opened it, ana saw King at the head of the stairs, he saw his right hand pointed out taking aim, and while he Was in that attitude @ third report was heard. He was facing down the stairs. Then King came back and passed witness and went into the office, not quickly, but at am ordinary walk. On cross-examination, witness said he dtd not sec King at all during the examination. Could not. recollect whether, on hearing the first snot he cried, “{ guess he’s shooting tu.” TESTIMONY OF OFFICER GILBERT, OMicer Gilbert testified that he ran to No. 42 Pine street and received King in custody from Oftiver Gibney and took him to the station hous; he re- turned to No, 42 Pine street and assisted in search- ing the body of the dead man (O'Neil), and found arovolver in his hip pocket, with four chambers loaded; Y piso found a memorandum book and ray * Mrs, Bin Ue of the prisoner; rae etn iwakie pOMeeE AE Ate lott pide of ane it Was in the inside pi coat; ater the body was taken to the station house a hat was brought in with a bullet hole througn Tt. ‘ oh 7 1 Mr. Beach—On the way to the station honse ‘the crowd pressed so closely that they trod on my heels; King did nov expreas any apprehensions of personal violence, only irom the crowding; he stood about thirty or forty minutes in the general room at the station house; there was no expres- sion of anxiety on his face; he was next taken io the Captain’s room and then to the cell; [saw no difference in his behavior in the cell; he remained in the cell until next day, and there was no change in bis demeanor; he was silent and quiet, To the District gh et King was stand- ing at the Sergeant’s desk he was asked his name, age, occupation, and 60 on, and he gave them; some Members of the press came to see him an Inspector Walling visited him while he was in the cell, TESTIMONY OF WALTER 8, LOGAN. Walter S. Logan, a lawyer, testified that in No- vember, 1813, he Was clerk with Scudder & Co,, who were lawyers for King in the bankruptcy pro- ceedings. Mr. Phelps here offered to prove & threat against the deceased made by King during a conversation with King who called into their office in Wall street the Saturday before the homicide. Mr. Beach—Did he consult you about business matters? Witness—I asked him about his divorce suits and of the door of the ofce; while going down stairs the procecaings generalise eight stairs from the top and twelve irom the bot- | fore-ba heard @ pistol shot; Mra, O'Neil waa about | there was | on his hip, and Mrs. O?Neil ‘having a | Judge Brady said he understood the proceedings to be privileged, Mr. Pheips dian’t gee abything in the relations between chent and lawyer that enabled him to make the lawyer his confidant of his intention to commit a murder. Judge Brady said neither did he, but the wit- ness oceupied professional relations with the prisoner, and under recent decisions, his impres- sion was, the communication waa privileged. He would not, however, snut out the quesuon until he consulted the authorities, but les it be with- drawn jor the present. TESTIMONY OF DENIS M. QUICK. Denis M. Quick, lawyer, teatified that O’NeM came invo his office alter being shot, and sat down and turned pale; he said nothing; @ priest came eae tered the sacrament; O’Neil died quietly. TESTIMONY OF AARON P, DALRYMPLE. Aaron P, Dalrymple, who first examined the body of O’Netl, testified that the bnilet entered at an angle of thirty degrees, ‘TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. COMER, John H. Comer testified that be is a farmer and delivers miik in the city; he Knew O'Neil, who was im the freight department of the Erie Railroad; he became acquainted with the prisoner and fre- quently came down on the same train with the prmoner and the deceased; on several occasions he prisoner complained that O'Neil was interler- tng between him and his wife, and on one or two Occasions threatened to “mash” or “smash” his head; on several occasions noticed the prisoner eb very excited on seeing Mr, and Mrs. ’Neu and Mrs, King coming trom the ferryhous and saw bim following them tn a very excit manner, and from this and other circumstances Witness was induced to see Mr, O'Neil and tell hi to look out, as King was @ desperate man an Would do nim some mischief. Cross-examined—We used to cross by the upper ferry to Twenty-third streets; aiter leaving the Ser tg used to walk behind them fifty feet or 80; Mr. O'Neil and Mrs. King walked frét out of the ferry and Mra. Neil followed them, TESTIMONY OF SETH EB, WARNER. Seth E. Warner testified that he Kept a hotel at Turner’s Station in 1872, and saw the de- ceased and the prisoner @ good deal together and very friendly until the summer of 1572, when their intimacy ceased; onone covasion King came ta witness and said, “O'Neil is @ damned fool, he had better look out;” witness asked “whyt’? “Be- cause,” said he, “I shot my father-in-law ;”? “How?” said 1; “In seli-defence,” says he, “he was a large man and he knocked me down; i knew it was his babit to Laps onaman when he got him down toat way, so | just drawed my pistoland shot him; I didn’t kill him’ aks 7? then he added that O'Neil had better not tread on bis corns so much, that he knew too much law for O'Neil and would put up law points on lim. Nothing important for the defence was drawn from the Witness during his cross-examination, AN ABSENT WITNESS, ; District Attorney Phelps here, for the twentieth tame, called “Joseph Long,” but Joseph, as usaal, was oot forthcoming, whereupon Mr, Phelps ex- pressed his fear that the witness had been done away with, ‘fhe Court, shortly before 5 P. M., adjourned anti this moruing. It is expected that the testimony for the prosecution will be dnished to-day and whe defence be opened, THE ROCK ISLAND POOL CASE. Decision in Favor of the Defendants— Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Com- plaint. Before Judge Van Brunt. William M. Earle and Anotoer vs. George 3. Scott, William E, Strong and Otiers.—In this case, in which plaintiis seek to recover $300,000 for al- leged losses sufferea by them in acting as brokers for the famous Rock Island Pool, Judge Van Brunt, in Supreme Court, Special Term, has de- cided, in the following opinion, to dismiss the complaint, allowing plaintif—s, however, upon pay- ment of costs, to serve # new complaint:— The defendants demur upon three Pocus — First—That there is a detect of parties defendant. Second—the several causes of action have been im- properly united; and Third—That the complaint does not state facts suffi- cient to consti(ute a cause of action. nears ground of demurrer—viz., that there is a de- tect of pariies deiendant, docs not-seem to me to be weil taken. ‘The allegation is that the defendants and certain other persons, whose names are unknown to these plaintiifs, but whose names, when discovered, the plaintiffs pray for leave to join as defendants, entered into a certain copartnership, &c., for the purchase of certain stock. The deiendants cau, by their answer, se! ‘up such other parties in interest as have not been made defendants in the action, and they may be brought in by an amended bill. There ts no other ‘way in which the plai is can provide for anknown defendants. The laintifts certainly cannot be bound to name as de- fendants persons of whose naines they are ignorant ‘tne third ground of demurrer is that the complaint does not state tacts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. I think that a fair interpretation of this complaint shows that the plaintiffs allege the formation of the coy er ship, the appointment of Wiluam 8. Woodward asthe manager of tnat copartnership, the purchase of a large amount of stock and a sale or closing out of that stock a the oraer of Woodward at a loss ot to e plaintiffs. The exact meaning of the words * out” is not given, but we would understand by them that they had terminated their contracts for the stock by al witn the consent of Woodward. These facts certainly show a good ise . If the lan- guage used in the complaint Is indefinite and uncertain it can be remedied upon motion. The secona ground of demurrer is that several causes of action have been iin- properly united, in that ali the detendants named in the complaint are not liable tor the whole.amount of the damage claimed, but that there Is one cause of action against all the deferdants named in the complaint, and that there is another cause of action stated upon which some of the defendants are not liable. It cannot be ne- cexsary to cite antborities to sastain the proposition that: several causes of action can be united in one complaint only where each cause affects all the parties the action, and they must be 10 favor of all the plaintiffs and Pare all the defendants. Although the causes action are not separated fa the complaint, yet they are distinctly two. The first cause of action is against the parties forming the first partnership for the loys upon the stock purchased tor it, and the second is for the loss upon the stock bought tor the second partmership. These figms are not shown to be Hable for the stock purchased on account of each other; there isto averment of any community of in- terest between them. The agret tween the two copartnerships Was a3 follow! 6 first partnership was to hold the stock by it purchased; and the second partnerehip was to make additional purchases of stock, and thereby enhance the price of the stock so that both artrerships might make large pains, and profits there- Be. ”” "there is noden/ing iu all this that would make one copartnersnip liable \e for stock bough: or for ac: sour of the otner. The 8. ght b: fret that the detendant William ward Was @ member of both partnerships and Was the manager of both does not alter the question. suppose that two firms may appoint one man their agent, and each only be liable for his acts when he as- sumes to act for that firm. Isis, ot course, immaterjal whether these partnerships were two separate or. dis tinct combinations or one combination, w! object and scope were enlarged by subsequent agreement, if the members o: both were the, same, because in ‘the Above case all in auy event would be bound for all due losses sustained; therefore, unless it appears in the answer that these partnerships were formed of different meinbers, this demurrer cannot be sastained. The first artnership was formed of the defendants, eight in num- r, and other parties whose names are nknown. The second partnershio is formed of the aefendants, Jomn F. Tracy and Wilham S. Woodward, to- ether with divers other persons whose names are un- nown. It therefore appears that the parties who formed the second combination or partnership were different from those who tormed the first, and the two combina- tions cannot be sued in the same action unless each aro Mable for all the damages eustained by the defendants in the purchase of stocks tor both, This, in tact, was the round taken upon the argument by the learned counsel for thé plaintifis, But I think that I have shown that there was no legal liability upon the second partnership for the losses sustained ‘upon stock purchased tor the first. The dermurrer must, therefore, be sustilned upon the second ground, plaintifis to be allowed to amend upon payment of costs of demurrer. Mr. Dudley Field for two of the defendants; Mr. Marbury for defendant Scott; Henry S, Bennett for all the other defendants; William 8. Anthon for plaintiffs, BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. Admiralty Cases—Decisions, A libel was filed by John T. Walsh against the steamboat John Farron, to recover for supplies fur- mished to the steamer. In this case yesterday, in the United States District Court, Judge Biatoniord rendered his decision, dismissing the libel. He says :—‘‘As the libel alleges that the vessel was a domestic vessel, 1t must be held that there was no lien upon ner by the maritime law for the sup- tard and none hy the local law of New York.” b. icMahon for the iibellant; B,D. Benedict tor the claimant. The Judge has also decidea the case of John Jackson vs. James T. Easton and James McMshon. This action was brought to recover damages for injury to canalboat by the bursting of the ald o eee ti ae libel ts gia ed with Y ji eebe for it; W. W. Good- rich for the a In the m ‘Wiliam Cavan against the steamship Angelica, which was an action to fe cover for damages Caused by a collision, the Judge orgers a decree for the libeli: amoudt or oabete SUPREME COUDT—CHAMBERS Decisions. By Judge Donohue. Mutual Life insurance Company vs. Martin, Smith ve, Smith, Hadisy vs, Boehm, Fanning vs. Fanning, Slate vs. Crystal Spring Company.— Memorandums, Waish vs. Clancy, Winsor vs, The Phoenix Ware- houseing company, Byrne vs. The Underground Railway Company.—Motions denied, Zabriskie vs, Meyer,—Motion denied as abidement. Meyer vs. Heath.—Motion denied, with $10costs. Davis vs. Brown, in the matter of the application of the Directors of Arnold's Blectro-Galvans Iron Works, Arnold vs, Arnold.—Orders granted. in the matter, &c., application of Fridivay.— Motion granted. Van Tassel ys. Van Tassel, White vs. Meriam.— Granted, SUPERIOR COURT—TRIAL TERM—PART |, Question of Commissi Interest. Before Judge Monell, The old suit brought by the Merchants’ Ex- change National Bank to recover the valut of 204 | Bogsheads of tobacco, amounting to some 4100,000, With * ascervain the to @ on Userious | brought | warrant him in holding them to answer. jays, It was clatmed that Cornelius Oakley, & to- bacco merchant, obtaimed moneys from the cashier of the bank ‘or purchase of the tobacco, end that in this way the latter had become largely indebted to the lank, and that subsequently he obtained advances (rom the warehouse company on the tobacco. ‘ihe warehouse company claimed that under its chorter{t was empowered to make advances upon goods in it charge and charge commissions the same as commission merchants, The case went to the Court of Ap} ov demurrer to the complaint. 1t was heid by the Court of Ap- peals that 1! the charge of commilasion was bona the warehouse company was entitled to re- cover; but ii lt was a mere cover for the exaction of usuriogs interest that then the bank would be entitled to recover. The testimony was avout the same as at the previous trial. The jury, not hav- ing agreed at @ late hour, they were ordered to in @ seaied verdict, SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions. By Judge vartia. Adams ve. Hausen ; Bull's Head Bank vs Waddell; Frame vé. Dale.— Motions granted. By Juage Van Vorat, Van Buren va. Cort.—Judgment for plaintiff and accounting ordered, COURT GF COMMON PLEAS—TRIAL TERM—PABT |. Sult for Advances to Market Sweepers. Before Judge Loew. During several months in 1870 Phineas H. Kings- land savanced money to the city amounting to some $9,000 to pay the market sweepers, and the latter assigned to him their claim. The Board of Apportionment made an approprtation to pay the amount. A warrant was drawn for the same and just then came in the Foley injunction pre- venting ite payment, Not having been abie since to get money trom the city, suit was brought in this Court for the amount. ‘The case came on for trial yesterday, Mr. William ©, Trull appearing for the plaintiff and Mr. Dean for the city. The de- mare is that tuere is no appropriation to cover the Cases Where the City Won't Pay Rent. For sixteen years past the Croton Aqueduct De- partment has occupied as a storeroom 4 portion of No. 12 Chambers street, the rent being $400 a year, The rent was paid regularly until last year, when the Comptroller refused payment, and, thereupon, sult was brought to compel payment, The defence waa that the Common Council had never authorized the hiring of the premises, and it was insisted that if such a thing was allowed all the departments of the city might be hiring al) sorte of premises tor all sorta of purposes. Mr. Dean represented the ta debe Malooim Campbell the plaintii. ‘The fig wever, could not agree ‘and were discharg COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM, Decisions. By Juage Larremore. McAlitster vs. McAllister; Terwilliger ve. Terwil- Kan ceed She contirmed, Divorces granted. jarrie v8. New York W. 8. B. Railroad Com. pany.—Motion denied without prejudice. People ex iel. vs. MoCioskey ve, Green.—The question of payment and acceptance must be tried. Application’ dented. Moynahan vs. Same.—See memorandum. By Judge Robinson, Canning vs. Canning,—Motion to confirm de- nied. Ordered case be sent back for further proof, a RS vs. Ehringer.—Motion lor alimony, &c., By Judge Larremore. Barnum vs. the Mayor, éc.; Matthews vs, Same; Suavey vs. Same; Gallagher vs, Same; Downs vs. Same; De Esprit va Same; Quinn ve, Same; Crow vs Same; Buon vs. Same; Powers vs. Same; Morten vs. e; Wagner vs, Same; Saiter vs. same; Dolan vs. Same; Simmons vs. Same; Shotwell vs. Same; Underhill vs. Same; Coit vs. same; Swinson vs. Same; Geander ys. Same; Fitzpatrick vs. Same; Van Ranst vs. Same; Skinner vs. Same; Kane vs. Same. Judg- ment for plaintiffs, Demurrers overruled, MARINE COURT—PART 2, Judgments at Inquest. Betore Judge Snea. John McLoughian vs. Christopher Keyes.—Judg- Ment ior plain tif, $103 90, with.cost of action, Bethnal C. Wheeler vs, William OU. Moore’et aL— Judgment for plaintiff $810 87, with costa, MARINE COURT—PART 3. Decisio By Judge Joachimsen, Lowenbien vs. Howe.—Judginent for Plaintiff for $370 48 and costs and $25 allowance. Madden vs. Uleo—Margarine Manufacturing Com- pany.—Judgment for plaintiff ior $390 05 and costs and $25 allowance. Seymour vs. Same.—The like, for $333 97 and $26 allowance. Walsh vs, Same.—The like, for $154 86 and costs and $25 aliowance. Brewster vs Same.—The like, for $254 30 and costs and $25 allowance. Young vs. Same,—The like, for $233 97 and costs and allowance. McKellar vs. Meyers.—Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $101 63 and costs and $25 allowance. Ganse vs. McClave.—Verdict and judgment for Plaintif for $829 72 and costs and $5 allowance. Rich vs, Gordon.—Judgment for plaimtur ior $34; no costs. TOMBS" POLICE COURT. Stolen Bonds Brought to Light. *Belore Justice Bixby, On the 10th of March, 1873, the office of the Pennsylvania and Western Railroad Company, No. 60 Broad street, was entered and fifty-six $1,000 mortgage bonds, valued at $40,000, were stolen herefrom. Captain Irving has bad the case in his ands ever since, and, after a long search, traced them through various hands to William ( Brandon, of No, 746 Broadway. Captain Irving and Detective McDougal went to Brandon's place on Wednesday night and arrested him. The safe was searched, and the Ge ee bonds were found, put away in a secret drawer, Srandon, being fore Justice Bixby at the Tombs ours yesterday afternoon, was held in $40,000 bail to answer. Brandon, who has been arrcated a num- ber of times on similar charges, denied that he had any haw of the bonds being stoien, aud stated that he had bought them in a regular business way. How to Recover a Lost Watch. Mrs, M. D, Starr, of No, 155 Lexington avenue, was robbed of her watch ina Fourth avenue car last Tuesday evening. The following day she placed an advertisement in the Herarn offering $50 reward, and a iew days after received the iol- lowing as an answer to the advertisement:— Mrs. Sta@n—I have paid $60 for a watch found some time last weck. about $135 or $150—a monogram ladies’ gold watch, I ‘Will not take $6 for the watch, so increase the reward. Yours, IMAN NATURE. P. 8.—Answer through Commercial Advertiser or Express. Tho lady advertised as requested, and two men called on her with @ written agreement. She recognized one of the parties present- ing the agreement as the person who had taken such an interest in her when she first expressed her feelings in the car on the loss of her watch. Detective Williamson arrested the two men. They were taken to the Central Police Office and dis. charged by Inspector McDermott, Mrs. Starr, with Detective Williamson, came before Justice Bixby yesterday and told her story to that magistrate, “Where are these men, officer?’ said Justice Bixby. wel, Your Honor,” answered the officer, “In- spector McDermott thought they were respectable men and discharged them.” Judge Bixby—Inspector McDermott has no right to usurp functions that do not belong to him, {I want those men brought here, omcer, Later in the afternoon Mrs, Starr was ushered into the examtnation room, and also Detective Williamson. The two persons who had been 80 anxious to get Mrs. Starr's watch for her were also present. Henry E. Pike, of No. 53 West Kighteenth street, was one, and Charles Crawiord, ot No. 419 Sixth avenue, the other. Judge Bixby, at the conclusion, handed Mrs; Starr her watch, and said to Pike and Crawiord that he felt that they had been engaged in a swindling transaction, and was sorry that the airy iM he la put her watch in her pocket, for which she did no! pay any reward, Walked away lappier and Wit See The Poltey Dea! “Gnomas J. Taylor and eleven others, who were arrested on Wodnesday in a Chatham street policy shop, were yesterday taken before Judge Bixby. ‘Three of the men arrested testified that they had bought policy slips from Taylor, ana two of them were sent to the House of Detention. The rest, with the exception of Taylor, were discharged, Ha, wad held in $1,000 bail toanswer. Sergeant Blair, of the Secont précinct, yester- day morning visited a policy shop slieged to be kept by Henry Van Tassell at No.9 Ann strect, ‘The books, papers, &c., were seized and taken to court, Only one person, @ negro, was arrested, ‘pesides Van Tassell. He was discharged, and Van ‘Tassell was held in $1,000 bail to answer, Burglary in Mott Street, On the 26th of February the premises af Mrs, Alice Menzer, No. 230 Mott street, were broken into and $400 worth of jewelry and clothing car- ried off, Mrs, Menzer apprised Captain Irving of her loss, and he detailed Omicer Fields to work op the case. Wednesday night the oMicer arreste two young men, namea Francis Hopkins and William Kelly, on suspicion, in @ saloon on she Bowery, between Houston and Stanton streets, oe eae searched in the station house and a gold chain was found in the possession of Kelly, which was subsequently identified by Mrs. Menzer, As Hopkins and Kelly hada both been seen prowling around No, 290 Mott street about the time of the robbery, they were held in $2,000 ball, each, to answer, NEW YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 1874.—TRIPLE SHEET, has been on trial In this Court for the past two i the turrmen of this part of the country. lt is @ real Henry Copt watch, worth | COURT CALENDARS—THIS DAY. SUPREME Court—CHamsens—Held by Judge Donobue.—Nos. 45, 62, 68, 73, 78, 85, 93, 97, 98, 99, | 101, 108, 108, 10534, 120, 129, 180, 166, 167, 108, 172 | 176, 198,181, Led, 184, 186,186, '180,'195, 106, 200, Call | SUPREME COURT—GeNERAL TeRM—Held py Judges | Davia, Daniels and Lawrence.—Preterred tans Nos, 100, 102. Enumerated motions—Nos, 130, 131, 134, 185, 186, 187, 188, 140, 141, 142, 148, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 160, 161, 152,’ 154, 156,'156, 157. Sornamn Court—Orncurt— Part 2—Held by Judge Van Bri 2962, 2050, 2800, 2946, 1646, 2018, 2418, 96, 2644, 1238, 1208, 2006, 23:0) 2165" 2344" | 2488, 2142, 2380, 2752, 2790, 2055, 2878, 2510," 2798, | Part arned antil Monday, SUPERIOR COURT—TRIAL TERM—Part 1—Held by Judge Monelli—Court Sra Ate Se M.—Noa, | 1 637, 741, . 1, 865, 469, ta, io ig oe Part 2—Held by Jude Freea- man.—Nos. 1060, 866, 880, 830, 808, 1484, 650, 870, 1490, 836, 878, 810, 476, 890. Court or CoMMON PLEAS—GENERAL TeRM—Held by Jadges C. P. Dal, 3. F, Daly.— Nos, 69, 145, 38, \ Court oF ComMON TRIAL TERM—Part 1— | by Judge Loew.—Nos. 2120, 68,2077, 1369, 2726, | OM ‘2A4W, 2281, 2346, 670, 1651, 2499, 2178, 1599, ARINE COURT—TRIAL TEBM—Part 1—| eld by Judge Spauiding.--Nos. S217, 4401, 4530, 2264, 2352, | 4508, 8246, 3410, 3412, 3414, 3420, 3422, 3428, 3430, 5433. Part 2—Held by Judge Shea.—Nos. 3389, 3311, 8328, 8115, 8416, 2383}4, 2643, 3423, 8427, 3429, 3433, 8487, B64), 3461. Part &—Held by Judge Joachimgen,—Nos. 3312, 4619, 4579, 4397, 4051, 3658, 4898, 8205, 4518, 4517, 4420, 4131, 4082, 4290, 3809. BROOKLYN COURTS. SUPREME COURT—SPECIAL TERM, A Sensation for Society and the Politi- cians—Action Against James B. Craig for Alleged Assault—$10,000 Damages Claimed—Order of Arrest Granted— The Defendant Leaves the City. Before Judge Pratt. There has been considerabie talk in political cir- cles daring the past few days over a suit brought against Mr. James 8B. Craig, the lawyer and well known democratic politician of this city, by Mr. William J. Parks, of Montague ‘street, for alleged assault and battery. The plaintiff is the son of Mr. William Parks, a prominent and wealthy rest- dent of Brookiyn, a member of the Prospect Park Fair Grounds Association and well known among Mr, Craig, the defendant, is one of the leading democratic politicians of Kings county and his reputation extends throughout the State. During the administration of Governor Hofman he was a member of the Governor’s staf. He was also, formerly, Chairman of the Kings County Democratic General Committee, and has always been among the foremost in the local and State | councils of bis party. He is associated in the law business with Mr. Sidney Webster, the son-in-law of Secretary Fish. It seems that a month or so ago young ! PARKS AND CRAIG HAD SOME DIFFICULTY with each other, which, however, was understood to have been finally settled. On the 20th ult, Craag, in company with his wife, called at the plaintia’s residence, No. 100 Montague strect, and on entering the parlor had a few words with Parks, Parks made some quick reply, when, as charged, Craig struck him on the head and wrist witi a cane. The former wrenehed the cane from his grasp, whereupon Craig seized an tron poker irom near the fireplace and was about to renew the assault, when a brawny domestic, who had been attracted to the piace by the noise of tue rencontre, interiered and leprived him of the weapon. Craig then SEIZED A PAIR OF TONGS and started for the plaintiff, who was escaping up | stairs. At this juncture of affairs Mr. B, G, Smith, | the brother-in-law of young Parks, appeared upon the scene and prevented any further demonstra- tions on the part of the defendant, who shortly af | terwards left the house. \ This suit was subsequently brought, damages be- ing laid at $10,000. On Wednesday last Mr. Thomas E. Pearsall, counsel for plaintlif, appeared before Judge Pratt ana applied for an order of arrest against Craig. Judge Pratt granted the order and fixed the bail at $800, she order was delivered to a deputy sheriif, who immediately repaired to Mr. Craig's residence in Montague terrace, where he, ascertained that the defendant had leit the city. oMicer returned and ao reported. Thus the cage Stands at present. Mr. Craig is still out of wow and it has not appeared when he wili re- urn. The Bacz-Hatch Case—The Order of Ar- rest Vacated—Another Suit. Judge Pratt yesterday decided to vacate the order of arrest against ex-President Baez in the suit of David Hatch, already tully reportea. decision is as follows :— Upon reading and filing the order to show cause made herein by Mr, Justice Gilbert on the 3d day of March t- | stant, and an affidavit ef Buenaventura Baes, the de- | fendant, on which said order was granted, and tbe coun- ter affidavit of David Hatch, the plaintid, and hearing Mr. Van Wagner and Mr. Choate tor the di ant in bebaif of their motion to vacate the order of arrest ranved herein by Mr. Justice Pratt on the 2th day of | February, 174, holding the defeadant to batt in the eum | oi $25,000, and Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Cross, for the plain- tiff, in opposition to said motion, and due deliberation having been had, it is ordered that the said order of ar- | rest be, ama the same is hereby vacated. and that the | said defendant be and the same is hereby discharged from custody thereunder, with $10 costs to defeudant, Another Suit. Another sait has been commenced against Bae: the plaintiff being Mr. Julius M. Cotumbani, of Now * York. Yesterday his counsel applied to Judge Pratt for an order of arrest against the defendant, The application was based on a lengthy amidavit, setting forth that in 1870 the plaintul was impris- oned by Baez illegally, and that his health, com- mer credit and cepemaon were greatly im- | Sor: He claims damages in the sum of S The application was denied. It will probably be renewed before some other Supreme Court Judge in New York or Brooklyn. _ CITY COURT—SPECIAL TERM. Alleged Illegal Increase of Crosstown Railroad Stock. Before Judge Netison, Alaerman Demas Strong, a large stockholder in | the Crosstown Railroad Company, has brought suit to restrain the Board of Directors from in- creasing the capital stock by $100,000 by issuing additional shares to that amount, and selling them for flity per cent of the par value of thesame. The Board have passed a resolution to that efect and given printed notice of their intention. The platn- | tu? alleges that if tnis be accomplished the value of the original stock held by him and others will id depreciated, He claims that all such action is ile; Judge Neilson has granted a temporary injunc- tion and an order to show cause why a permanent injunction should not issue. The case will be | heard next Tuesday, } UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. | | { \ | | Decisions, WASHINGTON, March 5, 1874, No, 451. Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Com- pany, Wheeler & Wilson Sewing Machine Company | and the Singer Manufacturing Company vs, Fior- | ence Sewing Machine Company—Error to the | Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.—This was an action by the Florence Company, a Massz- chusetts corporation, against the other companics to recover back certain moneys alleged to de due | from them by reason of overpayments made by the | Florence Company a8 patent rent under an agree- | ment providing for a reduction in the rent in case of the granting by the other companies ot any | additional licenses. The suit being brought in tne | Supreme Judicial Court of the Stage, motion was “tiadé to remove {€ to the Circuit Court of the United States, The Giover & Baker Company was . eee are corporation also, but the other wo were joreign iT porationg—o: Con: necticut atid ti ofnee ia Rew ae itt Court below held that where one of tne defendant corporations was Of the same State with the plain. tiff, where the suit was brought, removal was not authorized, and the trial proceeded and resulted tn favor of the Florence Company, The question ‘esented here was whether the Court was rig Ine Me Sects af fhe, a stion of removal. é Opinion of the Court. Qt consideraglé iength, aMirming judgment oé- low. At the conclusion it is said ther thé non- resident plaintif® of non-resident defendant may remove the cause uhder thé act for that purpose, provided that all the plaintiffs or all the defend- ants join in the petition, and all the parues petitioning are non-residents, as required under the Judiciary act; but it is a great mistake to sup- pose that any such right is conferred by that act when one or more of the plaintiffs or one or more of the petitioning defendants are citizens of the State in which the suit 1s pending, as the act is destitute of any language which can be Properly construed to confer any such right, unless all the plaintiffs or all the detendants are non-resident and join in the petition.” Dissenting, Justices Miller and Bradley. No, 577. The Chicago City Ratiroad Company vs, Alltoner,—Appeal from the Circuit Court of tne Northern District of Iilinois.—The directors of the company, without consultation or calling a meet- ing of the stockholders, resolved to increase the capital stock of the company from $1,250,000 to $1,600,000. The appellee, a stockholder, objected to the proceeding and filed big bill prevent the | tate and unmarri Tne | 5 , insisting that itconid not be lawfully done Without the concurrence of the stock iolders. The Court below sustained the position ana re- strained the act. That decree ts bere afirmed om the ground that a change so organic and funda- mental a8 that of increasing the capita: stock of @ corporation beyond the limit fixed by the charter cannot be made the directors alone, uniess ex- ressly authorized thereto, Mr. Justice strong de- ivered the opinion, No, 555. Baltimore and Potomac Rallroad Com- pany vs. Trustees of Sixth Presbyterian Church— Error to the Supreme Court of the District of Co lumbta.—The chureh recovered a judgment against the company for $11,500 damages for running the road through Sixtn street in front of the church edifice. The company obtained @ writ of error, 4nd @ motion was made to dismiss it on the ground that the law under which the assessment ages Was made by the jury in the case was @ Mary- land statute, which, by the construction of the Maryland courts, does not allow an appeal or writ or, Mr, Justice Miller delivered the opinion denying the motion, holaing that the writ in such @ case, notwitistanding the objection ui The early decision of this Court, it is said, held y the right to the writ exists by virtue of the apel- late power of this Court as defined im the act of 1801 creating the’Cireuit Court of tne district, and the Court ie governed by that act. No. 168. Barring Bros. ve, Dabney, Morgan & Co,—Error wo the Supreme Court of South Caro- lina.—This case invoived the distribution of the assets of the Bank of the State of South Carolina, on its own account and as Lue financial agent of the , State, now in the hands of a receiver, and particu- “larly the question of the title of the fire k l- holders and the fire ioan stockholders: -bonda and stock, negotiated by the bank, ander the au- thority of the State, for the rebuilding of Charles- ton after the fire of 1838 ‘The bouds were taken up in Europe and the stock tn the United States. ‘The former had the guarantee of the bank, and the latter did not. The deciston is that the fire loan bondholders Are oR fo equal {voting with the other creditors of thé bank, and that the fire loan stock- holders are not creditors of the bank at all, and not entitied to any participation in the tund.’ fhe assets are directed to be distributed among the creditors of the bank in proportion to the amount of ciaims, reducing those arising during the war to their values in national currency, is 18 an amMrmation of the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State. Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion, Mr. Justice Strong dissented, No. 200, Croply vs. Cooper.—Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia,—Wil- liam Cooper left a will containing the following clause :—'‘To my daughter, Elizabeth Croply, at her mother’s death I give and bequeath the rent of my house on Pennsylvania avenue, in the city of Wash- itogton, for and during her life, and at her death it is my will that the said house be sold and the avails therefrom become the property of her children, or child, when he, she or they nave arrived at the age of twenty-one ye: the interest in the meantime to be applied to their maintenance.” ‘The daugh- ter had one child at the death of the testator, who lived to be twenty-one years of age, and died intes- in the Iifetime of bis mothe! The mother, Elizabeth Croply, now cleims ti property under the clause of the will be Th oldie thas of Court below suétained a demurrer, vhe devise over to the children. or child, beth Croply was contingent upon its, or their, aur- viving the mother, aad, also, attaining the age of twenty-one years. That decree is here reversed, where it is heid, in substance, that the testator vested the residoum in the child or children of Eliza- | beth Oroply, and there leit it without further dis- position—to now go to the mother, Swayne delivered the opinion, No, 184. Sawyer vs. Pickett et al.—Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Mli- no1is,—This was the foreclosure of a mortgage given by the appellees to the Fox River Valley Railroad Company to secure a subscription note, and by the company assigned to the appellant, The defence wasjtiat the note and mortgage were obtained by traud of the company practised to induce property owners in the locality of the appellee to subscribe tolts stock. ‘he Court below sustained the de- fence and dismissed the bill. That aecree ts hee reversed, the Court holding that the detence is not satisfactorily proven, and that, as against the ap- pellant, @ bona fide holder, without notice, it should not be sustained. Mr. Justice Hunt de- livered the opinion, No, 210, Schooner Mary H. Banks vs. Steamer Falcon—Appeai from the Circuit Court for the Dis- trict of Maryland.—This was the reversal of @ de- cree dismissing the libel of the schooner in a case of collision on the Chesapeake Bay in July, 1867, the principie afterwards being that it was the duty of the steamer to see the schooner as soon as she was to be discovered, watch her progress and direction, observe the general situation and thus keep out of her way, having at command all the Means to do s0—ample sea room, calm weather and water, abundaat lignt and no other vessel in | proximity on either side. It is also satd the | Steamer Was grossly at fault in approaching too | Bear the schooner gud at too high @ rate of speed, ; Which, as asserted, was the real cause of the als- asier. Mr. Justice Swayne delivered the opinion. No. 207, Town of Queensbury vs, Culver—Error to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York.—This was an action on interest war- rants attached to bonds issued by the town in aid of the constraction of a railroad from the village of Glenn's Fails to intersect the Saratoga and White- hall Ratiroad, The bonds were purcuased by the defendant in error, Without notice of aay defence, On the trial the unconstitutionality of the law authorizing the subscription and various irregu- Jarities were urged as readering the bonds invalid, but the judgment was for the complainant, and is here affirmed on tne authority of the numerous decisions by ths Court in similar cases. Mr. Jus- tice Stroi delivered | the opinion, No. 63. Caldwell vs. United States—Appeal from the Court of Claims.—This was an action on a con- tract for the transportation of military stores and supphes in the West, The government main- tained tnat there was no covenant to employ Cald- weil on tue route to the exclusion of otuer persons or means, but the Court of Claims gave judgment for whe claimant for & portion of the amoaut alleged to be due. ‘The judgment is bere reversed and the defence,ol the government sustained, Mr. Justice Hunt delivered the opinion. No. 164, Clarke et al. vs. Johnson et al., execa- tore—Appeal irom the Circuit Court for the South- ern District of New York.—The appellants sought to recover of the defendants as executors of one Boorman, who was iast surviving executor of their great grandfather, J. R. Smith, the present value Of certain iauds of which he died seized. Tne compiatnants were children of the son of a daugh- ter ol the testator, their grandfather dying beiore their grandmother. A codicil to the will provided for the chidren of a daughter whose husband shouid survive her, but not for the children of a daughter who sheuld survive her husband. Hence it was held below and is affirmed here that the limitation over to the grandchildren provided by the codicil does not inure to the benefit of tne Mr. Justice Miller delivered the Mr. Jusiice complainants. opinion, No. 199. Zautzinzer vs. Gunton—Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Colambia.— This was the afirmance of a decree of the Supreme Court of the District determining that certain lands conveyed by the parents of the wife of Zaut- ginger (o Gunton terminated their interest in the Ls peahed and vested it tn Gunton and the Bank o! asuington, Of which he is President, and con- clndes the complainants as heirs, ir. Justice | Miller delivered the opinion. No, 211, Morgan ex S, N, Gay—Error to the Circuit Court of Louisiana—The testator was charged as the drawee and acceptor of an inland bill of exchange of which one Goodrich was the drawer, and with being the drawer of another oi which Pilcher aud Goodrich were the drawees. The plaintiff did not pines that the Raree and first endorser was a citizen of & State other than Lou- istana, only ave! that he was a citizen of Louis- ville, Ky, This allegation is deemed insufficient to give the Court jurisdiction, and the judgment is reversed and the Cause remanded, that amend. ments may be made to the pieadings showing the citizenship of the endorsers of the bilis and whetner such a8 to give jurisdiction, Mr. Justice Strong delivered the opinion, No. 181, Kiein va, Russell—Error to the Cirenit Coart for the Northern District of New York.—This Waean action to recover for an alleged infringe. ment of a patent for improvement in the process of preparing bark-tanned sheep and jamb skins pe eeeperns: the ageucy of ‘at liquor,” an article produced by the scouring of deerskins after tan- ning in oi The judgment below was for the pat- entee, the verdict having found the fact ia. fringemont, and it ia sustained here, Mr. Justice Swayne delivered the opinion, No. 478. Rollo, Asstyneen Bankruptcy—Appeal from the Cirevit Court for the Northern District of Nunois.—This was an eM@rmance of a decree below, refusing to allow Gray to aet off an indebtedness due from him to the ee agatnst an equal amount of indebtedness due trom the assignee tu the firm of Gray Brothers, of which he was & part- ner, Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion: Ex parte State Insurance Company of Missourl.— Motion for & mandamus, to compel the Circult Court to Me ie cause removed thereto, denied, Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion, ABREST ON A OHAROR OF MAIL ROBBERY, John Dilton, *hircy-four years of age, wai arrested in Brootlyn yesterday, upon the charge of having robbed the United States maiL The prisoner was employed to carry the mails on tht railroad, between Winona and Caricto end it is al he stole $195 from a letter urected to Frederick Hall, at the foriner ry tn Fepruur) Jast. Suspicion becoming attached to bim, he fed to Brookiyn, where he was arrested, ag set forth He is heid to anawer.