The New York Herald Newspaper, October 31, 1874, Page 8

8 THE COURTS. Davenport on the Stand in His Own Defence. THE HARDEN ESTATE, — —_-——_— Recorder Hackett and the Grand Jury. Close of the General Term of the Supreme Court. Yesterday Judge Lawrence appointed William ©. Witney, Mezo Drefendorf ana Rufus F, Andrews commissioners for opening 100th street, Riverside | and Sioomingdate avenues. In the suit of Daniel Fallon against the city for Tent of Nilsson Hall ag an armory, Judge Van Brunt, holding Circuit of the Supreme Court, yes- terday directed a verdict for the plaintif jor $18,867 25, being the full amount claimed, with in- terest. He also directed further tbat the excep- tions be heard at the General Term, the o'yect being to enable the case to go to the Court of Appeals. A rather cnrious case is on trial before Judge J. ¥. Daly, of the Court of Common Pleas, Amelia Kochincke sues Joseph Ross for the sum of $3,000, alleged to have been loaned to him. She got a divorce irom ber first husband, but before the de- eree was granted married Ross, who in turn had the marriage deciared void because of the mar- riage in advance of the decree, Judge Barrett, of the Supreme Court, yesterday appointed Phuo T, Ruggles, receiver of the New York, Housatonic and Northern Ratiroad Company. He has uot yet qualified, the amount of the bonds he is to give not yet being agreed upon. Jn the case of Marie Wolff, the actress, who, on account of an alleged contract with the Baltimore | Concordia lor a year, Was sougot to be debarred from entering into a projessional engagement in this city, Juige Robinson, of the Court of Com- mon Picas, yesterday denied the motion w enjoin her from suco engagements. Yesteraay in the United States Circuit Court, before Judge Nathaniel Shipman, in the case of the United States vs. Polhamus and Jackson, ‘Which was an action to recover $500,000, being the amount of money deposited with the defendants by J. L. Hodge, a paymaster in the army, for the purpose of conducting stock speculations on his ac- count (the allegation being that dejendanis knew ‘this Money was the property of the government), the jury rendered a verdict for the deiendants, 4n the Supreme Court yesterday, bejore Judge Donohue, the jury in the case of Aaron Genong vs. Ibe Tribune Association, after two hours’ dejiberation, rendered # verdict for pla.nwuil, @asessing damages at $50. THE DAVENPORT EXAMINATION. ‘The further hearing of the charges against John 1. Davenport, Unitea States Commissioner and Chief Supervisor of Elections, was resumed yes- terday in the United Siates Circuit Court beiore Jadge Woodrar, Mr. George W. Wingate appeared as counsel in support of the charges, and Mr. Davenport was assisted during the day in the conduct of his ae- fence by Mr. Wiuam Fullerton ana other counsel. TESTIMONY OF ANDREW J. HAGGERTY. Andrew J. Haggerty, sworn:—In November last 1 was appointed an Inspector of Election on the part of Tammany Hail, in the tweilth election district | of the eighteentu Assembly district: I was arrested | on the morning of the election on the warrant of | Commissioner Davenport, and taken to Ludiow | Btreet Jail; Mr. Davenport told me the compiaint ‘was wade agamst me by one James Thomas; the Commissioner read the name of James Thomas irom what [ thought was an affidavit; Thomas’ residence was given as being at No. 329 East Tuirty- minth street; I sent there and found no such man; the complaint mace against me was not true; 1 ‘was arrested at ten minutes to six o’clock m the morning; I was dalied out on the day of election, and when I got out J went to the polls and te- maoded my place as Inspector, but aaother man | bad veen appointed in my place. mr, Davenport admitted tuat no such person as Thomas couid be :ound. Ar. Wingate said that from this instance te | would argue that tnis was w conspiracy on the part of Davenport to prevent men who were his political opponents from discharging their duty on election day. ‘The Judge said that pefore counsel could im- | the magistrare in tuis respect Be must pru- Guce the aMidavit oo which he acted, Mr. Wingate said that the defendants had the aM@davit of Thomas. He would, ol course, pro- Guce it. The aM@davit was produced and submitted to the Court. Mr. Wingate said that he proposed to argue from this affidavit that Mr. Davenport was bound to make inquiry respecting the character of the per- sons who made tae complaints, Q. Can you state to wuat political party the per- sou appointed 1 your place belonged? ‘Phe Court excinded the question until Mr. Daven- port could be connected with the appoimtment. Cross-exammed by Mr. Davenpert—l think I | Was brought to your office between twelve and ope Saha im the day, aad then | was discharged on bail, TESTIMONY OF JOHN DORAN. John Doran sworn:—I reside ut No, 233 East Twenty-seveuth sireet; 1 was working in the m- terest of Tammany Hail at the election of Novem- ber, 1573: | was arrested by three marshals at seven o'clock in tue morning; they said they had &@ Warrant for me, signed by Davenport; they re- ‘used to read the warrant until I got with them into a Third avenue car; | was taken before Mr. Davenport at one o’clock that day abd was dis- nna the complaint was made by one James ily. Mr. Davenport—I admit that, on Inquiry, I could Mot find James Kelily at the residence given in tue complaint. The aMdavit of Retlly was handed to the Court. Wiinese—I heard in the ct tnat 1 Was to be @rrested belore | was arresied. Cross-examined by Mr. Davenport (paper Banded to witness)—By the look of this paper L should say that this was uot the warrant uader ‘which I was arrested. Yo Mr. Wingate—i am a janitor of a school. To Mr. Davenport—I have veen twice arrested. Mr. Wingate—For what? A. Unce for veing @runk and another time for fighting. Twenty years ago I was tried for ap offence aud acquitted. | TESTIMONY OF PATRICK H. MAGUIRE. Patrick fH. Maguire deposed tuat at the election | of 1873 he was arrested in the morning by toree deputy marshals, in the Kighth Election district of the Kiguteenth Assembly aistrict; | was taken to Ludiow Street Jail; 1 was oot an inspector of election; I was taken before Commissioner Davenport; | was arrested on the complaint of James Brady; | bad beard, & mouth belore i was @rrested, thai I was to be arrested as an luspector Of eiection, Which every one in the district can vestry L was not; there is uo troth whacever in the clarge upon Which | Was arrested; the altida- | vit of brady states ‘nat he resided in Thirty sixth street; about a week aiter | was arrested [ went to Mr. Davenport’s office and wanted to see bim | about my arrest, but nis me) Would uot let me wee him; I was once arrested for selling liquor Without a license, and once for assauit and bat- Inever was convicted of peut larceny; [ Bever was convicted in the Court of General ses- sions and sentence suspended; 1 have been in Calilornia twie Mr. Wingate sald that, with the exception of the exampation of Judge Davis, wo Was presiaing | al tie General Term, of which this was tue last day, be haa bow closed his case, | Mr. Dav W. C. Barrett, handed him a letier which the witness said | Was in bis haodwrising. The letter was a request to Mr. Daven atlend a meeting of the Com- mittee of seve fons. TESTIMONY OF iE BLISS. George Buss sworn:—! am United States Dis- | trict Ati | took office im Jumuary, 1878; 4 | motion bere Jadge Benedict for the discharge ol George A. Heinrichs; { inade | ome oO! the inter/ineations in ink on spterlinea- | tions in peacil Which bad veen made by Mr. | Davepport in his afidavit, and | went into the Qourt. stating that 1 beleved the deiendant, | Hewricns, was guilty, but that no} good purpose could ve served by going on With tne case, and, therefore, f had no | objection to discharge the bail; in respect to some of the cases reierred to I dire ie Of my as- | sistante, Mr, Goodiet(, to look to them, and if there was ground for warrants to have the par- | ties arrested ; the aMdavite were prepared by Mr. Goodlett, & a lg one Of WY dsistanis, ana [ jooked over tuem; | anderstand Mr. Goodlett js a democrat, who has made speeches for Mr. Tilden: | the night before the election of 1872, in the Pitta Avenne Hotel, was the frst I knew of the Helnricos | case; Mr. Patterson and | came to ask Mr. Daven- — ort to release Mr. Heinrichs; but be rejused, say- ng that he hae wiready one bail into which te said | De Bush oes Mr, Parverson was Very pessiatens, | | were issued and they were arrested ; be ound alter- | end said that if Mr. Heinrichs was released it would votes lor the republican party; that Mr. Patterson bad no right him im that way; one of tue Oo wi sterdi also Fh 4 8; there was considerable feel. | ing maniiested on the occasion; Mr. Davenport | said he wondered if the whole seventeenth ward | was coming over to see him; I remember being = one evening at No. 39 Union square at an | interview between Mr. W. C, Barrett Mr. Daven- port in relation to the arrest of a man named | O'Neill, whom Mr. Barrett wanted to get released ; | Davenport reiused and said that the man was in jail and had demanded an examination, which he must get; Mr. Barrett turned round to ine apd said it was 4 “great shame,” and he would not be treated in that way in the rooms of the commit- tee; I believed those rooms were used by the Com- mittee of Seventy; I have seen and observed your conduct in managing public business, and I can say that you have refused to grant warrants in biank; I have been m the haoit of being with Mr. Davenport up to elecdon morning prior to 1868, Cross-examined—1 do not know when Mr. Da- venport was appointed Eiection Supervisor; I | think my conaection with Mr. Davenport has not been 80 —— since he was appointed Super- visor; I did not sit up with him at nights before election as District Attorney, but as member of the republican party; Davenport 18 not prominent in the repabiican party, but he is active; be bas been several times to Aloany, to my knowledge, on political business; 1 know that he has been to Washington at the instance of the Union League Club, to prosecute parties in regard to the elec- tion frauds of 1868, Mr. Davenport admitted that te had been to Washington and Albany, * To Mr. Wingate—I did not opie the dis- charge of bail in the case of Heinrichs, but merely said that the bail sbould not be aiscbarged except on the motion of the District Attorney; the reason why the opposing amidavit from Mr. Davenport was Tread was because I knew there were state- ments in the papers submitted on the pars of Heinrichs, which were not correct, and 1 thought that Mr, in justice himself, it them — cor- rected in an to be placed on the files of the Court; I should say that on two or three occasions Davenport was asked to grant warrants in blank; he always refused; I think | Mr. cevenenee is familar wita the jocal potitics of the city; I do not suppose that he had any con- nection with the a;pointment of inspectors of election; I do not know that he has anything 0 | do with the Eighteenth Assembly district; | do not know of Mr. Davenport, before election, express- ing any opinion about the inspectors; Mr, Daveu- port turned the cases over to me before election, and I directed Mr. Goodlett to look intu them, TESTIMONY OF JOSEP: H. CHOATE. Joseph H. Choate examined :—He deposed that Mr. Davenport was employed by the Committee of Seventy to see after election matters and to look after the election frauas, and prosecute those WhO were instrumental in the irauds tuat resulted in the election of William M, Tweed; he Was also em- ployed to go to Albany to attend to the passage of an election law. Cross-examination—I can only give you my own opinion that I believe Mr. Davenport to be fair, | impartial and energetic as a magistrate. TESTIMONY OF OSWALD OTTENDORFER. Oswald Ottendorfer sworn (examimea by Mr, Davenport) :—Al I Know in regard to the Char.ses against you 1s in regard to the evideuce in the Heinrichs case and the testimony in the Charlick Case in the Supreme Court, To Mr. Wingate—I kuow nothing of my own knowledge, 48 4 member of the Committee of Sev- enty, in regard to Mr. Davenport. Q. Do you know anything oO! the public opinion in regard to his fairness a8 @ magistrate? Judge Woodruff exciudea the question, saying that Mr. Davenport wus not to be tried by pubiic opinion, Mr. Wingate sald that Mr. Davenport was the court’s officer, and he claimed that in @ case of this Kind they were not bound down to strict rules oi law. He maintained that the public nad lost confidence in the integrity of Mr, enport as a magistrate. Judge Woodruff said they were there to find out Whetuer there was any foundation for suci opinion. TESTIMONY OF JOBN A GOODLETT. John A, Goodlett, late United State Assistant District Attorney, deposed in reference to the cases of ‘gerty, Lewis, Doran, Maguire, &., that the aMdavits were drawn up him ana sub- mitted to Mr. Bliss, the District Attorney; thinks the affidavits were then handed to Mr. Davenport, and Warrants were issued upon them. TESTIMONY OF JUDSON JARVIS, Judson Jarvis sworn :—He gave evidence in re- spect to the cases oj Doran and Maguire on elec- ton day, and said that he told Mr. Davenport that he did not believe these men were guilty, aud that ithe would oblige him by discoarging them he would become personally Tesponsible tor their ap- | pearance; Mr. Davenport said he had reason to | believe that the charges against Lewis and Doran Were not well founded, and that if he ound tuis to be so he Would cause the persons who had mave | the affidavits to be indicted for perjury; Mr. Daven- port subsequently told me what indictments had complaint against you to Washington because you admitted O'Neill to ball? J information, Davis—I bave no personal pmo from information from the Attorney Gen- eri Q. Do you know tf Mr. Davenport ever com- plained to Washington to have General Davies re- moved for his action tn the O'Neil case ‘The Court exciuded the question, ‘To Mr. Davenport—I never made any personal application to you jor the O'Neill papers. Some turtner testimony of an unimportant char- acter was taken, and the Court adjourned to Mon- day next. THE HARDIN ESTATE CONTEST. In the Surrogate’s Court, before Surrogate Hatchings, yesterday, ex-Judge Jonn K. Porter resumed, on behalf of Mrs, Hardin, the summing linen Importer. The court room was crowded. widow were Known as husband and wile; that he called her, in the presence of friends, ac- | quaintances and strangers, his wife and she called him her husband, counsel said in George Hardin we have a unique and well defined character. ool, caleulating and hard headed outside in bis business and secretive as to his business transactions, we find nim at home— &5 proved by scores of witnesses whose character aba testimony were above suspicton—open- hearted, generous, with strong connubial and do- mestic feetings, loving, cherishing and hovering the woman whom his relations now seek to make out @ fallen Woman for the base purpose of getting possession of George "8 money; and in their anxiety to get it they do not hesitate to blacken the name Ol the dead as well as the living. Counsel then strang together a number of tender incidents which occurred tn the Hardin home re- lated by witnesses on the stand, and sald they could not occar except in the home of happy mar- ried persons, living for each other and in tiie fear but confidence and love of their Creator, He read | the testimony of a lady witness, who sald she had | one to Mr. Hardin’s ofMice, down town, with Mrs. jardin, and aad seen Mr. Hardin there.’ He spore to her as his wife, and went with them and put them in a stage. Mr, Porter relerred to the inso- lent and brow-beating manner in which counsel | on the other side had treated this, as well as other witnesses for Mrs. Hardin, and said it seemed to | be the opinion o the counsel that no witness wasen- | titled to respect except produced from Detective Pinkerton’s ofice, or pringing a certificate irom Tom Crow (a witness On the other side), ‘ho was unearthed,” said counsel, “on One O1 the neigubor- ing islands,’? Mr. Porter proceeded to explain why Mr. Hardin was known at home as Mr. Walker, the chief reason being to avoid the large amount o! per- sonal tax which he wonid have. to pay if he was | known to the tax gatherer to be the millionaire merchant, George Hardin, He had made his money by hard, houest pusiness, and did not waot to have part o11t squandered by the corrupt and profigate oMiciais who ruled this city, The testi- mony of Mrs. Connolly, widow of Patrick Connolly, who had been for over twenty years a porter in Mr. Hardin's store, showed that she had kuown Mrs. Hardin for over eighteen years as the wile of Mr. Hardin, Every time se met Mr. Har- din or gaw him in ‘his store, which was tre- quently, she asked ior Mrs. Hardin, and he would answer “she is well,” of “She bas caught a cold,” or “She has gone to the country,” &c. She had always been spoken o! by Mr. Hardin as his wile, The testimony of Mr, Putnam, of the dry goods firm of E, D. Putnam & Co,, whose store, in 1860, was next door to tnat of George Hardin, in Pine street, showed that Mrs, Hardin calied frequently at Harain’s store, He saw tuem walk out of the He asked Mr, Bigeiow, a clerk tore, who the lady was, as he did not know Mr, Hardin was married, and was surprised tosee him walking out of the store arm-in-arm withalady. Mr. Bigelow replied, ‘That is Mr. Hardin’s wife.” ‘Do New York merchants,” said counsel, ‘‘walk out of their stores in broad day- light arm-in-arm with thieves and prostitutes? ‘ould @ clerk in @ store tell the principal of the firm next door that his employer was married, and point out bis wile, unless it were sy?” Counsel had not concluded when the Court adjourned. RECORDER HACKETT’S COURT. The Grand Jury of the Court of General Sessions having concluded their labors, came into the court atone o’clock yesterday with the last batch of in- dictments found by them. The foreman then pre- sented to His Honor a paper which read as fol- lows:— GRAND Jury Room, Oct. 30, 1874. ‘The Grand Jury «desire to express their apprecia- been fuund against these parties, JOHN i, DAVENPORT ON THE STAND. Mr. Davenport was then sworn:—He went on to | descrive the nature of the charge against flein- | ricus. He gave in detail the part he nad taken in | the matter; he took the complaint of Stabi against | Heinrichs at bis office; on this complaint he | issued bis warrant for the arrest of Heinrichs; | he put the warrant in evidence; learning tiat there was likely to be some disturbance 1p couse- quence of the arrest be went, after waiting in bis offive Jor an hour, in @ cariiage to the corner of the street near Mr. Heinrichs’ house, but, alter waiting an hour there, Mr. Heinrichs was not arrested, and he left word with the Marshal that he was going to the Fiftn Avenue Hotel; the mar- | sbals had arrived abead of him with Mr. Heiorichs | in custody; Mr. Heinrichs earnestly demanded an | examination, and Davenpor' said that the eariest Moment he could have one would be eleven o'clock | on Monday morning; funding toat he ioust go to | jail he sald he would give batl; Davenport said | he conld not accept bail unless Heinrichs waived an examination; he said that he had a bondsman present, Mr. Keigieman, who would go vail for him; Davenport wrote out yur. Keigieman’s justification = and said that he must submit tt to the District Actor. | ney. Mr. Davenport then went on to detail ail that bad taken place In regard to the effurts of Mr. Patterson, Mr. Ely and others to obtain the re- lease of Mr. Heinrichs; at the examination on Monday he said he was prepared tu take Mr. Reigleman as pall, but counsel for Heinrich re- | fused to give bail, and prepared to go on with an examination; be said that if an examination was | gone into it must take piace at three o'clock that day, and that in the meantime Mr. Hetnricns should go to jail; pati then was accepted, Mr. Heinrichs Was discharged, and a day set down ior the ex- | amination, but’ he dechnea to go ou with itin | consequence of the conduct of counsel, which was far irom courteous; Mr. Davenport said he was notin court at the time the motion was made be- Jore Juage Benedict for the discuarge of Heinrichs, and that the alterations made in his (Mr. Daven- port’s) affidavits submitted on tuat motion were made by him in pencil in the first mstance, and subsequently by Mr. Bliss, the District Attorney, in ink; he then wenton to state the facts in re- lation 'to the case of Charles Hussey and put in evidence the warrant be had issued tor Hussey’s arrest. He went tully {nto the particulars ot tis case and denied the Various charges in this par- ticular specification. He showed that in one in- stance Where an affidavit was brought to him to be sworn the christian name of the party sworn against was omitted and he (Mr. Davenport) in- serted the worda “whose christian name is to your deponent unknown, but who can be identi- | fied.” In another instance he inserted the word ““raudulent,” to oring the aMdavit within the law. One of the affidavits brought to nim was against Mr. Richard Croker, but he nad never issued any warrant for the arrest of Mr. Croker. He de- nied that he had issued warrants in ik. He next dealt with tae case of Bernard O’N into the details minutely. Mr. W. C. Bari Mr. bell had applied to him about that case at night and he refused to take any action in the Matter, and next morning Mr. O'Neill was bailed by Commissiouer Osborn; bis action was not ta- ken agaist O'Neill to prevent him acting with the political party to which he belonged, nor dia poll tics 1h any Way, shape or form enter into the mat- ter, He detaiied to the Court the eforts he had Made to stop repeating; he bad always said that M charges were to be preseuted to re- peating ve must have them made at an early day, and mot on the day berore election; on the day before election he was in- formed wat evidence of this Kind cvuid be had, aud he said, somewhat indignantiy, that aa the evidence could have been presented at an eariier day he would not issue Warrants unless there was | very strong proof indeed that an offence had been | committed; he Was subsequently accosted by | James O'Brien, who asked him Wwoat was the troubie and why the Warrants Were not issued; | O'Brien said that the evidence to prosecute the | parties would surely be forthcoming; subsequentiy he weat to the District Attorney's office, and after | the aMidavits had been carefuily prepared by Mr. | Goodlett the Warrants for the arrest of the parties | ward he nad reason to doupt that the parties who swore to those affidavits resided at the | places stated therein, and he caused their arrest aud indictment before the Graud Jary; he desired to Say that he bad never used bla political power | ju the mtevrest of James O’Brien, or of any other man or set Of men in this communtty; ne had never as & United States Commissioner issued warrantsin blank; he had been good deal in | Alpany and Washington on bis own businesa and | ‘a8 an attorney And no doubt he would be aga ne Wi Mican; he had never usea fis powers a3 United States Commissioner or as Chief Supervisor of Biectious for polttical purposes either at Aloany | or Washingvon, and he «tid not well know how he couid do 30, seeing that botu those places were | outside of nis district. | TESTIMONY OF JUDGE NOAH DAVIS. At this stage of the proceedings, Judge Davis | being in attendance, he wasexamined as a witness | jor tue prosecution, He said he was Vistrice At- | tworney of the United States from July, 1870, to January, 1873; on the day before the eiection of | i871 Mf, Davenport came into my room, in my | ofmice, and stated that he wished no person would be brought before any other Commissioner but | himself jor bail in election oases; I toid him that it | ‘was usual to take parties beiore the Vommissiover | who issued the process; I iett the matter of U'Neill in the hands of General Davies, with directions to | Seefthat no injury should be done to the administra- | tion of justice; the O'Neill papers were sent to Mr. pt a led but wey were not reiufned to my office. y Do you kuow thar Mr. Davenport made a! ‘as he said in Nis answer, always a repub- tion of the manner im which they have been aided | in the performance ol their duty during the past | mouth hy tue District Attorney and his assistants | in oMce. The prompt preparation of pa, , the | attention to every request of the jury and the courtesy shown to us throughout the teri, merit our approbation and acknowledgment. 8. W. CANS(ELK, Foreman, THE RECORDER REPLIES. Recorder Hackett, having read the paper, ad- dressed the Grand Jury as follows:— GENTLEMEN OF THE GRAND JcRY—Before dis- missing you from further service in your capacity | as crand jurors, 1t seems to me to be a duty that 1 should advert to the character and amount ot labor that you wave performed during the preseut Octo ber term of tiis Court of General Sessions, The | following data 1 read from the-minutes oj tne clerk | of this court, Which not only records the nature | and amount of labor performed by you, but aiso includes the business of the term transacted by tne Court, which could not have been completed except by reason of your Tost earnest and intelligent consideration of the complaints, w ich were submitted to you by the | District Attorney for your action, and I believe my- | seif jus'ifed, both trom my reading and personal experience, in making this statement—that no grand jury or criminal court, in this or any other State in the Union, has ever transacted so much great and important business tn so brief a period; and it becomes my agreeable duty to convey to each and all of you, gentlemen of the Grand Jury, the high appreciation whicn this Court entertains oi your services. Gentlemen, you are now dis- charged {rom iurther attendance. . ‘The data, as read, showed that auring the term the Grand Jury nave found 318 indictments, 213 of which have resulted in convictions and the balance DB acqaittals, SUPREME COURT—GENERAL TERM PROCEEDINGS. The General Term of the Supreme Court ad- journed for the term yesterday till the 23d ot De- cember, having meantime disposed of all the cases down to and inciuding 131 on the day’s calendar. With this information lawyers can over- haul their calendar catechism and make a note on %¢, Among the cases on the day calendar was one, im which John Percy, the celebrated litigant, made a certain motion, This is the gentieman who had the famous trouble with Judge Barnard and went to Ludiow Street Jail, and was aiter- wards disbarred as an attorney, and his case is reported tu Court of Appeais Reports. He, however, appeared in a case in which he Wi ey, piaintim™. Tne Court refused his tion, Jagge Davis making a caustic refe: the maxim aoout the fool and the client, and Mulcting him in $30 costs, The only other case of general interest was the argument upon the Writ of Error through which j¢ asked @ new trial for Messrs. Oliver Chariick and Bough Gardner, the Police Commissioners who came to legal and political grief, It was conceded, however, on the argument by A. Oakey Hall, then counsel, and istrict Attorney Phelps that the General Term must afirm the conviction, because in the case of the People vs. Bogart, re- ported in 2d Parker, the same principle at issue in the pending case, had been aetermined at an oid General Term adversely to the point now Tatsed for the defendants. ogart was a police Jusiice, who bailed a man without giving the no- tice to the District Attorney, and the General Term held that @ notice being necessary, Mis not giving ie oimnouge lonocentiy or inadvertently, ‘Was 40 offence, ‘The point of intention, however, will soon cote Up 38 4n original one in the Court of Appeals. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. ' SUPREME COURT—GENEBAL TERM, Decisions. By Judges Davis, Danie\s and Lawrence. Darragh vs. McKim.—Order aMrmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Opinion by Judge Daniels, Jeuras va. The McKillopp & Sprague Manufac- turing Company; The Excelsior savings Bank V8, Campbeil.—Orders affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Opiuions by Judge Lawrence. New York Attrition aud Manufacturing Com- pany vs. Van Wyck et al.—Order reversed in 50 far as it directs @ reference of the case. The injunc- tion order retained on condition of plainti’s fhng security in $2,000 witoin ten days alter service of acopy of the order to be entered herein, bat in deiault thereof order reversed in toto, with $10 costs aud disbursements, neither party to have costs if such security be filed. Order to be settled by Judge P. J. Davis. Opinion by Judge J. Davis, Risiey vs, Phoenix Bank of New York.—Order af- firmed with $10 costs besides disbursements, Opinion by Judge Davis, Murphy et al. va. Keyes, impleaded, &¢.—Af- firmed with $10 costs besiaes disbursements, opinion by Judge Daniels, Dietz vs. Dietz.—Order aMrmed with $10 costs besides disbursements, Opinion by Judge Danie!s. The security bank of New York vs, The National Bank of the Commonwealtu.—Order appealed from reversed with $10 costs and disbursements and order directed setting aside the judgment and allowing the defendant within ten days altet no- tice of the order on payment ot $10 © of 07 Dosing the MOM, any the diybursementys mada | up iu the great legal contest over the $1,250,000 | leit by the late George Rardin, the well known | Alter reading the testimony of several witnesses, | | Which went to show that Hardin and the claimant | on the entry of judgment. Opinion by Judge Dan- Catlin vs, Catlin,—Order aMrmed with $10 costs with disbursements. Opinion by Judge Daniels. The Panama Raliroad Company vs. Robinson.— AMrmed with $10 costs, besides disbursements. Opinion oy Judges Daniels, Davis and Barrett. In tne Mateer of Anderson, &c.—Urder appealed from, reversed witu $10 costs, besides disbarse- ments and prayer of petition dented with $10 costs, of op) motion im court below. Opin- | lon by Judge Daniels, In the Matter, &c., Department of Pubiic Parks,, &c.—Order aiitmed with $10 costs, pesides dis- bursements. Opinion by Judges Daniels, Davis | and Lawrence, | The People ex rel Fall vs, Kenny.—Order aflirmed with $10 costs, besides disbursements, Opinion by Judge Daniels, Clews and Apotuer va. the Rockford, Rock Isiand and St, Louts Ratiroad Company.—Order alfirmed with $10 costs, besides disbursements, Opinion by Judge Lawrence. Bairston et al, vs. Hausen, impleaded.—Order reversed, with $10 costs, besides disbursements, Opinion by Judge Daniels. De Liamosas vs, Liamosas.—Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Opinion by Judge Daniels, Roberts vs, Hill.—Order aMirmed for gross Jaches in making the motion, with $10 costs be- sides disvursements. By Judges Daniels and Lawrence. Bray vs. Poilion.—Order aitirmed, with §10 costs besides disvursements. Opinion by Judge Law- rence. White vs. Livingston.—Oraer affirmed, with $10 costs besiues disuursements. Holloway vs. stevens.—Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Opinion by Judge Daniels. By Judges Davis aud Daniels, Wheeler vs, Brady.—Order affirmed, with $10 costs of each mouon besides disbursements. Opinion by Judge Daniels. By Jadves Davis, Daniels and Lawrence. Spratt vs. Huntington; Same vs. Same,—Order Teversed in each of Lhe above cases, and the order that plaintiff appear and make afMldavit reversed without cost to either party. Opinion by Judge Daniels, Gowdey va. Paullaine.—Order affirmed with $10 costs, besides disbursements. Opimon by Jal Lawrence, Trimm et al. vs. Marsh.—Order affirmed with $10 costs and disbursements. Opinion by Judge ‘Thompson vs, Fargo, Treasurer.—Judgment afirmed, Opinion by Judge Daniels. By Judges Daniels and Lawrence, The People vg. Mallory et al.—Judgiment aMirmea forest neretolore entered). Opinion by Judge wrence, Clews etal. ys. Raphael.—Order armed with $10 costs and disbursements, Opinion by Judge Davis. By Judges Davis, Brady and Daniels, Fielman et al. vs. Brunner et al.—Judgment affirmed. Opinion by andes Brady. Heineman et al. vs. Heard et al.—Judgment aMrmed, Opivion by Judge Brady. Clements va. Yturia.—Order modified by re- ducing and fixing the amount of bail to $30,000, without costs oi the appeal to either party. Wilhams, Assigiee, vs. Alien et al.—Order affirmed with costs. Opinion by Judge Brady. SUPREME OOURT—OHAMBERS, Decisions. By Judge Lawrence. Philitps vs. Wicks, Smith vs, Mesick.—Memoran- dums for counsel. Montgomery vs. The Market rire Insurance Compauy.—An allowance of $200 granted to the claimant. Memorandum. Holloway vs. Stephens.—Motion for leave to serve @ reply 1s granted on the terms stated in opinion. By Judge Barrett, Orentt vs. Lamb.—Motion to change venue denied, with $10 costs. Oroaks vs. Lamb; Stone vs. Dodge.—Motions denied. Siith vs. New York, Housatonic and N. R. R. Company.—Receiver appomted. I will hear counsel to the amount of the bond which the Teceiver shall be required to uive. Shaw &. Wilcox. Co,.ys. Daggatt.—Motion granted, with $10 costs to abide the‘event. Dewey vs. Colligan.—Motion granted, with $10 costs. Abrahams vs. Grenell (No. 1); Same vs, Same (No, 2).—Motions denied, witn $10 costs. Noonan vs. Dumphy.—Motion denied, without costs. Memorandum. Benjamin vs. Remsen.—Motion denied, with $10 costs, to abide the event. SUPERIOR COURT—SPEOIAL TERM, Decisions. By Judge Curtis, The People of the State, &c., vs. Appel; Same va. Freligh.—Motions granted, Guriey etal vs. Maltby et al,—Motion denied, without prejudices. ee vs, Watson.—Motion for reference granted. Preston vs. Goetz et al.—Judgment for fore- closure and sale, ‘The Pennsylvania Railroad Company. vs. Rogers et al.—Demurrer overruled as frivolous, with Jeave to defendants to answer in five days upon payment of plaintif’s costs and costs of motion. Scumeder vs. Schmeder.—Order granted that the deiendaut show cause why he shouid not be punished for non-payment o/ alimony, &c. COMMON PLEAS—S3PEOIAL TERM. By Judge Robinson, Reilly vs. The Mayor, &c. Motion granted on terms. Dooley v8. McCabe etal. Order for payment of | Lawrence, | Surplus money, MARINE COUBT—CHAMBERS. Decisions. By Judge Joachimsen. Landsbery vs. Boucselo.—Motion granted on terms. Milliken vs. Aronsun.—Motion to open default granted on terms. Miller vs, Kammitter.—Motion denied, with $10 costs. Lampe vs. Laurritz.—Judgment for defendant on demurrer. Kohler: vs, Pfster.—Motion denied with $10 costs. Bank of North America vs. Riker: McVey ys. Wilbur; Boldt vs. Hopps.—Motious granted. By Judge McAdam. Caffe vs. Middleton; Swartwout vs Richards; Travers vs, Wice; Micando vs Berntich; Bamberg ys Pnillipson.—Motions granted, COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. Before Recorder Hackett, William McGill, who, on the 9th of September, stole $153 {rom Joun T. Reeves, Jr., pleaded guilty to an attempt at grand larceny. Edward McUVarthy pvieaded guilty to lar- ceny from the person, the charge bemg that on the 21st inst, he stole @ liver watch from John G, Waller. ‘These prisoners were each sent to the Stato Prison for two years and lx months, Sentences, George H. Mix, a genteel-looking man, who pleaded guilty on Thursday to stealing a quantity of laces from the store of H. B. Claflin & Co., was arraigned for sentence. Charles Hayes, who was convicted of larceny by the panel game, was also placed at te bar for sentence. ‘They were each sent to the State Prison for five years, Michael Kelly, a boy who, on the 19th of Octo- ber, stole $4 irom the person of Frederick Sturz, ‘was sent to the Catholic Protectory. isaac Welch, charged with stealing five cents trom the person of John Kennedy on the 23d inst., pleaded guilty to petit larceny. Edward Phillips pleaded guilty to stealing §ome chickens, ‘These prisoners were sent to the Penitentiary for three montis, Acquittals, James Collins, who was jointly indicted with others charged with being associated in stealing a ‘watch irom the person of Simon Mendleshon on the 2ist of October, in East Twelftn street, while he was looking at a seraes excursion, was tried and acquitted. Patrick J. Kennedy, who was jointly indicted, demanded a separate trial and was Aigo promptly acquitted, Edward 8, Craige, convicted of an attempt to obtain the sum of $50 in money from Charles L, Rathbone, was sentenced to the State Prison for eighteen months, jennie Davis was tried and convicted of steal ing $73 in money from George Devoe. Sentenced to the State Prison for three years, This concluded the business of the term, and the Court adjourned to Monday next. TOMBS POLICE COURT, Before Judge Morgan. On Thursday night, about six P. M., as Mr, John A. Thomas was standing on the corner of vedar and Greenwich streets, he was accosted by Robert Watson, who ‘smashed’’ him on the nose and abstracted from bis pocket a silver watch valued at $25. Rovert was jocked up for trial io deiault of $1,000 vail. An Outrageous Assault. Mr. Fitzsimmons and bis wiie Margaret were standing on the corner of Cherry street and James sip about ten o’clock on Thursday night, when they were approached by a man who wanted to know what time it was, Mr. Fitzsimmons took out his watch, and the man, whose name appears ish, SHatched the same, A senitie robbed him of his money, Fitz began and Wal held the highwayman notil an officer came and arrested the miscrean!, who was held in default of $1,000 to answer, JEFFERSON MARKET POLICE COURT. A Desperate Midnight Burglar. Before Judge Smith, William Tendebarg and James Perry are two | Bight watchmen In the employment of Ward & Cow simmons was stronger than Walsh though, and he | NEW YORK HERALD, SATURDAY, OCTOBER Sl, 1874—TRIPLE SHEET. 7 of No. 879 West Twelfth street, furniture manu- facturers. On Friday morning, about two o'clock, Tendeburg heard a noise on the second floor of the pbuilding, and on > ing there caught Charles Grandine, alias Charles F. Kruger just as he effected an entrance through the window, On attempting to arrest him the burgiar pulled out a revolver and fired three shots im rapid succession at the watchman, but forcunately none of them took effect. Perry, the other watchman, ran to the aid of Tendeburg, and they captured the daring burglar, alter & har strugglé, in which he tried to fire the remaining charges ‘in his pistol. The prisoner was ueid in $5,000 bail on two charges, one for burglary and the other for felonious assault Alleged Highway Robbery. Annie Williams, of No. 57 Thompson street, while passing to her home, on Thursday night about twelve o'clock, was knocked down by Jon D, Esein- ger, aliaa J. D, Meyer, and robbed ofa sliver chain Worth $6. ‘the prisoner admitted the assavit, out denied the robbery. He was committed in default Of $1,500 bail for trial. A Pickpocket Caught. Mrs, Josephine Haug, of No, 407 Canal street, was standing on the stoop of her residence, on Tharsday at noon, looking at a procession which was passing at the time. A thief grabbed her watch chain and tore both it and her watch, worth $75, from her before she could make any resistance. She gave a description of the thie! to Omicer Meade, of the Eighth precinct, and he that night arrested John O'Neill, Mrs. Haug at once identified O'Neill as the thief, and he was com- mitted in default of $3,000 bail yesterday. Serious Charge Against an Ex-Stock Broker. Ward E. Robinson and his wife Pauline were arraigned, charged with fraudulently disposing of mortgaged property. In August last they were living at No, 43 West Forty-seventh street, and procured @ loan of $2,340 from Oscar F. Temple- ton, of No, 21 West Ninth street, giving as security e | therefor a chattel mortgage on “heir jurniture lor the amountand interest. On attempting to toreciose the mortgage Mr, Tempieton alleges that he dis- covered over half the Jurniture had been removed without his knowledge. Robvinson and nis wile were arrested at Rye, Westchester county, b} Onicers Fleming and Dakin, of the Court squad. They were living in elegant style at a handsome country villa, Robinson was held in $500 bat! jor examination and his wile was paroled. Robinsun was jormerly @ broker on Wail street, ESSEX MARKHT POLICE OOURT, A Peculiar Churge of Larceny. Before Judge Kilbreth. Abraham Sbinkwright was held in $600 bail yes- terday, charged witn grand larceny. The com- plainant, Sol Castle, of No. 78 Suifolk street, stated that on the 4th of September he lent the prisoner $50, and got snqaentitp trem bim two gold watches and other jeweiry. On the 29th of Uctober the prisoner called and desired to ve shown his prop- erty, to make sure it was all right. On getting It into his hang he ran off with It and was allerwards arrested by Detective Dyer, oi the Tenth precinct, BROOKLYN COURTS. OITY OOURT. End of the First Trial of Isaac Badesu, Ex-Collector of Taxes—The Jury Dis- agree and are Discharged. Yesterday morning, at nine o’clock, the jury in the case of ex-Collector of Taxes and Assessments isaac Badeau came into court, and, in answer to the query of Frank Mallison, Clerk of the Court, as to whether they had agreed upon a verdict, re- plied im the negative, Tae foreman seid it was imposeible for them to do so, as they had tried every means. One of the jurors said:—“yYour Honor, nine of our number agreed on the follow- ing verdict—‘We find Isaac Badean gullty on count six, from the fact that a certain sum of money collected for taxes and assessments was deposited in bank im the name of Isaac Badean, Collector, and that $4,100, an amount exactiy equal to the erasure ia that count, has never been paid over to the City or County ‘ireasurer.’ ”” Tne Judge then discharged tne jury irom further duty. Une of the jurors subsequently visited tne District Attorney's office and made statements of his personal opinion, reflecting on certain other Inemvers of the jury. His opinions were, however, of too vague and unsubstantiated a nature to enabie that oMcial to do anything in the premises. Assistant Disirict Attorney Moure stated to te reporter that the case would be called on again for trial without delay. The detendant, who was @ democrat, was elected to the oflce of tax collector im the year 1565, and was re- elected in 1868, returing from office in 1872. Fiiteen counts in the volumimous indictment jound against him cover a period irom Octover, 1870, to April, 1872, inclusive, they charved’ bim with having embezzled on Gctover 14, 1870, $1005 February 10, 1871, $4,100; February 18, 1871, $100; March 8, 1871, $100; May 10, 1871, $200; May 16, 1871, $80; May 30, 1871, $900; June 1, 1871, $100; November 16, 1871, $490; November 17, 1871, $80; April 9, 1872, $100; in all $5,710, This money what is koown as default ior non- ayment ol taxes within the period prescrived by aw. The payments were correctly entered on the cash tickier or blotter by the receiver, and were transierred to the banks to the credit of the collector. The amounts were then entered on the casa arrears book, which latter showed thas there had been erasures and new figures written over the original amounts. None of these erasures were, however, in deiendant’s handwriting, An expert testified that the difference caused by the erasures had not been subsequently returned to the City Treasury. The defence claimed that for the entire period of Mr. Badeau’s two terms of office he had tully accounted ior every dollar re- ceived, He had received $42,536,038 01, aud the deience claimed that the city - was indebtea to Mr. Badeau to the amount of $33,757 75. SUPREME COURT. Decisions. Before Judge Pratt. 8. Tarner vs. E. B, Rogers. —Costs allowed, folk. Foundry Facing Company vs. J. Tullis.—Order for payment of nioney by third part. 8. L. Harley vs, J. McKay.—Motion to set aside Procee ings denied; $10 costs, us H. M. Baker vs. E. Davison.—Fixing plaintf’s costs and allowance, $33 referee’s tees, $16 50 ad- vertising, $20 for auctioneer, $10 motion costs, balance to be credited on mort gage. J. F. Kilgour vs. Midiand Blae Stone Company.. Motion to bave receiver's accounts grauted; re- Inainder of motion denlea, without prejudice to any oe otGroo & Wiggins. No costs to either party. ©. A. Mertz vs. A. Welwood,—Motion to open Judgment and allow Welwood to come in as party, denied; $10 costs, A. D, Fenton vs. B. J. Bond.—Motion to change venue granted on deieudant’s stipulating to admit on trial that plaintif ts bona Ade holder of the note, and that he purchased it before 1 was due and Without notice, and paid value to the amount of the note, Otherwise motion denied, THE TILTON-BEECHER SUIT. Motion for a Bill of Particulars Denied— Important Decision. Judge Nelison, of the Brooklyn City Court, yes- terday rendered his decision in the motion re- centiy argued before him by the counsel on both sides in the suit brought by Mr. Theodore Tilton against Rev. Henry Ward Beecher for the seduc- tion of the wile of plaintif™ Messrs. Tracy and Shearman, who appeared for defendant, argued that they~were eutitied to a bill of particulars setting forth definitely the time and place at which the alleged acts of adultery occurred be- tween defendant and the wife of piaintif. x- Judge Morris, counsel for Mr. Tiiton, contended that the defendant was not éntitied to a vill of particulars, which would disclose tne line of prose- cution, Judge Nelison has decided, denying the Motion, without costs, The text of the important decision 18 as follows Ciry Courr or Brooxirs—Theodore Tilton vs. Henry Ward Beecher. —The complaint charges that the detend- ant committed the art acts stated “on or about the luth day of Octoner, 188 and on divers other uays T that day, and betore the commencement y at the house of the detendant, No. 14 Columbia sirect, city of Brooklyn, and at the house of the plainuff, No. 174 Livingston street, In said city.” An Auswer denying the charges has beeh put in, and the issue of fact thus joined noticed for trial. An applica- tioa is now made tor au order requiring the plainuit to deliver to the fendant’s attorneys & statement in writing of the times ace: he expects and intends to provi defendant committed and confessed any such acts. iainth may ex were commitied, As to the places where tne pect or intend to prove that the ac the complaint is specific—the houses and street aré designated. The information on that point sought by this application has been tully given. As tothe sup posed confessions the coinplaiit is silent, and properly so, Under our system of pleading the facts are to be set forth, not the evidence of those tacts, istin: it is expressly enjoined by ti jon enfored by an unbroken chain of dec: . theretore, the plaintif’s case is stated the complaint, the claiin of wrong belng one of wich the law takes cognizance, the pleader Is not allowed to ada averments disclosing the oral prot by whieh he expects or intends to support or establish his case un the trial. But it is shown by aMdavits that the plaintif, who could not have alleged in jis complaint that such cou. feasions had been made, and might have veen prudently reticent on the subject, hias stated in & newspaper article that such proot existed, In view of that the defendant's coanse! claims that the plaincf? should be required to state when and where thore ny, were made. The question is not simply whether tt would be well tor the defendant to have that additi informa- tion, but whether we Court lias the power to make such @ requisition, Iam satisfied that we have not the ower. Tt would be & dangeroas innovation, an anomaly Mm practice, if every defendant who ‘claims that there may an ‘attempt to prove admissions col uy "mation herore the Cour compel a Sul disclosures. So far ouch it expects nnn to prove that the soxst a Jace. maplaiat has thus On oF about 4 y of Ootober, 1868, and on divers other days and times after that day.) de. That ls good and correcy ves that form for this action, and in-& note, it fy iuiury may be staied to have on divers days ang times," 4c, (@ Chity PL or question could be raised 1n respect to that the Jant snot have applied to have the comp! 4 Made more definite ond certain. in a case of this precise Nature the complaint did not he es, not eveu the country, and Judge Key nolds, Term, granted such an application before answer. tig the ractice prescril by the Code, Under common jaw avatem of pleading, especially where the common courts were used, a defendant might have been taken by surprise as to matters touchimg which he had the ht to be informed, and some remedial practice tor the tor's protection was necessa: Courts of equity, in the ex: of inherent powers, igurated a practice of the nature now invo! under legislative dire ti courts of ww acquired the to order « Gyscovery and inspection of With spectat limitations (14 and 15 Vic., ch; Wigram on Discovery, 19; 8 Rev. St. 5th e to ure bills of particulars in certain cases, eepe- cy sec. 158). ried counsel for eases in which teresting @nalo- cases apply to require claily as to the items of no elaborate briet handed in by the tea defendant nas a ton of one’ of the f n involved. In his treatise Mr. SBearman says ticulars will not Brite va, Beephe! PO) Injuries or c. ait ganas Sate ge eral ru! 7 ordered in an action fore tannard Ye it ‘hennels, Wie, in an such bitisare not granted ‘hat the cause action. must almost alw: with sufictont distinctness in’ the comptarnet the detendaut to prepare his Cowen, K., 54, where a bill of an action ‘for the conversion avoiding great detail in 236; 60. B. N. general theory aid: ‘he lay id Wr ys Col red saci its of both parties to keep secret their prepara ons and means of attack and defense’ (1 Abb. Pr... 8, 288). ‘As indicating the theory that the right of di at Jaw has been regarded as matter proper for I ve direction rather for such direction asthe in the exercise of its supposed inherent powel each cause choose to grant, our statutes as t discovery in expect to betting. and gaming @ i 4 and Mlegal prokerage. QR 979), usurious transac- tions GR. Sa, 43), and in. respect to attor- neys @ RS. 478, 479), might well be referred s riles of practice must be sali to. not changed materially to conform to particular 4 pluintiif may so shape his case as fo meek exigencies. as where witnesses ure hostile and refuse to disc! the facts until compelled to do go on the trial. Naty. heave said, the question Is as to the power of the Coart,a power to be exercised with special reference to the sYstem of practice cstablished by the Legislacare, The ‘ode, in creating anew Le of procedure, has pre- scribed the mauner in which a cause of action be stated in the complaint, and how @ pleading, if defec- tive, may be Ronee It gives toa defendant not satisfied with the frame or terms of the complaint medies much more ful) and adequate than given under Id system. ile muy move to have the complain made more definite and certain, and where the claim can be itemized may also have a bill of particulars, To ail this the code adds the right to examine the adver- sary on oath before the trial, and even at the trial, Bat the Code allows a bili of particulars of the claim. If wrong be the conversion of personal property enumeration or description of it would be as Par- ticulars of the claim. But an action of this oliar class, like that for assault and ttery, 1s 81 ntly stated and described in the general allegation necessa- pee bape baling Pi Sy Bong oa Paine tl re may enhancing or hing a but nothing further could be said as to the itself. When we CS ph aera be bell wo 1s) Y, Or cont or accoun! a rent Tulg?aoplies’ Tn. fois case the. Mghtto move. tar cothplaint be made more definite and certa‘ waived. Ip several the 0 fo could have been entitled may amining the plaintiff betore the trial. T think that ee practice established the Code should be followed, as thus and only thus can certainty and consistency be obtained, and that an attempt Court to evade that practice and substitute other m« of procedure wonld be anwise, it not reprehensib! but wi it The application is denied, thon COHEN 5 CO. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. WASHINGTON, Oct. 29, 1874, No. 46. Pollard vs. Batiey—Error to the ‘Circuit Court for the Midale District of Alabama.—Tre facts agreed between the parties show that Batley, assignee in bankruptcy of Fowler & Sommerville, produced bills of the Central Bank of Alabama for $16,909, and demanded their value of Pollard asthe owner of 200 shares in the bank, under a clause of the charter making stockholders Mable iu proportion to their stock; that the capital stock of the bank subscribed by individuals was, $900,000 of the $1,000,000 named in the charter, and tne issues of the bank unpaid were $700,000, and that the affairs of the bank were beiore a court of chancery. Upon these facts judgment was for the assignee; and it is here maintained that the ability of the stockholder ts only in the pro- portion that bis shares of stock bear to the whole Capital of the bank, and for no more; that this Nability is a Mability ‘to the creditors of the bank collectively, and to be ascertained by a liquidation Of its adairs after tne deficiency in tho assets of the bank have been ascertained and the propor- tionate share of the stocknolder has been deter- mined. When this judgment was rendered, as appeared by the pleadings of the case, a Court of Chancery Nad control of the affairs of the bank and the debt recovered was involved in that bill. J..A. Campbell and George Goldwaite for plain- tid; J. A. Elmore for detendant. United States vs. Buecken et al.—Error to the Circuit Court for the Distriot of Maryland.—This Is @ suit ona distiller’s bond to recover certain taxed alleged to be due the government, The sureties only were served with process, The government proved that taxes were due on the business of a disvillery Jocated on the corner of Hudson ana ‘Third streets, in the town of Canton, Md.; but it | Sppeared that the business had never been carried on there, but about four squares distant. There- upon the Court charged the jury that there could be no recovery. The government ctaim here that it makes no difference as to the locaity; that if the distiller had commenced business where re- cited in the bond he could not move the business without notice to the government, and that if he, after filing the bond, began business somewhere else than where named therein it would be treated as having been removed ali the same as if it had Teally been there and afterwards removed. ‘This 1s the question at issae on the writ of error. Attorney General and Solicitor General for the government; Hinckley & Findiay for the sureties. No, 44, Boley vs. Hall et al.—Error to the Sup- reme Court of Montana.—This is an action of replevin brought to recover possession of seventy- one head of cattie, or $300, their alleged value, and the main question at issue is whether the personal property of amarried woman in the Ter- ritory is exempt from the debts and liabilities of the husband. A question prior to tnis, however, in the present case is whether the property was in fact the property of the wife. Ashton & Wison jor plaintiffs ia error; G. G. Squires for defendant. No, 45. Atchison et) al. vs. Peterson et al—Ap- peal from the Supreme Court’of Montana,—The plaintiffs claim to have acquired by prier ap- propriation the exclusive right to use so mach o! the waters of the Mile Creek as would fi!! certain ditches constructed by them, and Koown as Helena and Yaw Yaw ditches, which extend from the creek to Last Chance and Dry gulches in the mines, and that gince their operations commenced the defendants have tapped the creek and are using the waters in such a way as to obstract ita flow through the ditcnes. The Court below found that tne feb theddg were entitled to the waters claimed, but that the defendants had not so in- jured the flow of the creek as to entitle the piain- tiffs to a judgment for damages. It is here claimed that the sand and sium set afloat by the defena- ants so deteriorated the water that 1¢ was com- aratively useless for mining purposes, Robert Peeen for appellants; G. G. Lymes for appellees. No. 47, Lyman vs. Pollard—Error to the Supremo Court of the District of Columbia.—Mrs, Pollard sued to recover, under an agreement to that effect, one-filth of the net income of the St. Cloud Hotel, located at the corner of Ninth and F streets, | in Washington, the rentof the hotel tobe re- garded a8 an item of the expense, and for dam- wes for a breach of the contract, She recovered, and the case is here for review, on exceptions to the rulings oi the court on the trial, one of which was the exciusion of evidence tending to snow that while the hotel was jointly carried on by the parses to the suit, the defendant bere, wno was n active charge, was of unsound mind, It will be remembered that she was afterward sent to an insane asylum, aod shortly alter the commence, ment oi her action. Davidge & Cox for piantd in error; Riddle & Bradley tor defendant, JUDGMENT DAY IN JERSEY, Yesterday was the day of doom for the prisoners convicted in xie Court of Quarter Sessions at Jer- sey Oity. The following sentences were pro- nounced :—Martin Mclinerty, resisting an officer, six months; Peter McGrath, assault and battery and attempted outrage on a female, six years in State Prison; also, for an indecent aasault on garet Tighe, two years, both terms to run to- gether; Jeremiat Suilivan, assault and battery and attempted outrage on Eliza Dooley, five years; Tno1 Nolan, tll tapping, eighteen montus; William Hatchinson, eniverzioment, three months and a five of $60, Michael McDermott was con- victed of an assault and battery on Officer Kipp, and was remanded for sentence. Sentence was spended on Oharies Harrison aud Wiliam Clark. Michael Henry pleaded not guiity to a charge of assault and oatiery. Edward Muirooney, assauit and battery, pleaded not guilty. Matti Mary Carney, assault and battery, pleade ret Canan, assault and ttery, | D guilty, William O'Brien and Peter O’Brien were convicted of an assanit and batvery on Timothy MeCarthyand were rymanded jor sentence