The New York Herald Newspaper, September 15, 1874, Page 4

GOVERNOR DIX'S DECIS‘ON evere Criticism of the Action of Our Ancient Mayor. CENSURED, BUT NOT REMOVED The Refusal to Investigate the Alleged Misconduct of Gardner and Charlick Indefensible. \Betion of the Executive of the State Ignored | on the Opinion of a Subordinate. charges were made against them, 18 indefensipie on aby recognized principle of government, It is the common law of all administrations of power that the chief in authority saail watch over the departments subordinave to him, and see that their functions are ‘aithfully exe- cuted. Itis his province to direct the proper legal officer to any allegation of misconduct with probable cause, Instead of leaving @ service pertaiming to bis own sphere of duty to be pertormed by other departments or by pftivate individuals having only common interest with all others in the proper Mauagement of the public affairs. case the cuarter of the city made it the Mayor's | spectal duty to keep himself informed o! the doings | 01 one of the Commissioners may O} Une several departments, and to be Vigilant and hances to be enlorced. To refuse to investigate alleged delinquencies or malieasance on the part of bis subordinates, without specific charges from accepted by his oatn of office, but to violate every received maxim of official duty, even where no svcd obligations are specially enjoined, A relusal to iusitute an examination in a case of flagrant violation of law or of gross | abuse of oficial trust, on the sole ground that | jormal charges had not been presented by thers, would unquestionably justily the EXecuttve ou eXx- | ercising the power of correction confidea to him | by the coastitution. But in bis answer to this por- — tion of the charge the Mayor cites the reports of | the Board of Health, embracing the whoie period | SraTg or New York, Executive Stan red ALBANY, Sept. 14, 1874. In the matter of the charges against William F. Havemeyer, Mayor of the City of New York, It has been customary, in cases of accusation against public officers with @ view to their removal under the authority confided by the constitution | and laws to the chie! magistrate of the State, to direct an inquiry into the truth of the charges against them by the examination of witnesses » before a county judge or some other person desig- _ nated for the purpose. due to the office of chief magistrate of the Orst | city in the State to await his answer before pro- ceeding any further. seemed to me to render such aa inquiry needless, and {t was not, im fact, desired, either by the accusers or the accused. The principal facts, | which constitute the gravamen of tile accusation, are not in dispute, They are admitted tn the an- ewer as fully as they are set forth in the charges, | and it ouly remains (or the Executtve to determine | whether they constitute a proper case for the ex- | ercise of the power of removal. | The charges presented to me are embodied in five | papers or petitions, viz. :— | 1. A petition signed by, and verified by the am- davit of, Charles Watrous. 2 A petition signed by John P. Crosby, Joseph C. Jackson, Wm. M. Pritchard, C. A. Hand, Ben). B. Sherman, Wm. C, Barrett and A. A. Redfield. | 3. A petition signed by Elwood E. Thorne, H. A. | Burr and G. L, Shearer. 4 A series of resolutions adopted by the Board of Aldermen; and 5. Charges and specifications presented by Os- | wald Ottendorfer, John Kelly and William H. Wick- ham, and verified by the affidavit of the former. The first two of these papers are identical: They are both, together with the last, sustained by documentary evidence, and all of them concar mm asking that the Mayor may be removed from his oMce. The charges against him in the last of | the five enumerated papers, though supported by votuminous specifications, may be briefly summed up as lollows, viz:— 1, Gross neglect of duty in refusing to investi- | gate the oficial conduct of On Charlick and Hugh Gardner as Police Commissioners of the city of New York; and Hl 2 Gross misconduct in office and abuse of the | appointing power, by reappointing Oliver Char- | lick and Hugh Gardner to the office of Police | Commissioner after their conviction of an of- | fence involving a violation of their oaths of ofice, and in each case assigning one to the vacancy created by the other for the purpose of evading the provisions of the law; thus bringing the ad- ministration of justice into contempt, and de- grading the public morality by protecting the vic- tims of the criminal courts, A third charge of “improper conduct in office” has a single specification consisting of deductions irom the allegations contained in the two others. Tbe two petitions first mentioned set forth the facis on which the second of the above three charges are lounded; the conviction of Messrs. Chariick and Gardner and their subsequent reap- pointment after notice from the Governor that vbey were convicted of a misdemeanor involving @ violation of their oaths of office and creating Va- cancies which the Mayor was required by law to fill. The petitions also set lorth that each was as- signed to the vacancy created by the other. The petition signed by Elwood E. Thorne and others contains the furtner charge Of tatliug to investi. gate certain official delinquencies in the Board of Charities and Correction; an investigation which is shown by documentary evidence to have been already made; and also the charge of attempung to control tne iree action and usurp the functions Of the Police Commissioners—an accusation not so supported by specifications as to require it to be met except by a general denial. Under the charge of GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY In refusing to investigate the oficial conduct of Oliver Cuarlick and Hugh Gardner as Police Com- missioners, the specifications set iorth a twoiold delinquency:—First, 1n retusing to inquire inio the alleged mismanagement of the Street Cleaning Bureau ot the Police Board, and, second, in re- fusing to investigate the alleged misconduct of the Police Commissioners in respect to the general election of November, 1873. In regard to the first branch of this charge of neglect 0: duty, It ap- pears that an investigation was made of the man- agement of tue Street Cleaning Department in February and March last, under the order of the Assembly, oy the Committee on the Affairs of Cities, of Which Mr. Kastman was chairman; and that the committee, after a mosi searching inquiry into the whole subject, reported as the result of their investigation :— i. That tue large expenditure of $1,095,000 in street cleaning hud not been wisely or economi- cally expended. 2. That the Board of Police had shown a culpabie want o! eficiency and jack of Skill, System and economy, and that the entire system o/ street cleaning, as conducted by them, had been an im- position upon the people. 3. That the heads of the Street Cleaning Bureaw and many of their subordinates were neghgent and ignorant of their duties; tout sources of reve- hue Were negiected, and that more or less of the proceeds were applied to private prout, &c. 4. That the Street Cleaning Bureau had been led lu its Operations by the employment of Incompetent laborers, and 6. That the Police Board and poltce force had failed to execute ordinances relating to garbage, the enforcemeat of which Was necessary to in prove the sauttary condition of the city. ‘The committee came unanimovsiy to the con- clusion that the Police Board did vot occupy the position of men woo recognized their frst duty to be to the great mass of the peopic, and that any permanent improvement coud only be ¢. pected from @ reconstruction of the Board. It appears algo that the Board of Aldermen seconded the suggestion of the committee ol the Assemb! tn favor of a reconstruction Of the Board of Po by # resolution adopted on the 20th of April | calling ob the Mayor to suspend and remove th Police Commissioners. To the communication of the Board of Aldermen the Mayor replied on the 4th of May, and while projessing ignorance of the proceedings of the committee 01 the Asseni- diy, though heid in tne city of New York, and investigating under his eyes a department of th Municipal government for the eficieat nd proper management of which, under the charter ofthe city, fe 1s held responsible, he.did not gcruple to intimate that is had been apparent appeinted ‘for partisan purposes,” and that ¢ proceedings “partook too muct o! a political ct acter to command either the confidence or respect o; the community.” The committee, whose proceedings were thus ignored, anu whose characver tor impartiality was THUS GRATUITOUSLY IMPEACHED, was one of tne permanent committees of the as- sembly, appothted at the organization of tue Legisiature vy the Speaker with a careful regard to the important interests intrusted to it, and having upon it some of the most honorable and conspicuous members of the legislative body; and ol the nine geutiemen who composed the com- mittee six were of the political party by whose voves mainly tue Mayor was elected to omice. | As 4 further justification for dechning to take any action in regard to the Police Commis- Sioners, Mayor alle; that there were no em, and offered to enter “3 { their conduct, if the Board of Aldermen Would make charges which they were “prepared to suvstantiate.”” Upon this intumation the Board of Awertien appointed a sp mittee, to whom the Mayor’s communication was referred. An ¢laborave report was made recapitu- ing the proceedings ana pmmendation Oi th committee of toe Ass tuing forth the ale leged misconduct of ¢ Commissioners in regard to the general election of 187%, and u again calling ou the Mayor to reconsty ct Ald on Board, This report was ad men and @ copy served on t 29th of May. Un the 4th of June the replied, again alleging that were we specific charges Against the Comm olice, but pledging himself that a vt vestigation should be at Once proc under his own immediate supervial the aldermen should be duly apprised, they mi t edge. ‘his assurance Was not fulfilied. POSITION TAKEN BY THE MAYOR that he Womu NOt investigate the alleged miscon- duct of the Police Comumamonars, UDIEKS SLELILE by the Mayor r= the Mayor no al cum- | nt produce any fact within tueir knowl | during which toe Police Commussioners had been _ chargea with the duty of street cleaning, and | bearing testimony to tne efficient mannerin when | it bad been periormed. It will not be contended | that the opinion o/ the Committee of the Assembly | or the resolution of the Board of Aldermen made | of purpose. it obligatory on him to reconstruct the Board of Police or to investigate tts couduct in respect to street cleaning. It was a matier of discretion, tn the exercise of which great lu(titude is allowed; | and it must be conceded tnat the reports of the Board of Health declaring that the streets had | not been in so clean @ condition for many years'as they were during the summer of 1875 afforded a reasonable ground ior declining to 1n- | Police Board in this respect, im the absence of | by suvordinaies were alléged to have been com- | ‘The answer, when received, | mitted; tne Mayor declares that he had taken | Wortuy O/ the character ot its author—by the di | pains to ascertain their truth, and tnat there was | Vice ol procuring their resignations belore the Ex- . | no evidence that they existed by the wiltul suffer. | ecutive could give notice that vacancies were | ance of the Commissioners, or that the latter were | not prompt to discharge anu punish those guilty | of the abuses whenever made aware of their exist- ence. Under ail these circumstances, watever | reason tbere may be to doubt the thoroughuess of | the Mayor’s examination, there appeurs to me to | be no just ground for Executive interposition | under this branch of the accusation of negiect of | duty, CONSIDERATIONS OF GREATER IMPORTANCE. Oliver Charick and Hugh Garauer, two of the Commissiovers of Police, were brought to trial ou the 24th of June last on an indictment for vioiating the election law ot 1872 by removing an inspector of election without the previous novice required by that act, setung forth the reasons for the 1e- | moval Of this offence they were convicted on the following day, and on the 26th they were sen- | tenced to pay a One o! $250 each. It was my | opinion, on consu.tation with the Atvorney Gen- | eral’s department, that they had been convicted ofa misdemeanor involving a violation of their oaths of office and that their conviction created vacancies in their offices; and on tne ist of July [| | addressed to the Mayor, as the proper authority | | for fillmmg tne vacancies, the notice re- quired by law. It appears that on the | zith. of June they had resigned, aud on the 2d of July they were reappoimted by the | Mayor—Charlick to Gardner's vacancy and Gard- | ner to Charlick’s. In his certiticates of reappoint- ment the Mayor does not state in what manner the vacancies were created, whether by conviction or resignation, but declares that he has “been ott- claliy sutistied that a legal vacancy, ‘or @ legal | favored associate might become the subject of | cause, 1s now legally existing.” At the time of their reappointment both oi these Commissioners were under three other indictments found against them ou the 30th of May for Violations of the Elec- | | tion law, and set down for trial in October next, | As his justification for making these reappoint- | rarely happens that a party enters upon the cor- | ments the Mayor relies On the opinion of George | P. Andrews, who styles himsell “Assistant Coun- | sel to the Corporation,” and whose conclusions, on a review of the laws which he considers appli- cable to the case, May be briefly stated as jol- lows: } L t if tne Commissioners had not resigned it would have been necessary fur the Mayor, on receiving notice irom the Governor that the va- | disinterested supporters o1 his admunistration. It | cancies had been caused by the conviction, “to consider whether the offence ot which they were convicted Involved a Vivlation of their oaths of | oitice, and thereby caused vacancies which would | be (his) your duty to fil; and that their resign tion relieved him [rom tue necessity Of cousider- | ing this question at all. | 2. That i the conviction of the Commissioners did “cause vacancies in their respective offices, this Was tie only eect thereby produced,” and 3. That there was no provision of law which rendered “Mr. Gardner and Mr, Charlick ineligi- bie to reappointment to the offices of Pohce Com- | Missioners,”? and that the Mayor had in nis dis- | cretion “the power and lawiul might to make suca reappointment.” | Mr. Andrews, @ subordinate in the office of the Counse: o: the Corporation appointed by tis prin- | cipal, was not acting under the responsibility of an Officer elected by the suffrages ol the people; \ and it would be natural to suppose that the Mayor, im @ conflict of opinion wita tue chief magistrate of the State in regard to the cause v1 the vacan- cies, Would, m Lhe absence of the chief ol the law department of the city, nave consulted with the experienced District Attorney, or some of the emment Judges in the First Judicial Department, Such a course would at least have indicated a decent respect for the Executive of the State, Whose action was ignored by the Mayor on | the opinion of a subordinate in a department of the city government, who was not even the chief of a bureau, and who has ro official status recognized by law, but Was merely retained and authorized py the Counsel of the Cur- poration to perform his duties in his absence, It is not coutended that the opinion of the Governor is final in such a case, and that it may not be judi- | cially reviewed; but it might very properly have created a pause in the action of tne Mayor and & resort to the highest sources of authority for an | aaverse judyment, Such ap act would have been of far wore value than all the projessions o1 re- spect with which his answer abounds. — But the opinion of the Executive was hot deemed worthy of being considered tor a single day; it must have been received on the morning of 2d of July, | and the reappoiutments were made before nignt. Of the eighty pages of the Mayor’s answer fifteen are devoted to au argument tn'support of the po- | sitions taken by Mr. Andrews. Tne degree of | credit to which these positions are entiticd will appear by comparison with the annexed opinion ol the Attorney General of the State, which was asked jur by me on the day after | heard of the re- appomtment of Messrs. Chariick and Gardner, This Opinion maintains two propositions directly | as they are, belong to tue class which are let to | in conflict with those of Mr. Andrews and the | Mayor, Viz. : 1. That the conviction of the Commissioners was | for 8 misdemeanor wyolving @ Vivlation oi their oaths of office; and, That they are not re-eligible to the offices to hich they were reappointed. ‘ais opinion renders it needless to enter into any eXamiuation oO! the Mayor's arguments which are not jess inlelicitous than the illustrations, by which he seeks to paiiiate the failure of the Police Commissioners to give 10 an inspector of election the notice of removal required by law. He cites 48 aN analogous case the nomination of Mr. A. 7, Stewart by President Grant at the commence- Inent of his administration to tne office of Secre- tary of tue Treasuary in violation of section eight Of the act of Congress of the 2d September, 1759, | entitled partment,” providing that no person appointed to any office instituted under it Should be directly or imdirectiy interested in carrying on the business of trade or commerce, &c. It 1s cult to find two cases more unltk the | mistake of the President was made under ‘an act of Congress, which was more tnan eignty years old, which nad allen into oblivion, and | Which was nearly overlooked by the Senate. The | omission of the Commissioners Was under an act oi the Legislature passed the previous year—an | act of generai notonety, applicable to constantly occurring transactions, framed to put an end to scandalous frauds and prescriping strict rules of | conduct sor all officers having any agency in con- ducung elections, The violated rule was one of the most vital of the safeguards against the very | abuses which the act was intended to prevent. It Was @ reai and not, as has been suggested, a tech- Bical offence. The other iilustration is even less ap- posite, The official order reterred to was addressed to wu oficer of the revenue service aster the war of tie rebellion had commenced by the lorcible seizure of forts, arsenals and revenue cutters—a war undertaken and prosecuted without the cus- tomary formality of a deciaration—it was intended to prevent the capture of a nationai vessel by armed tusurgents, and, a3 a naked mandate, apart lvom the njuaction to uphold the embiem of the national authority, it would have be cou. ne Ir it be he coavict rection and with a sine ple of i conceded tpat the Mayor in reappointing 1 Commissioners acted under a misdi- he bad the ere beliel that requisite authority, It 18 still to be considered Whether their reappointment, a3 an administrad act, Was Nn obnoxious lo other objections grave as tuose Wuich arise under the legai aspects Ol the case, | THE POWER OF APPOINTMENT is one of the most important that be confided to an executive tazistrate, Offices are public property; tuey should be With a singie regard to the interest of the people, and this ovject can only be secured by intrusting them to those wao are best qualified to perform the duties incident to them and whose unimpeach- able integrity commands the confidence of the nun It is a gross abuse of execntive r to dispose of them for the mere purpose of rding partisan services, Irrespective o! supe- flor qualliications or of gratilying and providing for personal friends. There is little doubt that the errors of the Mayor in this case are to ve at- ibuted to a disregard of these tunda- ental distinctions, At the commencement his administration he nominated as one of tue Police Commissioners a personal friend and an associate of long standing, whom he persistently sustained against all demonstrations of the public diss action, and at jast in defiance re@ judicial decision, In regard to his potutment ociate Commis- = reay 1 that of bis siouer the Mayor's answer Contains the remarka- bie admission that he intended by a renewed ex- | pression of bis confidence to do “something to ‘ame and submit charges on | In this | active im causing the wanicipai laws aud ordi- | external sources, 1s not only to be unfaith!ui to the | session, the soie obligations expressly imposed on him by law and | Well be conceived, | Ol those exumpies of eccentricit: “An act to establish the Treasury Des | | tive views it would be heid inany | civilor miliary, to be justillabie on every | Mayor Havemeyer Upon Governor Dix’s (ime past before Justice Morse, was concluded yes- d delicate trusts | filed | as | gave these men (rom that appearance of disgri waich they might otoerwise wear in the eyes of the unrefecting crowd, whea they had done nothing to merit tt.’’ In other Words, it ts an ad- mission that he used the power of appointment lntrusted to him for tae proper administration of the public affairs for the purpose of shleld- ing the convicted Commissione:s irom the influence of the verdict of a jury of | their countrymen and the sentence of | Court. it is the more extraordinary as there | are three indictments pendmg against them and soon to be tried; and it may be not unreasonably | teurity and the “unsurpassed energy and capacity” ave been de- signed to forestall the judictal action, which the frend Jury, aiter fall consideration, deemed proper A more ungenerous response to the confidence | of the Legisiature in conterring on him, at ita last power of appointment cannot Domivation by him o1 two citizens of the most re- Spectable character to the office of Police Commis- sioner. While the question of conterring tus authority on him was pending, he protested in a written Communication against it. And it is oue with which he fellow citizens ossession Of a whea it was bas more than once surprised hi that, after protesting against the power, be should have proceedes conlerred on him, to exercise it in such a manner | as to make ali who were Instrumental in confd- ing it to him regret tuat bis protest bad been un- heeded. His anxiety to SUSTAIN HIS ANCIENT ASSOCIATE has manifestly led him into devices utterly repug- nant to his characteristic candor and direciness 1 the re-cligibuiity of the convicted Commissioners to oilice he would have appointed each to vis oWwu vacancy, in appointing one to the vacancy cre- ated by the otherim each case Ne alleges ‘that tais Was done to evade no law, Dut wita the view to prevent the making of any question as vo the legality of the appointments.” Jf there 1s an ap- Preciaole difference in che two branches of this proposition it 18 believed toat there In this case I deemed it | stitute a formal investigation of the conduct of the | Will be iound an insurmountable diMeculty in logically deiining it. It cannot be doubted that | specific allegations of misconduct, Some aouses | there was, in regard to the reappointment of tue Commissioner indirectness of action un- caused by their conviction; 0: obtaining from a suvorainate in the Law Department ao opinion in favor of the legality of their reappointment; of assiguing each to the vacancy created vy the other, aud of hastening the consummation of the act, al receiving the Governor’s notice, without having recourse to the best authority to assure himself that ne was not acting in violation 01 law. The other brauch of this charge involves | In ail tls, and inthe reappoinunent of the con- | past nine o’clock on Forty-fifth street, and snoruly | | vicved Commissioners whuie under indictment for | other offences, he offered au affront to public Opinion ana to the moral sense of the community, Walch resulted, us might have been expected, in compelling them to abandon the posts in which they Were inus indecently reinstated. The neglect to institute an examination into the alleged misconauct of the Commissioners of Po- lice, In compliance with tis pledge to the Board of Aldermen, 18 not, in my opinion, justiied by the reasons assigned, ‘The testimony taken before Judge Donohue, of the Supreme Court of the First Judicial district, disciosed gross irreguiarities in the appointment and removal of inspectors of election and in the exclusion ol watchers Irom po- Silions in Which they could scrutinize the canvass: | Ing O! the votes, The examination was closed on the Ist of April, and the Mayor’s letver engaging that ‘au investigation should be forthwith pro- ceeded with” under tis own supervision was dated on the 4tn of June. Taken redeem his pledge to the Aldermen gives coior to the charge that he was reiuctant to resort to any proceeding by which the conduct of his censure. the charges against lim as attacks by, his political adversaries. sorcis oi litue moment. The only essential con- sideration 1s Whether they are well founded, It rection of lis errors or abuses until it is put in mo- tion vy the scourges of political opponents. ‘The sume observation 1s true, as a general rule, of public men. In this case the Mayor is obviously under a delusion, Among those who are pressiug his removai most earnestly are many by whom lus election Was must warmly advocated, and who, until a very recent day, were the most sincere and remaius only to consider whether the facts dis- closed are stictt as to JUSTIFY THE REMOVAL OF MAYOR HAVEMEYER from ofice. ‘Luat tie case Comes within the power of removal confided to the Governor can hardly be disputed. ‘he power 1s limited ouly by bis aiscre- tion, exercise, tat there suould be any violation of law ou the part of the oilicer against Whom tha charge of misconduct ts brought. it would seem rather to have veen designed by the constitution for cases O1 abuse or malieasunce in which no law had been luiringed and for wich no legal redress haa been provided, 1tis a high prerogative to be exercised only in the interest of the pubiic, and not to punish omicial mtscouduct. the removal oi an oMcer is likely to affect the de- partment with Waich he is connected, or the ad min- | istration over which he presides, enters of neceseity In that 0 | into the consideration of eveiy case. tue District Atturney oj Kings county, it had been ab | to his own use a large amount Ot money in vio- lation of law; and the removal Was nut only justi | fied by the belie! that the prosecuting officer had from improper motives failed to do his duty, but by the assurance tiat a successor might be ap- pointed, who Wouid protect the city {om further Gepredation and call tne offender to account. Toe result proved tue correctiess of these conclusions, Toe acuon of the new District Attoruey ied to tog disciosure of a séill larger deiaication, for Which tue delauiter is Dow under tudictment, In this case there is No such public interest to be guarded. it is undeniable that the good name vi tue city has been tarnisaed, and the dignity of the ollice of its Chief Magistrate com- promitted, But there 1s no imputation of corrupt motives to the Mayor, nor is It pretended that is Yemoval is necessary to protect any public in- terest, wlich will be imperiled by his coutinuance in ofice. In all tis Oficial actions in regard to the financial concerns Ol the city his course has not only been unexceptionable, but in the highest degree worthy 0; commendation. He has resisted ail attempts to impose uajust and irauduient claims ou the public treasury; he has acted uni tormly and carnestiy on the side of economy, and in Jurtherance 0; the reform of tnose abuses under @ tormer administration o1 the municipal affairs of the city, the exposure of whica led to ls election to office. in none of these respects has he been uniaithful to iis constituen have his appoiutments, with Jew ex eptions, been objectionabie, taongh not always, perhaps, | made with the best judgment. His errors, grave popular reprool more properly tuan to Executive correction. ‘This view of the subject, as it affects the in- terests o/ the city, Would not be compiete wituont | considering WHAT CONSEQUENCES WOULD FOLLOW HIS REMOVAL | from the administration of his omice in its relation to the Lnanciai arrangements about to for the ensuing year. ‘The Mayor 1s one ol the jour members of tie Board of bstumate and Appore tionment, The apporuonment ot taxes tor the year 1875 18 to be miude before the Ist ol November. If he were removed the President of the Board of Aldermen would become acting Mayor, and his place in the board of Apportuonment would be filed by @ new Presidefit, fo be elected by | the Board o1 Aldermen, thus cuailging tue organi- zation of the Board of Apportionment by bringing In & hew member, Wits the lurther consequence of | of placing two individuals in ign and responsibie 0 meritorious they may be, they were not intended difli- | by the peopie; and our experience has not been so | | Satisfactory as to commend such substitutions to pubiiciavyor. With the Mayor’s known conserva. | gots to be regretted that he should be removed from Wis position in the | Board of Apportionment at the moment when the most important Measure O/ theyear, involving an appropriation Of more than thirty miilions of dol- jars~—a measure which affects more nearly the in- terests of the taxpayers, and indeed of ali classes of | ci Vassed, matured and adopted. Under all these circumstances and in view of the public interests at stake I deem tt proper to de- cline aby further proceedings in the case. Ina jew Weeks the question of the nomination, and in legs than two Months the question of the election of a successor to the Mayor Will ve presented to the peopie of the city, In the decision of these questions they will, either directly or indirectly, pass judgment on (us eilictal acts, and to them the Whole subject may be safely leit with the assur- ance that the verdict wil be sack as the vecasion demands and in consonance With an unp liced Sense of right toward him and toward themseives, | JOUN A. DIX, ) Decision. Mayor Havemeyer waited in his ofce at the City Hall unt a late hour yesterday afternoon in | the hope of receiving the full text of the decision ) of Governor Dix upon his case. This did not arrive, but a synopsis Wag shown the Mayor by the H2RALD reporter, Who asked him his opinion | about it. x | “Not having received the full decision, I don’t want to say much. It appears to me, however, | that Governor Dix wants to moralize a good deal in what he says, | says ‘It 18 @ gros’ apnse of the execu- tive power to dispose of public offices for the mere purpose of rewarding par- tisan services and providing for persona: iriends ? What partisan services have I rewarded? What personai triendships ? Am 1 accountable for we ec ricities of every public ollicer in we city of New \ork! Can I guarantee that all shall give isfaction? 1 have filled the offices wmth a ¢ to what I consider the interests of the people, 4 Governor Dix terms ite, There was ns partisan- ship about it,” “The Governor, you will observe,” ssid the re | porter, “Speaks of your protesting agamst the act | #iVing you sole power of appointment as one of | the examples of eccentricity with whijh you have | more than once surprised your fellow dtizens.”? “Yes, said the Mayor, “and I sisi surprise them a good deal more belore | cet tivough.’’ Several times during the reading offie synopsis re the | charged that the Mayor's indorsement oi the in- | Was intrasted wo him because | | the Board of Atdermen had tated vo contirm the | If he had been thvrougnly convinced | in con- | nection with other transactions, his failure to | Loroughout tus answer the Mayor treats | ‘The origin of accusations of this | It is hot uecessary, in order to Warrant its | fhe question in What manper | sed that a Aoancial oficer bad appropriated | 3} nor | be made | cial positions, for which, however capable and | zeus, than any other—1s to be caretully can- | What does he mean when he| of Governor Dix’s dectsion, the Mayor laughed very | heartaty, and exclaimed, This is rictiness |" | “but how are you satisfied with the decision as | & whole?’ asked the reporter. | “thave nothing to say ggainst it particularly, except that the Governor does not seem to keep to the point im the decision, What business has he to commen, favorably apon my course in regard tothe finances’ What had the charges against me to do with the finances? You ask ti 1 am satis- fied, Anything will sausly me, There was a man once in the United States Senate who made a very | long speech against @ certain ure which he, no doubt, thought very eloquent, In spite of the speech the measure Was curried by a very large majority. Someoody alterwards was descanting upon what a magnificent speech had been made. ‘| don’t care & damn for the speech,’ said a | bystander, ‘give me the vote.’ ‘You can make the appLcation,” exclaimed the Mayor, iaughing, | and his body shaking with exquisite enjoyment, | There is no doubt, however, that he {eels very much relieved over the decision and thaton the whole @ great care has been taken from him, THE MEXICAN WAR VETERANS. The Annual Celebration of the Associa- tion. The New York Association of Mexican War Vete- rans yesterday ceiebrated, by the usua! parade and picnic, the twenty-seventh anniversary of the | fall of the Mexican capital, The morning dia not | augur well for an outdoor pageant, ior the sky | | was overcast and the probabilities of rain seemea | doubly sure because of the confident declarations of the Signal Bureau. The prospects did not, how- ever, iu the least dampen the ardor of the vete- | rans, but the warm spirit of old time enthusiasm | and military ardor burned brightly in the breasts | ofevery’itving soldier who had served under Gene- | ral Winfleld Scott, The veterans began to gather | at the armory on Broadway and Forty-fifth | street at as early an hour as eight | o'clock, Several well known faces present at | the last parade wore missing, but it was graulty- ing to know that their absence was not owing to decease or illness, A pleasant series of mutual ; Congratulations and cordial handshakings took” place, and the conversation which followed very | pleasanuy disposea of the hour or more inter- | vening before the starting of the procession, THE PAGEANT. | ‘The veterans were formed in column about half. after started down Broadway en route for the | | Worth monument at Madison square. Ths they | Passed with uncovered heads, and thence down Broaaway. The officer in command was General ! Thomas W. Sweeney, United States Ar: Many 01 the store fronts along the route were decorated and the procession was followed by a crowd of caritages anu pedestrians, Aimong tie promment | persons present in the procession were Geuerais | Charles K. Graham, Addison Farnsworth end | Francs BE. Pinto; Colonels Williaa W. Tomkins j and Joho L. Broome, United states Marine | Corps; Captains James ©. Marriott and Samuel B. H. Vance; Colonels Willam Linn | Tidball and George M, Leanard, surgeon | Alexander Perry, and muny others. A good military band preceded the veteraus, and piayed | many Of the good old airs of ‘47. ‘The parade | passed down Broadway withous special incident, | At Peck slip, which Was reached about eleven | o'clock, the warriors einbarked on tne steamer Henry N. Smith, which had been chartered tor the | purpose, and proceeded up the Bast siver to Har- sate ts | lem River Park, situated at the toot o1 East 126ta Street. Here they were met by a great number ol irtends and relatives, The park was closed to all | who were not possessed of cards of invitation. The | day, still, Warta and pleasant, was all that could | be desired. ‘fhe sun Was not to be seen, yet there were no immediate threatentngs of rain. A lunch | was spread, and ior @ considerable time the sturdy | men of war devoted themseives to the restoration | | Ol their weary bodies. The platform rordancing | was tien throwa open, and while many wandered | around the grove engaged in conversation not « | lew enjoyed the music and the quadriiles, ‘The af- fair was @ picnic, in the strictest sense of the word, THE ORATION. | Late in the afternoon tne crowd at the park | began to increase, und eaca boat trom the city brought vew guests, who had hurried of from business ratuer earlier than usual io Lear the ad- dress of the occasion, ‘Ine veterans and their Irleuds assembied in the hall of the park avout six o'clot when the Hon, Rodman M, Price, ex- | Governor of New Jersey, was imtroduced and de- livered an oration smtable to tne occasion. Tue speaker said in part | Historians have written of the march of the grand | army commanded by the immortal scott, their conquest | | of Mexico, their great battles and brilliant victories, but | | have Iuiied to portray the loity chivalry oc the ani it yec remains jor the 1uiure historians to give a vivid idea oi the almost supernatural imittary cam- baign. Thanks to the Most High, 4 tew of the noble men suil survive who participated in those eveattul scenes, aud mingle their congratuladons and renew ths | friendships to aay formed during the hardships and per- | {Js consequent upon their services in the sexican War; as itis my infinite pleasure to greet them. { | Alter sketching out the cause and the general | | Incidents of tne great struggle between Mexico | and the United States, the speaker said :— | Heroes and yeterans—Tke bright annals of fame may | notenumerate you in the swelling ist of the imperial throng whove names, outhiving yours, may huve become the worship of the hour, but their glory iy'a part of yours | and of the cause w which you gave your strengti_ and | valor. ‘The deeds of your ‘united prowess remain pure | and uniarnisned. ‘They are incorporated in the history | | of your country, and happy he who transmits to lus pos- serity the proud and inseparable honor of having been a | veteran of the Mexican war, Comrades, we have lived | in ap era ot wondertui advancement and progress. Men of our generation have Witnessed the extraordinary | changes iL che material iuteresis ot the world. We saw | the first in vessels, the first railroads; we | | know that the ocean depths are laid with’ tele- | graph cables; the Continent spanned by a con- tinuous iron rail: that education and science lave spread out among the people, with the universal light or heaven. We have this retlecliou, that the results of the | Mexican war proinoted and gave great impulse and mo- Mentum to ollr expansive growth, and Wat the past | twenty-seven years Aas contributed more wealth, pros: | perity, civilization, chmstianity and enlightenment than | the whole period ‘ot time since the birth of our tree | Republic, elevating our country in every, resource, in every element of power, to the highest rank among ‘the | nations, our aiin be:ng ot setting the World an example of tree government, resting upon rational liberty, claim. | {nz it.asa blosang ior men of all nations and alt cumes our first duty to perpetuate it, with the confident hope | thavat will overshadow all the nations of the earth, | ‘Tne picnic ended late in the evening, and the | old associates separated for another year. | 155 DEPARTMENT, | Areport appearing in some of the journals that | | Major General Alexander Shaler, formerly con- | | nected with the Fire Department of this city, had accepted an invitation of tne Chicago authorities | to take charge of their fire organization, a HERALD | reporter yesterday waited upon the General at the | office of the National Rifle Association, Bennett | Butiding, and inquired as to the truth of the rumors | be General very fankly scated, that the,e nad deel some overtures made in the direct n in- dicsted, but in the insurance interests both of this | city and Chicago. He was nut prepared to say | | whether he should accept, even in the eventofa | fornal invitation to organize and conduct the fire | adairs o: Chicago, but certamly tt would not de | proper to decline anything vefore it was officially offered, and this, he could assure the HRRALD, had notyet been done. Th: Reported Offer of the Position of Chief to General Snaler Denied CricaGo, Sept. 14, 1874. | | Tle 7rimune this morning says in reference to | | i i | | | theNew York despatch stating that a committee of tie Common Council of this city had tendered | Gereral Shaler, of New York, the position of Chtet of :he Chicago Fire Department, that the Com- mike such an offer, nor has the Board ol Police Canmissioners, so tar as known, provided for the ‘ renoval of the present marsnat\. @ Tribune, however, highly commends Generali Shaler, and hqpes the report is true. | THE BROOKLYN POLICE OUTRAGE. | Another Patrolman Committed for the | Grand Jury. The investigation of the alleged outrage by Of- | feer Burns, of the Tenth precinct, apon Mary | deGuire, which has been progressing for some \terday. A large amount of testimony was taken, li of which went to confirm the statement of the | complainant. She bad been to Prospect Park, and was on her return home at night when she was | | met on Fourth avenue by some rowdies who In- , | suited her. She ran to Atlantic street, where she | | met Omicer Burus, to whom sie applied for protection. He looked at her a moment | and then toid her to Walt until the rounasman | | Came around and le would see ler saie home, | The roundsman came shortly after, and as soon as | he started om Officer Burns started with the girl, | but instead of taking her to her home he took her | to the Tivoli Garden, on Atianticaveaue, The gate | | was locked, but the officer went in and goi the pro- | prietor to admit bim, ‘There he made some inde- | | cent proposals to her, but sie resisted mis over- | tures and was about to start to the street when he knocked — her down, and while she was in a halt conscious state he, as | alleged, committed the outrage upon her, | He tnen left her, and when she reached the street | she informed another officer of the Fourth pr | cinct of wuat had occurred, He accompanied her to the Station house, where she made a complaint j and pointed out the officer Who committed the crime. ‘he Captain deprived Burns o/ nis shicid and locked him up, Justice Morse held the officer to await the action of the Grand Jury, ‘The oificer says that the girl has an enmity against nim and this is “a@ put Up job’ in order to | injure him. He 18a married man and has been attached to the police Joxce about six mons, | been negotiating the sale ot it; N | return toshow that testimony was taken. | presence of the complainant, and admitted her mon Council has not authorized any committee to |. NEW YORK HERALD, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1874.-TRIPLE SHEET. THE COURTS. Examination in the Doctored Bond Case—A Sharp Bank Cashier. The Charge of Irregularity Against a Police Justice. VERDIOT AGAINST MAX STRAKOSOH Conclusion of the Child Selling Case. ; There {s auch a press of legal business requiring attention in Supreme Court Chambers that both Judges Donohue and Westbrook yesterday occu- pied the bench together. While the former busied himself attending to the ex parte applications the latter listened to the arguments on motions, This course 1s taken to reducy the present heavy calen- dar and put matters in better suape for the Ucto- ber term. J. W, Carey, mate of the ship Sovereign of the Seas, charged with the maltreatment of 2 seaman named Brignaiaello while on a voyage from San Francisco to Havre, was yesterday held by United States Commissioner Stiltwell to await the action of the Grand Jury. THE DOCTORED BOND CASE. The case of Agalius Naltmer, who was arrested on Saturday last (as detailed in the law reports of Sunday's HERALD) Charged with obtaining money on a United States $1,000 bond, not negotiable, was up for examination yesterday betore United States Commissioner Osborn. Colonel Wood, ex- Chief of the United States Detective rorce, was present to testily in relation to the affair, It will | be recollected that the Colonel gave the bond for keeping to Naltmer. The former states that this bond came into his possession in his capacity ag chief of the detective force, He has never been arrested in this proceeding, but simply comes for- ward as a witness. Ex-United States District At- torney Courtney appeared itor the prisoner and Assistant District Attorney Post for the govern- ment, Albert A. Miller was the first witness called. He testified that he was a banker, at No, 74 Broadway; the bond tn question was brought to him by @ gentleman named D. J. Malloy, on Saturday last, about twelve o'clock Malloy wished to know if witness would loan $700 on a note of Agalius Naltmer for thirty days—said bond to be held as collateral security; witness drew his check for $700 and gave it to Malloy; being busy al the time he did not examine tne bond caretuliy ; | about five minutes afterwards went to the house of Freeman & Haywood, No. 2 Wall street; was in- ; Jormed by them that the bond looked suspicious; shortly alter Mr. Foote, of tne firm of Hatcn & Foote, came to his office with detectives; ali then went in search of the drawer o! the note and the owner of the bond; all met Naltmer near the Na- tional Bank of the Republic, on Broadway; irom | him ‘procured the check which witness had given; at the same time handed him the $1,000 bond, On cross-examination Mr. Miller testified that Mr, Malioy had married a cousin of lis; he stated to witness that the money was for Mr. Naitmer, of Indianapolis, who was in the real esta‘e business; when he met Mr, Naitmer in Broudway witness asked him for the check tor $700, which was imme- diately handed back; thinks he returned the bond 12 question to the prisoner; did not ask him any particulars relative to the bond or note. Detective Thomas Sampson testified that on Sacurday last Robert P. Brown, detective of the Sub-Treasury, sent for him and handed him the bond, and said that Mr. Naltmer, the prisoner, had was pres- eut; asked him where he got it; said he got it trom Colonel Wood ; asked him how Colonel Wood cume to give it to him; satd that they had a great many tansactions together, and that Wood was 1n his debt; witness asked him tr he lad taken it a8 security ior the debt; prisoner answered he could not say that—Colonel Wood was in his debt, and he had taken this bond, that was ail he could Say about it; he then asked Witness to go up to the Park Hotei to sce Colonel Wood; previous to this Weut to see King & Miller, tve bankers: from there they proceeded to the Park Hotel; Colonel Wood remarked to Naitmer that be had no right to use the bona, or something bo that effect; the bond ts a five-twenty registered United states $1,000 bond; 1t had been tampered with by the erasure of names and the figures o{ tne number, but it was other- wise a genuie bond. In. answer to Mr. Courtney, Mr. went into details relative to the tion that occurred between Detective Brown, Mr. Naltmer and himself; asked the prisoner for a statement as to tie bond, and to explain his connection with the matter; he made One; he was then under arrest, at ieast witness considered that such was the case; Mr. Brown, the detective, gave witness the particulars of the case; at the interview with Colonel Wood at the Park Hotel, in the presence of the prisoner, wit- ness stated the circumstances which caused the visit; Colonel Wood oid witness that he gave Naitmer the bond, but never intended that he should use tt; it Was one of several that he, the Colonel, had in his possession for some time, and had shown it to the Secretary of the Treasury, and explained that there were many of them Sampson conversa- | afloat, not in the hands of legitimate owners, but uhat the legiumate owners were drawing the interest regularly; thougiut Colonel Wood also said that he went to Washington for this purpose; Uhat was all tue conversation that took piace aL | the time; the party thea started to go before Commissioner Osvorn, At the conciusion of Detective Sampson's testi- mony the further hearing was postponed until twelve o’clock to-day. POLICE COURT IRREGULARITY. The case of Fanny Kelly, committed by Judge Flammer in default ot bail for disorderly conduct, and whose release was asked of Judge Westbrook 1n Supreme Court,Chambers,on the ground ot irreg- istrate, came up again yesterday for further cun- sideration. Mr. Mitchell, the counsel, objectea to the return as not being, What the law requires, a certified copy o1 the minutes taken by the Clerk and inspected by the Judge, but a mere state ment ot: the Judge that he had examined and con- victed the prisoner, and notning appearing in the Dana, of the istrict Attorney’s oMce, handed in an additional return from Judge Fiammer to the elfect that the prisoner was examined in guilt. Mr. Mitchell objected to this being admitted a8 part of the record, and argued that it was a more ex parte statement by the Police Judge to justify his own act, Mr. Dana said the Judge had done all that could be required, if there was to be sucha thing as summary conviction in the police courts, | In justice to the police magistrate it was right to | | Say that he noticed in the police courts that morn- ingabout one hundred prisoners for disorderly conduct and the like to ve disposed of, and the magistrate should necessarily proceed’ with ur- gency if the important forgery cases were ever to be disposed of, Mr. Mitcheli—Yes, and among the crowd you had the otifer day were tnree respectabdie ladies, who had been dragged to the station house, wile on their Way home, on & charge of being improper characters. ‘ Judge Westbrook said he would look tnto the Statutes before giving his decision. Judge Flammer was in court during the argu- ment. SUIT AGAINST MAX STRAKOSCA. In the Marine Court, before Judge McAdam, was tried yesterday the sult brought by Mary E. Hasslacker against Max Strakosch, Platntit’ sued defendant, who is the well known manager of the Italian opera troupe, tor damages growing out of @ contract of employment. Plaintiff testified that the defendant employed her as secunda donna ana wrongtully discharged her before the season for which she was engaged closed; that she ten- | derea her services to the deiendunt, who refused to receive them, and that she was unable to ob+ tain a similar engagement elsewuere, aud that in consequence she suitered damages to the amo of $665, The defence interposed was that plaintur became enceinte, and in ¢ her voice and became unable to perform ber part of the contract. The defendant and his musical director sustained the View set up in delenc and the plaintiff, after proving her marriage, de- nied that she lost her voice and testified to ber apitit to perform her contract, and claimed that the objections made were captious and not real. The Court charged the jury, who found jor tne the | Plainui $665, tue amount claimed. THE CHILD SELLING CASE. Peter Hallock, committed on a charge of abduct- ing Lena Dinser, a young girl thirteen years old, whom, it was alleged, ber father, George Dinser, had sold to Hallock for burooses of niostitation. Mr. | Suther onsequence lost | ular procedure on the part of the commitung mag- | Cl! Wis attested ye | been confined in Bellevue Hospital. was again brought yesterday before Judze West brook injthe Supreme Court, Chambers, on the writ Of habeas corpus previously obtaimed by Mr. Wm. F. Howe, the prisoner’s counsel, Mr. Howe claimed that Hallock could not be held on etcher section arte statute for abauction. Under the first section the complaint, he tnsisted, should see forth that the caild was taken contrary to the wise and against the consent of her parents. On the contrary, the evidence, he urged, showed that the father was a willing party. Under the second sec. tion it was Sontendes that the prisoner could noé be held, as there was no averment that the girk was of ‘previous chaste character. Judge Weate -brook, @ brief counter argument having been made by Mr. Dana, heid that the points of Mr. Howe were well taken, and ordered the prisoner's dis- BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. SUPREME COURT -—OHAMBERS. Dectsions, By Judge Dononne. Sheridan vs. Gullfoyle.—Motion for further allowe = ented Rees in the matter o: man, P. D.—Order granted, Lion ys. Pirshfeld.—On the defendant’s appear- ing and submitting to an examination I will dia- pose of the question, Andrews vs. The New Jersey Steamboat Com- pany.—Memorandum, SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM, Decisions, By Judge Curtis, Stadiberger vs. fhe Bowery Savings Bank et al. zuOslO for an injunction granted, witnout costs. Tappin et al. vs. McHugh.—Judgment vacated for trregularity, Motion to set aside order of are rest denied. No costs to either party on these ap- plications. Lynch et al. vs. Payne; Molloy vs. Raddie; Bute terfleid vs, Same; Delmar vs. Same; Hogan va, Lambeer.—Orders granted, Green vs. Lee.—Motion denied, without coats, Hogan vs, Lambeer,—Order allowing defendant five per cent on recovery. MARINE GCOURT—OCHAMBERS, Decisions. By Judge Joachimsen. Werder vs. Dancan,—Deiaul: opened on terms, Martin vs. Utichen.—Judgment for plainti, and order to assess damage Lindsay vs. Battel.—Motion granted, without stay. cl Bieyans vs, Fich.—Motion to resettle ordee nie ; Kipp vs. Boschert.—Judgment for plaintiff absoe jute. Perry Organ Company vs. Winne.—Motion to ses aside attachment dented, with $10 costs. Madigan va, Dowling.—Motion to dismiss com- plaint granted unless plaintiff complies with terms of order. Werchert va, Watscnowsky.—Like order. Muner vs, Van Wyck.—Like order, Tessier vs. Faust.—Motion for leave to amend answer granted, Murpby vs. Mittnacht.—-Surety rojected. Gein vs. Spence.—Order for appointment of re- celver granted. Cattaneo vs, Galli.—Motion to set aside order of arrest dented, with leave to renew, &c. Fitch vs, Hendricks; Solmson vs. Schlesinger.— Motion to advance causes d2nied. for commission Batsen vs. Loghran; Same vs, Desendor!; Mo- Lane vs. besdra; Auderson vs. Carpenter; Seed ys. Schwab; Hunt vs. Same; Wave va. Same; [ls ley vs, Odenneimer; Perkins vs. Saule; Lindsay vs. Battel; Kust vs. Smitn; Carr vs, Covert (two cases); Stewart vs. Haigh: Ross vs. Clark; Cel- ler vs. Heller; Law vs. Alcott; Blovinrer vs. Schwarz; Same vs. Schwab; Freeman vs. arnhein Feldenheimer vs. Block; Vail vs. Schwab; Hut- cheon vs. Brewerton; Law vs. Dallon; Wolff va. Nathan.—Orders to advaace causes granted. COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, A Clerk Convicted of Forgery. Before Judge Sutherland, The most of yesterday was occupied in the trial of an indictment for forgery in the third degree against Melvin F. Wagner, a clerk in the employ of W. W. Selleck. He was charged with obtaining, on the 11th of May, $201, upon @ caeck, at tne Gro- cers’ Bank, Which was signed by W. W. Watsow and to which he forged the indorsement of W. W. Selieck. Six similar checks were put in evidence to show the guilty intent of the prisoner, He was Jound guilty and remanded tor sentence, Larceny. Catharine McGuire was tried and found guilty of stealing, on the 2d of July, $100in money anda gold watch and chain from Francis Conway, at @ disreputable house in the Kowery. The property Was recovered. ‘This prisoner was sent to the State Prison ior three years. Burglaries. Henry Walker, who on the 18th of August en- tered the premises of James O'Neill, No. 216 Chrys- tie street and stole $26 worth of property, pleaded guilty to an attempt at burglary in the third de- gree. Willtam Beale, who was charged with burgia- Tiously entering the cigar store of Felix Garcie, No, 167 Water street, on the 17th of August, pleaded guilty to an attempt at burglary in the third degree. These prisoners were each sent to the State Prison for two years and six months, An Acquittal. Peter J. Walsh, 8 youth, was tried upon a charge of breaking into a room, occupied by Felix Toole in East Thirteenth street, and stealing some cloth. ing. His guilt was not proved conciusively, and the jury rendered @ verdict of not gulity. ESSEX MARKET POLICE COURT. A Costly Team. Belore Judge Bixby. H Edward Brown and Philip Nolan, aged respect. ively eighteen and nineteen years, were arraigned in the above Vourt yesterday, on a charge of steal- ing a horse, wagon and harness, valued in all at The team was stolen from Timothy Ryan, of 70 Delancey street, On the 10ta of Septemuer, abd Was jound in tae possession of Mrs, bridget Quinn, of No, 120 Mulberry street, to whom Brown and Nolan had sold tt, They both pleaded guilty, and were held in $500 bail each to answer. A Desperate Assault. About four days ago ex-Deputy Sheriff Peter Bowe was assaulted in the street by a man named Jonn H. McDowell with a loaded cane, At the time of the assault Mr. Bowe was walking with a friend named Wiliam W. Cook. A warrant was sued out by Cook before Judge Bixby, and McDow- erday by Ouicer McCormack, tbe Court squad. He was held to await tho ol | resuit of mmjuries, FIFTY-SEVENTH STREET POLICE COURT. Recovered from His Injuries and Come mitted for Trial. Before Judge Smitn. On the 26th ult. William Willams was arrested by Oiicer Nicholson, of the Eignteenth precinct, While in the act of stealing $9 from tue money drawer of Mr. Robert McKeever’s grocery store, No, 125 Third avenue, Williams, in attempting to escape from the officer at the station house, was shot and wounded so severely that he has since Yesterday he had So tar recovered that his removal could ve complished without danger, and ue was arraigued at the above Court, Where he was hela for trial in default o1 $1,000 bull. COURT CALENDARS—THIS DAY, Supreme Cotrt—Cuambers—Held by Judge Westbrook.—Nos. 8, 60, 80, 84 90, 99 108, 121, 142, 158, 170, 150, 185, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201. MARINE COURT—IRIAL ‘VERM—Vart 1—Held by Judge Gross—Court opens at ten A. M.—Nos, 20, 15, 8 103, 129, 353, 317, 1006, 183, ge Spauiding—vourt M.—Nos, 163, 169, 171 70, 348, 187, 194, 195, 197, 198, 200, 203, Part 3— Held by Judge McAdam—Couirt opens at ten A. M.—N 5 718, 479, 417, 400, 358, 356, 114, 119, 1 |, 154, 36: cou OF GENERAL SEssioNS—Held bv Judge nd.—Phe People vs. Frank Hussell, rob bery; Same vs, John Hunt and Cornelius Topin, burglary ; Same vs, Henrietta Weibel, arson; Same . Patrick Dobbing, teionious assault and battery 5 1é Vs. Thomas Lanahan, felonious assaut and battery; Same vs, Ferdinand Bramesberg, grand s, William Moore, grand larceny; 5 Wuson and Wiliam 5. King, giand Jarceny ; Same vs. Thomas B. Prentice, grand larceny; Same vs. Harry Hansor, grand larceny; Sume vs. Jouu Shay, peiltdarceay. THE DEED FORGERIES, At halt-past three o’clock yesterday afternoon Wesley Weover and Charles Sacia Were brought up from the Tombs to Judge Flammer’s examination room, The first witness cailed was Mr. Farrin, of Brooklyn, who tesuied that the mortgage which Was made out on ms property and sold by Weuber was a forgery. Mr. Howe, counsel for Wedber, said that before the Court would be justified im holding his clieat 1t must be Made clear that Web ber acted with @ guilty knowledge. This, he cialmed, he did not do, be being morely an agent for other parties, the principal bemg responsible for the acts of ls agent. ue motion tor a dig charge was dented aud Webver judy committed at the General Sessions, Mr, Howe then moved to have Sacta discharged on the charge of couspiracy owing to the lauure ol the District Attorney to prove the allegation set sorth in the affidavit, The motion was granted, but Sacit was held on tue charge of ovtaining money on false pr ees and jor uttering Loe gered. The case will be conctaued to-dave ”