The New York Herald Newspaper, January 9, 1875, Page 8

§ “THE COURTS: Argument on the Certiorari of William M. Tweed. The Court To Render Its Decision on Monday. A NICE UTTLE PLUMBING BILL. The Hays Murder Trial to| Close 'To-Dav. Presentment of Indictments in | the Federal Courts. Judge Van Brunt settled the Brinckley divorce suit yesterday, the decision being simply @ formal | one to complete the record prelimiuary®o carrying | the case to the Court of Appeals. Judge Barrett, holding the present term of Oyer and Terminer, is after delinquent jorors. Out of the panel summoned to appear for jury duty | some thirty failed to attend. Tne Judge at once | had the deliuquents summoned to attend before | hjm. Some were put on jury duty and others | were fined for contempt of court. One Peter 8. | Hotaling by name said that ne paid $5 toa deputy | sheriff and thought that would be the end of it. | One of the court officers isin pursuit of the deputy | sheriff, and the District Attorney was ordered to | imvestigate the case of Hotaling. An important point was settled yesterday in a case tried beiore Judge Lawrence in the Supreme | Court, Circuit. Oharles B. Wood brought sult against tbe estate of the late James Fisk to re- cover ona bond given by the er in asuit | brought by the same party against William Beiden. | The action was dismissed on the ground that where one surety dies no suit can be maintained | egainst the ostate and only against the surviving | surety. Evidence was taken yesterday in the United States Circuit Court, before Judge Wallace, through experts, as to the value of certain kinds | of laces, the testimony having reference to the suit of the Countess de Maluta Fraloff against the | New York Central Railroad for the loss of $75,000 | worth of lace alleged to have been stolen from | her trunk whilein transit. The cave presents, as | yet, no new features, and will probably be con- | tinued during next week. Im the United States Circuit Court yesterday | Jonn Carroll withdrew bis plea of not guilty of | having in his possession materiais for operating | gn illicit distillery. The plea of gu:lty was accepted | by the Court, and the prisoner was remanded | ‘until Monday Jor sentence. ‘The case of David P. Harris, the Custom House OMficer, who is accused of aiding and abetting Francisco Avellants in smuggling cigars, went to | qe relator now asks for his dischurge upon the | writ of habeas corpus, not for mere error appear- | ing upon the record, but tor deiect of jurisaiction. the jary yesterday in the United States Circuit Court, vefore Judge Bencdict. A verdict of guilty ‘was rendered, and the prisoner remanded for sen- | secondly to the whole judgment, and, shiraly, -tence on Monday. Counsel for the defence intt- mated his intention to move for a new trial, the points of law not being as yet announced. In mentioning the case of Edward Lange, who was tried in the United States Court for paving mail bags in bis possession, we tnadvertently made it appear that Mr. Lange had been convicted of stealing the bags, As the case is a peculiar one, it 1s only justice to Mr. Lange to say that the ver- dict recorded against him was that of “Guilty of appropriating to other than their proper use cer. tain mail bags for his own convenience and gain.” THE TWEED CERTIORARI. Phase wae 9 ragniar fleld daz of argument in the Supreme Court, General Term, yesterday, on the final argument of counsel in the Tweed certiorari case. Judges Daniels, Donohue and Westbrook ‘were on the bench. Judge Brady, considering bhim- self disqualified for sitting, having already passea upon an important point at issue, was not present. It may well be admitted that counsel have ex- hhausted the case, so lar as argument and the cita- tion of the autborities for and against the writ are concerned, anda the case for the present is out of their hands and in those of the three abie judges ‘who sat yesterday. Whether there will be farther opportunities ior forensic display before the Court of Appeals will depend oa the decision of the General Term, which will be rendered on Monday Bext, until which time the case is adjourned, The court room was not 0 crowded as on former Occasions, As soon as the judges bad taken their seats Mr. Field rose and said:—If the Court please, | this is a certiorari at the Court of Oyer and Ter- miner to bring up all the proceedings bad there on the application for the discharge of a writ of Rabeas corpus on the relation of William M. Tweed. The relator once applied to Mr. Justice Barrett, at the Oyer and Terminer, for a writ of | habeas corpus, which was granted, of course re- turnabie bere, and on its return an opinion of that Court was read and delivered at the General ‘Term, written, I believe, by one of the learned judges now sitting bere, and on whicu Judge Bar- rett held that these proceedings could not be renewed on the habeas corpus, and Le quashed the writ almost instantaneously. A new writ waa subsequently applied for to Judge Lawrence, and be granted it, returnable } at the Oyer and Terminer. He was then ; asked if he would hear the argument a8 to the propriety of making it returnable at Oyer ‘amd Terminer, and he said, ‘No, not then.” Not thems of course, meant never. The writ was issued, nd on return the learned Judge who held the Oyer and Terminer said he was still of the same opinion, It had not oeen changed in the least; 4 ‘that no matter what were tne defects alleged they foand no ground whatever for a habeas corpus— etill relying upon the opinion of the General Term, ‘where, it is stated, the Court comes to that decis- fon. If that is so, then there is nothing to be done except to aM™rm the decision below. If that decis- ton be not binding, if this Court did not arrive at such @ decision in the Shanks case, then the mat- ter 1s open to argument. If it be not open to argument—that 1s, if that is the true consiruc- tion of that decision—it is repeated in the Su- me Court Reports, No. under the title of People ex rel. Phelps ust Fancher, and the point of that dectsion, as it was claimed, was that the section of the Revised Statutes which yee that the Court upon the return should examine the legulity or justice of any deter- mination prevented the Court trom investigating question whatever except the question of she original constitution, woula like very mach, for the purpose of shortening the argu- Ment here and to avoid troubling the learned to know whether I am to speak of the gs if It was not governed by vhat decision. { Daniels—We will undoubtedly toliow what , was decided in that case, uniess some very clear guthority sbould be given that would constrain us erride It. “yr. Field—Will the Court ascertain from my friends on the other side whether they admit tue it whieh 1 give of their coustruction of nm is accurate ? Daniels—We shall hear you, Mr. Field, as ‘as you desire; but 1 understand, of course, upless e controlling authority is adduced ‘we shall be governed we shail, of course, to follow that decision. . Ficld—Of course there can be no controlling gothority. This is the latest of all. Ido not sug- that there is @ decision of the Cour: of Ap- that ig later, nor do I Know there is a judg- ‘of the Supreme Court at General Term later. has been but just now pubiishea, Of IT make the suggestion for the sake Of facili- the disposition of this case, if, ig short, K place im the Oyer and Termiuer is not asthe wind I cannot argue this case ‘tall bere; u there be anything whatever in the there [have only to mention that case a ind this order must be afi:med. ‘tbat that is 50, however. Westbrook—So far as I am concerned I wil inion, . you with great pleasure. I wrote that ‘and am entirely conversant with the . Field then eded with his argument, He said the relator, Witten M. Tweed. ls confined lant, a6 the defend 4 rden of the New York Py renner, on Blackw Island, upon a com- Plyee se ey the Oyer Terminer, stating that on conviction by the verdict of a jury of misde- he was sentenced on the fourth coant to 3 ‘im in the said Penitentiary for the term ol one year aud vay 4 doe of $250, The num = | while chi | and there be s@onviction one y | the County Jail and a fine of $250.”” | trial, antil after vhe verdict, there was notthe | degree of | view entertained. | by possibility, bave affected the jury, although | ido not admit | NEW YORK HERALD, SATURDAY, JANUARY 9, 1875—WITH SUPPLEMENT. recited om the commitment are it the way, bh eae op On 197 C01 on the first, prisonments Stands were to and county of braced m tee iw Yor«.” | | no sentence at ail. The mitted to the Penitentiary on the 291n of vember, 187% and bas ever since, and imposed on Bim by this sentence bas been discharged from confine: quent sentences. There were two trials, both be- fore the same Judge, the jury having disagreed upon the first, On that trial it was ited by the defendamt’s counsel that the indictment charged different offences, upon which It was possi- ble that cam@lative sentences might ba demanded. | Possibie resuit, was repudiated | and aiso by rea | he used tnis lan- my 3! emphasis. Oe Fg oe wage :—* trary, Gey ni Bare fhe } . varie! ‘of mis. ent, instead of hav- arty who 18 Charged witn Pemeanors in indtctm: ing forty 8 fifty indictmenis against Bim, is reatly relieved irom the consequences of fhe ol- ences from Be very a thet tuey are : im ve ats, if those counts are asingie mdi this case ihere fity-five pun! trne, and there Were fifty-five indictments found, the single act of inser them in a singlé imdictment, as 1 will reduce the punisnment to a at! again, ‘All tl ‘the Court has ruil ject 18 just Ihave heid misdemeanors. ubse- by the out one.” indictment, either on one or all, tor the purpose of punishment there can be but a sin- gie judgment; that 1s all. That is as far as the Court bas gou®. The Court could go no further, ex- cept with great inconsistency. They are at itberty to prove aa ey a! they can, and the jury wili renaer | thei verdict if they Gnd the party guilty under this count, and if gutity under others the verdict will be rendered; but when the Court pronounces | its judgment it must lock at the indictment as an | entirety.” These extracts are givec from the | record of the proceedings, the whole of which will | be submitted tothe Coart, tnat it may see whether | there be anything elsewhere to qualify what ts | thus stated. This ruling was supposed to be the law of case so far this Judge was concerned. ‘The prosecuting counse!, in his final address to the jury, said of the | defendant, “Finding against him a general ver- dict of ali these offences relieves nim from apy | future responsibility for a single one of these | Charges, @ result certainly beneficial to him, be- Cause instead of insisting upon filty-five punigh- meuts, which he basearned if these charges be | true, the people limit themseives to one single | ponisnhment. For if you find @ general verdict | of ‘guilty’ on them ail there can be but one punishment, the maximum of which 1s ear’s imprisonment in On the second slightest intimation, from the Court orcounsei, | that # different raie was sought or a different | On the contrary, on nearly | quite every occasion, when the atten- | tion of the Judge was called to any subject upon which be had ruled before, he was careful tor to his former ruling, and | to deciare that he adhered to it, and discouraged every attempt to reopen a discussion once had, But after thts trial bad ended with a ver- | dict of guilty, 8 change took place, and then he | made use 0: this language:—“I think | may say with truth that I came to this iriat in the outset of | the case with the same impression. I had not ex- | amined the question, but fortunately in this case | nothing has occurred throughout tue entire trial | that nas led me to express apy opinion | upen that question whatever that might, | we, aa lawyers, know that it could have | had no legitimate effect, even if expressed.” ‘Thereupon the Judge proceeded to pronounce the fiity-one cumulative sentences already mentioned. i i | This defect relates—tirst to the whole cause, | hat particular part of the judgment which mposes punisuments subsequent to the first. | be such defect the duly to dis- is clear, Bat | | Ir there charge -on haneas corpus | the impression te (the Judge who tried the case) | | gave, and when we are to.d ‘by Dim that he had | | ot examined the question, with the greatest pos | sible respect 1 mast say that itis most extraor- | dimary he should announce a raie of iaw of daily | Practice and be mistaken 10 nis rulings thereon. | | such a thing may be posstbie, and we are told | it did actually happen in tits case. The learned Judge did not atvempt to explaia by any ! citation of authorities why he couid have delivercd | | cumulative sentences, Our argum ig that | | there is no precedent for it tn the praciice of the | State during its whole judiciai history. It there | it, tf there is any lawyer wno | re the one mdict to two oe | T fhentiee us know ot ‘That it bag never been done we have the right to assome, vecause | we ask for an opinion on it, and we are told | | that there is none. 1i there 1s none, it means that | | the common law of the State says it cannot be | done. What is tne common iaw?t The law of cus- | tom, the iaw of practice. Itis the law remaining | in the breasts of the judges, the traditions of the | Court, the Jaw uhat is carried in the bosoms of the | Judges as they go from court to court. [tis in- e ask pO more. You ask cs Jor authority ; but you are our authority, I appeal to your presiding judge. Where do you see author- | ity'in the laws o1 the State of New York enjoming you to imprison a man by succes-ive imprison- -Inents under the same sentence? There ta no such authority. We are told to go eisewnere—to | Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and we wil find | some ‘authority there. Suppose we did find it | tnere. Do we go to Wisconsin for the law of our | own State? You eannot find in any treatise or | Opinion any such doctrine, u Lam not greatly mis- | taken. But im every case where there is the slight- est allusion to such a practice in Criminal cases Of a joindure of different offences it ts laid down that there can be only one penalty or one punwsh- | | ment tofiicted. Passing from the common law to stacute law, what does it sayr We have a code of | | criminal procedure, in which every case is set | down but misdemeanors, and in it we have » hid- | tory of the mode of criwinal proceaure; will you find there anything to justify the pun.shment in ‘ snia case? Not only is tuere entire silence on that point, but it is plied all througn that there ts no such rulc. What is the rule | laid down In 2 R. S., section 11, page 62, a pro- | vision authorizing successive imprisopments | where @ man is convicted and siready under sen- | tence of imprisonment on a different indictment ? What does that imply? Dves it imply that you can do that in any ovber case? If the Court | bad power to sentence im futuro, where is the need of that provision? No need what- The principal is that the Court which | has the power to imprison bas the power to im- prison in the present. You cancot have a sentence of imprisonment hanging over a man; a seutence | of imprisoninent to commence five or ten yeara | ti | hence. If you pronounce sentence of imprison- | ment upon a man that sentence must begin as | goon as youcan convey him to the place o1 im- | Prisonment, The statute is decisive against the doctrine contended for by the learned Judge in | this case, There is a case in the stututes decisive | againstit. In the records of tne Court of the | | nited States in the Northern District of this State there is a case, decided in 1859, where an in- | dictment Qrawn under an act of Congress expressly authorizes a union of different offences in the same indictment. It was an togictment ior forging bounty land warrants. There were several | distinct counts, and the party was convicted of the several counts and a verdict of guilty taken on each one for the purpose of getting cumulative | sentences. Judge Westbrook—What Is the title of the case? Mr. Field—The United States vs, Albro. There were four counts in the indictment; the case was tried at Canandaigua belore Chief Justice Nelson and Judge Hall. Ihe District Attoracy moved for a comulative sentence. If Lcould draw the pic- | tare of contrast, if 1 could show you toat venera- ble man, who had occupied the bench for nearly fifty years—with his head whitened in the service of the State—annouucing the common law as he knew it I would doso, But I cannot, and | will merely read his words: —‘‘Tne statate law does not change the common law as it exists in this state, and as administered tn this country. By the com- Monjaw a maa ts entitled to a trial for every of- fence he commits, be it high or low, by a jury of his peers, and he cannot be tried jor all or an; Domber of his offences beiore the one jury, an the government is not entitled to convictions founded on an indicument wnica contains a num- ber of offences; he can only be punished for the one offence charged in the one indictment, and I | shall sentence the prisoner to the longest term of | imprisonment to which he is table under apy one of the offences he is charged with under t! There are cases when there may be a joincure of different offences, bat that is not essental or per- tinent to tus case,'"? The Court—And where sentence can be inflicted | in each? Mr, Fie\d—Of course (here isa conviction on each; but can you point outa line in amy case Where sentences on every count has been im- posed? What does Judge Neilson say on this? He Says you cannot put a man on trtai before the one jury and hold him for punisnment on separate offences. That is the geolus of our institutions; the spirit of the comimon law inherited trom our English forefathers prevents tt and I trust never will allow it. When we come to the time that you pot a man into the box charged with 250 crimes and try him at once for all before the one jury— when we come to that—I can only say that the liberty of the citizen will depend upon pubic clamor and upon influences outside the jury box rather than upon the utterances of the Bencu or the verdict of the twelve jurors impanelled in the box. Judge Daniels—There ts a statute which author rizes the consolidation of ofences tn an indic ment, Mr. Field—I find nothing in the cases cited by the Court below to sustain it tn its judgment to disturb our position In any way. There 18 no case we can find in which the right to pass cumulative sen‘ences has been claimed or even hinted at in the State of New York. With these observations, which [leave to the criticism of counsel on the | ther aide, I pass to the next point, which is this: ‘hat the defendant cannot be sentenced to impris- onment for neglect of his duty as Supervisor. There ere four counts in each set. and thev are realiy for | being sen- | section | Bonors, that under tae common law a return to | ‘ tegal tmrough iapse of time, | tor the prisoner | is averred that the term of imprisonment under | legality | habeas corpua. megiect, as I construe them, though the; it forth hye for negiec: and one (or irauduient hate that to audit and diting fraud’ cbarge bim for not doing some! for dving something—an anomaly in ju Isnali comment on hereafter if any duty is ined per ing & pi Meovt, and such person or persons shall n perform that duty, where no srecial provision ts meade for the punishment of said delinquency it Shall be deemed @ misdemeanor. Now as to the rignt of chalienge. A law was declaring what should be a cause of prinol| challenge, The law was taken advai Of in the Stokes case, and ibe Court of A) id in that case that that was 8 matter w the Legislature should regulate. ‘n gi the opinion of the Court, Jacge Grover said that the defendant couid not complain he still had the right of cnal- lenge by tavor, unaffected vy the principal chal- lenge, but scarcely was the ink dry on that de- cision when they it it before the Legislature end a law passed ¢ tthe Judge who decided the first challenge should decide the second also, tae ge ‘aside the very safevuard releired to by Judge Grover. That was not all; reiusea in this case to allow remp| Challenge except for one offence. w we all know that if there were fity-five o!- fences charged tm the indictment there would be fisty-five sets of jai 5 tion. we could Drove there were bat mn. Suppose eleven men on the jury, would that not be aa error of jurtsdiction? undoubtedly it would. Eleven jurors would not make a jury such 268 & man pat. bis trial te entitied to under the constitution, which declares that trial , by jury as i ior by Jaw shall remain inviolate torever. e to show that the jury thts Case were empanelled contrary to law, and on that ground we insist thal the jury was not competent to render a verdict, and tnat consequently there was no ground what- ever for the judgment that was pronounced, Lastly, we contend that tle Court was not a com- petent Court for the trial of the cause at all Fi these reasons 1 will go no further. I nave given you the law ana the provisions of the ute, and I ask if that is not enough? Here was @ mis. demeanor that was never vrought into the Court of special Seasions, but originated in the Court of Uyer and Terminer, contrary to all law and prece- dent. With this examination of our ovjections [ close, simply calling your attention to the tact that it appears by the papers that the indicument was found in the Oyer and Terminer on the com- | plaint of a private person. DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHELPS’ ARGUMENT. Mr. Phelps thea proceeded with his arcument. ‘This case has divided itself into two questions: one as to the orm of these proceedings and the | questions that may be reviewed under it; tne | otner as to the disposition that shouid be made of | itand as to its being properly betore the Court. | With permission of the Court I will submit my few | remarks as to the first branch of the case, of what | ts reviewable, ana Mr. Peckham will make such suggestions upon what relator’s counsel calls the | merits of the case, This is an extraordinary case, | as counsel weil remarks; extraordinary in the fact that’ the crimes charged were proved | against the prisover; extraordinary in thre | Ingenuity and kill counsel has | exercised in his behalf, and, as think, most ex- traorainary in the method by which it is sought to review the alleged errors committed tn the Court below. Lthink it 13 even Of grea er impoi tance to the administration of justice in this State to determine whether the question sought to be re- yiewed 13 properly reviewable than to determine | the questions themselves, as they may affect the | ue case, the case of the prisoner. But if 1t ts to be solemnly adjudicated and the higher courts of | criminal jurisdiction are to be summarily disposed | of by the opinion of any magistrate discharging the functions of a Supreme Court Commissioner | on summary proceeaiugs, then the formal process | oi law ior she review of errors on trial | may well dispensed = with. and we; snull need nO more writs of error or Courts of Ap- peal, so that the short cut may be adopted with great ease, and witn great rellel to prisoners, who will thereby even escape any possible danger of a new trial, that might be ordered by the Court of Appeals, and thus go scot iree upon any error im the Uourt below that the ingenuity of counsel may call tnto question. I therefore proceed to consider whetber any of the points raised below or here, to authorize the relacor’s discharge, should be considered in proceedings tn habeas corpus, submit, as it appears by the petition ou which the writ was toundey, by the return to the writand | the relator’s answer to tt, that he was, held and detained by a final judgment of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, and that con- | sequently, without uny proceedings further, it is the duty of the Court below to discuarge tne writ and remand the prisoner. There are certain | things admitted to be set up by the relator, called | &u answer or traverse to the retora, certain mat- tera complained of a8 having been improperly | done by the Court below, matters which might ; have been inquired into if there was a case 0! de- | tention under civil process. Bus under the doctrine | roling in tis case, and with woich the Court is familiar, it seems to me quite ciear that none Of these questions are to be considered in this proceeding. Nor ts tue position altered by a conalderation of the provisions of the forty-eightb of thé Hibeas Corpus act. It provides thak the purty brougat before auy such Court or of- ficer, on the retarn of any writ of habeas corpus, may deny any of the matertal incts set forth in the return, or allege any tact to show either that his imprisonment or detention 1s unlawful, or that he 1s entitied to his discharge, which allega- tions or denials shall be on oatn; and thereupon such Court or oficerghall proceed in @ summary way to near such allegations and proofs as may lutely. This is suMcient answer to the whole com- 0 Mr. Peckham followed in an argument upon the briefy responded to by Mr. Field. mounced tl a rendered on Monday next. MORGAN JONES’ PLUMBING BILL Morgan Jones in 1871 did some plumbing for the city, his b.ll for the same amounting to $1,500, Mr, William M. Tweed, who was then Commissioner of Public Works, for some reason fatled before his deposition from office to sign the usual certificate setting forth the necessity of the work. Mr. Van Nort, the present Commissioner, refused to give the certificate because he knew nothing about It, He certified, however, that the bill was correct according to the books im his office. Mr. Jones, consideriug the sum of $1,800 a matter worth looking alter, brought suit againat the city for ite payne: *. The case was tried before Judge Von Vorst in the Superior Court, where Mr. Jones was defeated, a verdict being directed tor the city on the ground of no certificate baving been given by the head of the department of the necessity of the work, as required by statute. Mr. Jones did not let the matter reat here. Applica- {ton was made yesterday iu the Supreme Court, Chambers, before Judge Brady, for a peremptor) mandamus against Commissioner Van Nort, cirec! ing him to make a certificate as to the necessity of the work. Mr. Dean, Assistant Corporation Counsel, insisted that 4 mandamus could ot issue to control the conscience of Commissioner Van Nort, inasmuch as he had already stated that he. had no knowledge of matter. It was con- tended on the other side that the matter of giving certificate was merely ministerial, and that the jae should be given oecause tl rmer Super- intendent of Repairs and Supplies bad certiied to she onrrectness 9 A mot gu she same had been Pp on file, Ju ly took the papers, re- serving bis decision. COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER. THE MADISON STREET HOMICIDE—CASE CLOSED FOR THE PROSECUTION—OPENING FOR THE DEFENCE. Before Jadge Barrett. f The trial of Thomas Hays for the alleged mur. der of Thomas E. Delaney, in September last, at tne curner of Madison and Jackson streets, was | resumed yesterday. It ts evident from the large crowd in attendance that a good deal of interest | is felt im the case, As on the previous day, the pria- oner’s wife and her two small children sat by the | prisoner's side. Several additional witnesses were examined :or vhe prosecution, but no facts were | elicited, Mr. A. Oakey Hail, the prisoner’s counsel, | then briefly and in his usual cogent and impressive Style, opened the case for the defence. He ex- plained the flight of the prisoner, and insisted that the evidence he should adduce would | clearly establish tat the homicide was in sell- deience, and that the highest possible verdict under the most extreme view of the circum. | ughver in the fourth tthe prizoner was knifo, and that 0 ‘al pistol Was acci- the suosequent wrangle the dentaliy discharged. Police Surgeon Powell was the first witness called for the detence. He testified that at the request of the Captain of the precinct he exam- iued the wounds of the prisoner; thar he found a severe cut on the neck and one on the hand, which proneny might have been inflictea by a knile. | ‘everal other witnesses wero examined giviug | their various versions of the affair. The closin: Witness of the Gay was the prisoner. He testified | that tne deceased assailed bim with a knite and | that he was trying to prevent serious injury to | himself, when bis pistol was accidentally dis- charged. ‘The trtal will probably consunie the whole o! to-day. SUPREME COURT-—SPECIAL TERM. Before Judge Van Brunt. POWER OF A CORPORATION TO EXPEL A COR- PORATOR. The Metropolitan Insurance Company was threatened with expulsion from the New York Board of Fire Underwriters pecause it did business with brokers not members of the Board of Insur- ance Brokers, in violation of a rule of the Board of Fire Underwriters, A temporary injunction was ootained restraining the Board irom taking any action In the mutter until the trial o1 the case, Which came on yesterday in tais Court. The main point | at issue was the right of a:corporation not having | the power of expulsion expressed in its charter to | expel a pets Reh for violation of a rule claimed ot to ve in accordance with the charter, The | Court took the papers. J.C. Parsons and J. M. Varnum for plaintiff, and Wiluam L. Butler for deiendant. SUPREME COURT—CIRCUIT—PART 2. | DECISIONS. By Juage Van Brunt. Fallon vs. The Mayor, &c.—Case settled, Brinckley vs. Brinck!ey.—Case settled. Vermilyea va. Suydam.—Allowance. SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS., DECISIONS. By Judge Brady. be produced in support of such imprisonment or detention, or azainst the same, and dispose of any | such party a8 the justice of the case may require. It ia a familiar doctrine, well known to your the writ of habeas corpus 1s conclusive where sum. | mary proceeding follows the inquiry made, ‘Ihe | answers to tue writ cannot be questioned, cannot | be traversed, and the facts canuot be denied. | And however false they were tne party 18 without yemeay. But on a question of faise return against | @ party, the authority‘of the oficer making It, for the purpose of obviating anything that migit ac- crue to a prisoner trom being dela and detained by a false return to a writ, wherein he might set up @ ground for imprisonment which qid not exist at all, the English stat- ute provides that inguiry shall be made, ; | that the ‘acts shail be traversed or the facts set up aliundo, In tais case they can show thai the imprisonment was originally illegal, or became &c., and for tis arpese the Jorty-elgnth section of the Habeas jurpas act Was drawn, providing that a paity, il he could show that the statement to the return was falsely made, or could show that some- thing had occurred since the imprisonment which rendered his imprisonment no longer legal, could have his case reviewed, Tne ob- ject Of the forty-eighth section was to provide re- dress for a party restrained of ois liverty without due process of law. In the vase of Prime (1 Bar- | bour, decided in 1847) there was a case where the | relator complaimed trat the officer was an inferior | officer and had acted without jurisdiction. But the Court said, we will not review this habeas cor- pus. The question was whether the atidavit was | necessary to give the Officer jurisdiction acd was | suiticient for that purpose, That was a question Mcer had to decide for himself—whetier be had sufficient jurisdiction by the warrant. Hav- | ing passed upon that, the case might be reviewed by a@ writ of certiorarior by @ writ of error, but could not be reviewed by a writ of habeas corpus, There was a case wnere questionable jurisaic- tion had been exercised by an inferior officer, the Judge dissenting; and in the same case, Mi Justice McCunao dissenting from his bi . expressly states that he agrees with | them, upon a writ of habeas corpus, where | the officer returns the warrant upon which he | olds the party, if the warrant 18 good upon t:s | face, that is all that can be inquired tato, pro- | vided tt ts issued from a court of competent juris- | diction.” There never has been an instance in | this state under the Habeas Corpus act where it has been attempted to exercise the power claimed im this case, and no case hag been cited by counsel showing such power. | But tt it might be claimed, under any circumstances, under the forty-eighth sec- tion that the Court can inquire, it cannot be done in this case, for the relator has negiected | to comply with the requirements of the section, It says that on the coming tu of a return the re- lator must, under oat, deny any of the material facts alleged in the return, and must allege other facts to show his imprisonment was illegal; that | he was and is entitied to discharge. He has not done eitner. He has not dented the facts, nor has | he alleged tacts to show nis imprisonment is ille- gal. the Court will look at his so-called erse to the return there is not a single aliegation of facta irom beginning to end, except the one in the eighth paragraph, where it such pretended warrant has expired, That 1s the | only one which contains an allezation of fact. Counsel thea proveeded to review the relator’s points ag to the power of the Court of Oyer and ‘Termioer to order @ prisoner convicted of misde- | meanor to be imprisoned inthe Pen,tenttary of | the city of New York; the allegation that he being | @ Supervisor he could only be fined aud not imprisoaed; the Constitutionality oi the Court | to the cumulative sentence it did and tae of the jury. Closing with this part of his argument he t‘—Abother pout urged 45 a ground of dischai ge of this proceeding 1s ‘the tie. gality of the jury,’ being, we suppose, the matier tended to be ‘set up in the fourth paragrapn of the relator’s answer. As there was no evidence whatever on that subject given below, nor any specification of illegality in the answer, we are quite at a loss to know in what the lilegal- ly complained of consists, and till more puzzled to understand how any illegality in the tmpaneliing of the jury can be @ Jurisdictional question, or reviewable upon | lor the plainuff of $2,000, The case will again be | { Rockland County Nitro Glycerine Company va, Sweet et al.—Motion for attachment denied, Levy vs. Baltic Lioyd Sieamsbip Company.— | Memorandum. | By Judge Davis. Intho matter o/ Fanny Levy, to vacate asseas- ment.—Motion granted. SUPERIOR COURT—CIRCUIT—PART 2. | HEAVY DAMAGES FOR SMALL INJURIES. Before Judge Seigwick. In March, 1868, William K. Clare was passing by tne National City Baok in Wall street when a plank fell from a second story window of the butid- ing, striking nim a glancing blow on the head, and, in his fall, one of his fingers was lacerated. He brought suit for $10,000 damages. The case, after two trials and once going tu tne Court of Ap- als, Was retried yesterday. It was shown that Re'wasiaid up about a week and tuat bis paysi- | cian’s bill was $39, The defence was that the bank Was not liable, inasmuch as the repairs in | ogress on the building were being done bya contractor and that the plaintiff was guilty of contributive negligence. A verdict was rendered appealed. Tratuer R, Marsh and James S. Stearns for plaia- tf, and William H, Arnoux for defendant, NO PAY FOR A BROKEN ANELE. Caroline Hyde lived in a tenement house on First avenue and Fifty-fifth street, owned by John Doran. The stairs were in a rickety condition, and she fell down them, breaking an ankle, for which she brought suit against the landlord for $10,000 damages, It was shown that she had lived in the house two or three montis, and that the stairs were in @ bad condition when she moved in. Under these circumstances Judge Sedgwick held that she was guilty of contributive negligerce; that the landlord was not liable, and that the com- plaint must be dismissed. Mr. Blythe and J. D. Raymert for plaintia; George W. Wingate for defendant. FEDERAL PRESENTMENTS ON INFORMATION. United States District Attorney Bilas, in the ab- sence of a Grand Jury, laid the following cases before the courts on iniormation, as is usual in such exigencies :— John Cartez, for illictt sale of cigars, John Henry, for smuggiing cigars. Le Gillick, for non-payment of special tax on whiskey. Francis Martinez, for violation of the Internal Revenue law. Emanuel Posado, for the illicit sale of cigars. Louis Barras and Juan Morales, for illicit sale and manulactare of cigars. All these cases"wege placed on file and ordered fo: trial in the January term. SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. DECISIONS. By Chief Justice Monell. Orane vs. Doane et al.—OUrder sottied and re- ceiver appointed. Wiseman vs. Remington Sewing Machine Com- pany.—Motion denied. Murray vs. Reeve et al.—Motion fur reference granted, See Memorandum ot decision. By Judge Curtis. Kruepfel vs. Kings Connty Fire Insurance Com- pany.—Findings and requests to find settled. By Judge Sedgwick. Willmont vs. Meservle et al.—See memorandum for counsel, COMMON PLEAS—EQUITY TERM. DECISIONS. By Judge Loew. James vs, Burchell,—Order settled. Krekeler vs, Thaule et al.—Decree order settled MARINE COURT—CHAMBERS. DECISIONS. This claim certainly furnishes an additional lilustration of the evils incident to sach @D application of this writ as is contended for here. A Court of Error could not discharge a prisoner, because the jury by whicn be had been | convicted had been uniawiully impanelied, but would in such case direct a new trial. Why the Court or oMcer issuing writs of Labeas corpus should have more power than the Court of Appeals we do not see. The effect of the position claimed woula seem to be this:—The trial Court has juris- diction of an offence and of a prisoner, and it pro- ceeds Within that jurisdiction to bis trial, Itim- anela eleven jurors according to law. It vio- ‘ates Jaw and commits error in impanelling the remaining juror. There is, then, no jury lawiully impanetied, and the Court by this error haa de- prived itself of jarisdiction, ab initio, and its proceeding’, became void nonce pro tuuc, and | there!o: | Capron; Rogers, @ «be vriduner must be disharwed abso. | By Judge Joacnimsen. Kranhowitz vs. Conen; Rhine va. Frank; Wood. | ruff vs, Lefferts; Averill vs, The New York Loan | and {ndemnity Company; Westerfelt va. Radde; Hecker vs. Anthony; Goddard, &, vs. Schwab; Scheider vs, Goldmann.—Motions denied, &c. So!omon vs. Brinkman; Mouiton va, Wood; Hogan vs. Croker; Frye v8 Davis; Jung vs &c, vs. ‘The French Manutactur- ing Company; Frederick vs, Smith; Bowen v3. Fry; Bowne Murphy.—Motions granted Downing vs. ither.—Motion to open default granted on terms. Van Rensselacr ys. McOarthy.—Motion to open default granted on terms. Wiimore va. Levy.—Motion granted on payment Ol $10 costs and disbursements. Siote v8. Hastie.—Motion granted on payment Of coats and disbursementa, | it wags found that the COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. Before Judge Sutneriand. ROBBERY IN A OHATHAM STREET SALOON. ‘The whole of yesterday's session was occupied in the trial ofan indictment for robbery against Frederick Hoypaer and William Benson. The ac- cused demanded separate trials and Benson was tried first, The complainant, William Haselhof, & discharged soldier, testified that at midnight on the 29th of December he visited Hoypaer's salon, No. 164 Chatham street, and while drinking in a tg forciniy took $140 irom 60) TBO L, mn, who was the barkeeper, im while the crime was being perpetrate Officer Wai fled that he accompanied him down tu the saloon, and when the proprietor and the barkeeper were shown to him he said that they were not, the men d Haselhom positively asserted that he identified the men; he said that be bad bose drinking that might, but knew what he was about. Benson tes'ified in his own behalf, and said that he never saw the complainant until be came in With the policeman, and that he knew ing of the robbery. The jury deliberated for an hour and rendered a verdict of guilty. Assistant District Attoraey Nolan stated that he would try the other defendant # week from next Monday, and asked to have an aduitional panel of flity jurors summoned. His Honor made the order, and sentence of Ben- son was postponed till after the triai of buypaer, LARCENY. Edvard Drumgole, who on the Sth of last month stole a gold watch trom the person of Harry Mullen, pleaded guilty to an attempt to commit that oGence. He was sent to tue State Prison for two years and six montns, TOMBS POLICE COURT. THE GERMAN FORGER. Before Judge Smith. Richard Siepert, a lean-logking German, Was ar- raigned at this court yesterday aiternoon to an- awer three distinct charges of fraud and forgery. It appears he was arrested on Thursday night by OMcer Anderson, of the Fourteenth precinct, on complatat of Peter A. Betz, of No, 243 Centre street, who charged him with having on the same day attempted to pass @ forged check ior $47. When brvaght to tho Muiverry street station risoner actly an- swered the description given of a man whom Mr. Henry Vetteriain charged with having passed @ bogus check for $53, drawn on the German Ex- cnange Bauok. Yesterday Mr. Unarles Letzinger, of No. 287 Bowery, identified Siepert as the persun who passed a forged check upun alm for $42. Each of these gentiemen made complaints against Siepert, woo had nothing 'o say when formally examined. The prisoner isa tall, thin mao, and looks very much like a soldier, being dressed in a plue blouse and wearing a long mnstache. He was held in deiaul¢ of bail to answer the charges preferred against him. A LOBT OVERCOAT. On New Your's Day Mr. Frank J. Kilpatrick lost a fur beaver coat, valued at $50, from the hallway Of No. 326 West Fiity-sixth street. He was at a loss, as to how it had been taken, but trusted to the great detective, “Time,” togolve the mystery. A jution came sooner than he had anticipated, ior esterday he learned trom Detective Kealy, of tne it. Nicholas Hotel, that James Price, a hackman, had taken it. Price acknowledged the tneit to Kealy, and was yeaterday arrested vy him, and, on Complaint of Kilpatrick, locked up to await trial BURGLARS, James Bennett, Huh Nelson and William Casey were brought to Court yesterday morning charged with burgiary. They were found inthe siore of | ©. H. Booth & Co., and it is charged that they tapped a cider barrel and absiracted by mea: of astraw ascertain unknown quantity of app ju:ce therefrom. How they got into tie store ‘a matter which, it is hoped, the watchman m: be able to explain, agit is though: that tne threo men have been in che habit vi sleeping on the premises with bis permission. They were held in $1,000 each to answer at General Sessions. A YOUTHFUL COMPLAINANT. “Tim” Kennedy, @ little boy aged eight years, appeared before Judge Smith yesteraay afternoon. He was so small that the Judge could not see him | over the bar, so Sergeant Quinn lifted Tim up and he told his story as follows:— “My father licked me © go hard he nearly killed me, and { want to have him locked up. This policeman (poln'ing to an officer) took him up Jor me, and il you put om away he can’t kul me,” It appears that Timothy Kennedy, the father of “Tim,” 1s 8 man aboutiorty years of age, healthy and able-bodied, who is too lazy to work, and in ord-r to support bimseif he bas irom time to time compelied Tim and hts lit tle sister to 0 and beg on the atreet, -Adew days age the lit je girl refused to do tis bidding sod he fogged ber unmerouuily. Yesterday Tim revelled, aod ior bis audacity he was trounced severely; hence the charge. This case would be a~govd ove for the new Society for the Prevention of Crucity to Chu- dren to begin operations on, The fatber was held to anawer tne charge o! assault and battery. MINOR CASES, Patrick McDonough, of No. 359 Broeme street, yesterday charged Michael Williams, of No. 102 Pits atreet, with having stolen from him $4 Williams was held in default of $500 bail to answer. Abraham Moses keeps a pediers’ supply store at No. 61 Bayard street, which is the resort oi itinerant Hebrew pediers, among oth Bargman, who, according to Abraham's story, yesterday tricd to obtain goods without paying for them, ‘The goods in question consisted oO! one dozen boxes of parlor matches, and were valued at $1 20. languisbes in the Tumbs, hay- August! ing no kind iriend to go security tn $300, JEFFERSON MARKET POLICE COURT. HIGHWAY ROBBERY IN THOMPSON STREET. Before Judge Otterbourg. At four o'clock yesterday morning Officer Crook, oi the Eighth precinct, saw a negro running out of the alleyway No. 59 thompson street, and heard cries for help from ah unseen person. He pur- sued the nezro and captured him after a brief race. Retuiming to tne spot he met Edward O'Hagan, of No. 92 Baxter street, woo informed bim that he had been assaulted and robbed of his watch, which was jound lying in the street. The prisoner, Who gave his name as rles Watts, ‘was held by Justice Otcerbourg in $1,500 ball, ANOTHER HIGHWAY ROBBERY. About ten o'clock on Thursday evening, as Mr. Soseph Hyde, of No, 430 West Forty second stree:, was standing on the corner of West Forty-second street, he felt a nand in bis pocket. He turned to | seize the man, and received a stunning biow which feliea him. He managed, however, to shout for help, and his cries brought Officer Reilly, of the « ‘Twentieth precinct, to tne scene. The highway- men thon desisted from the attack and sought escape, The officer followed ana captured Thomas Binkely, but tailed to secure his companion. Biakely was held in $1,500 to answer @ charge of attempted highway robbery, ESSEX MARKET POLICE COURT. Before Judge Murray, AN OFT TOLD TALE, Alexander Porshen, 01 No. 225 East Forty.cignth street, appeared as compleinant yesterday against ® Woman named Rose Stetson, After spending some time in her society he was about to take his leave, when he suddenly missed his waten. He turned to demand an explanativn, bat Kose was 1n too much Of @ hurry to wait and took to fight. Porshen pursued aud caught her, bul did not get bis watcu. Officer Horgan, of tho Seventeenth Pate then arrested her, and Judge Murray , eld her in $1,000 vat! to answer, VICTIMIZING PHYSICIANS, James Williams, an account uf whose exploits appeared in yesterday's HERALD, was arraigned yesterday before Justice Murray, He was in charge of OMcer King, of tho Central office. The publication of his arrest caused a number of com- Plainants to appear in the court room, all of whom bad suffered more or jess from his depredations, which seem to have covered quite a long period. Ma:ia Owens, @ servant in the employ of Dr. Robert McNelily, of No. 311 West Nine:eenth street, depored that the prisoner came to the Doctor's Oftice under pretext of being tll, and, while wait log, carried off a coat and meerschaum pi valued at $60, Mra. Dr, Kaen, of No, 66 University lace, charged the prisoner with having, in tober last, Btolen & watch and other jewelry, worth $96, by practising a similar ruse, Thomas Malone, in beball of Dr. J. P. PB, White, of No, 19 West Twenty-first street, made aitidavit to losses stained by that ystcian, and the victims were so numerous that the lateness of the hour precluded the taking of additional com- | plaints, which were deferred until to-day, The prisoner ts an old offender, having already served a term in the State Prison, All the wit- nesses identified him by means oi a uilar scar on the cheek, Judge Murray patiently listened the different complainants, and will give each full hearing. To make sure, as tar as in his power, of putting an effectual stop to careor of Mr. Williams he held hii in $1,000 hail on cach separate charge. FIFTY-SEVENTH STREET COURT. Before Judge Bixby. A SWINDLER ARRESTED, Josoph J. Rutger, of No, 556 West Filty-frst street, caused the arrest of Peter Gilmartin and Richard Hoey, two respectable looking men, Whom he chargea with collecting money for the burial of @ woman named Martin, who they falsely re fonied had died in déatituce circumstances, th sy wera cominitted for eXamination until other vide / to | a —— from, the accused having col- money. A POLICEMAN’S SPREE. Judge Flammer had before him at this court yes- terday an examination into the charge Of sasauit and battery preferred by Ofmicer Frazer, of the Tweaty-second precinct, against Samuel Hall, Michael Kenney and James Boyd, About two o'clock A.M. on the 1st inst, it was shown a crowd of Rie) men were oollected in a liqaor store on corner of Forty-fourtu street and Ninth avepie 0 listen to the sweet strains of a banjo, played by a well kno’ artist. At the wind up several policemen, some of whom were in uniloi ered and drank with the crowd, OMicer Frazer, who ts a special officer and was not in unitorm, remained in tl jaloon alter nis fel- low officers had le(t, rank from a bottle time can be heard he and di several times, until he finally became intoxicated. He then got into troub'e with the crowd and made two ineffectual attempts to arrest one man. This was, however, alter he had das “ring- man” jor two wrestlers, the result of which had been a fight. Tne officer swore in his affidavit that be had been knocked down by the accused and beaten in a brutal manner. They and their ‘witnesses in testifying to the foregoing tacts. ad- mitted the charge, but clsimed that they only acted in self-deience, and to prevent Frazer from shooting them without reason. The officer not belng present, on account of ulness, the turther examination was pestpoued for a few days, COMMISSION OF APPEALS CALENDAR. ALBANY, Jan. 8, 1875. The folowing is the Commission of Appeals day calendar for Saturday, January 9:—Nos. 291, 205, 298, 2v0, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309." Ad- jJourned until to-morrow at ten o’clock 4. M. A HUGE JOKE. An Explosion That Sounded Like an Earthquake. ANOTHER GREAT SCARE. The Shock Felt at a Distance, but Unnoticed on the Scene. One of the best jokes of the season was p'ayed on thousands of people yesterday by their own tertile imaginations. A nitro-glycerine explosion occurred on Thursday night at twelve o’ciock tn Pequannock, a iittle village some Seven or eight miles veyond Paterson, N. J., and about two miles from the Deiaware and Lackawanna Railroad. Thousands and thousands of people heard it, many were violently aroused from their sleep, and yet, strange to say, while the shock was dis- tinctly telt at Hoboken, at Paterson, at Nyack, at Spring Valley, at Passaic, at Ridgwood, at Engle- ‘wood and even in Westchester county, most of the residents of the very place ‘a which the explosion occurred did not hear the report, and knew noth- ing of it until they saw, yesterday moraing, tho débrigon the ground. This is a’ most remarkab'a’ circumstance, although it is not without parallel. There have been explosions before this which were felt at considerable distances more plainly than right at the scene of the aecident, but there probably never was one whica grew to such enor- mous and preposterous proportions in the minds: Of the people. The evening papers yesterday con- tained vivid and circumstantial reports of the “earthquake” which had startled Westchester county, Jersey ana Reckland county, and this earthquake was no more and no less tnan the shock of the explosion which was scarcely felt at Pequannock. THE BXPLOSION. ‘The “earthquake” which visited the classic vile lage of Pequannock occurred in the powder mili of Messrs. J. A. Rand & Co., No. 21 Park row, They Manulacture the so-called “Rendrock” powder, in @ Uttle frame building about ten feet high, situated in @ hollow and bullt against the side of a bill. The nitro-glycerine which exploded was to be used in the manufacture of the Rendrock powder, which is mainly employed for blasting purposes. On Thursday night, at twelve o'clock, the watch- man, 80 he states, discovercd that the tank con- taining some eight hundred pounds of nitro- glycerine was on fire. He became irigntened and ran atonce toward the boarding house of the other workmen in order to arouse them. He bad scarcely started, however, when the nitro-glycer- ine expioded with a loud report, and this made all | further efforts useless, The frame hoase was blown into the meadow below the bill and was torn into splinters, which were scattered for two hundred feet round, Yesterday morning ail that remained of the frame house could be seen in these spiinters, and the only other visible mark of the explosion was @ hole of about six feet depth in the ground, A LUCKY ESCAPE. The packing room across the way and standing only at @ distance of about 150 feet was poriectly intact. There @ considerable quantity of the powder is stored, yet was not damaged in the slightest degree. The. boarding house, about 200 feet distant, shows no marks of the explosion beyond a few broken panes of glass. A man who stood about 250 feet from the mill was not in the least injured, although, of course, he was thor- oughiy frightened for the moment. The superin- tenaent’s house, which is nearer than any otber, being only about fifty feet distant, sustaimed no daniage veyond hali a dozen broken panes 0! glass, and this was all tne injary waich the explosion did, The quantity o1 nitro glycerine exploded was about 800 pounds; the amount of damage was estiunateu by the agents yesterday at about $2,000, They think thatthe demolished structure will be | replaced by @ new one in & week, so that tne thirty men employed will not be thrown out of work, And these are all the results of the explo- sion which assumed yesterday the territying pro- Dortins of & vast earthquake and of a Nuge scare gener WILD RUMORS, Pequannock ts such an out of the way place that No reliable news had been recetved regaraing the bo ea up to a late hour inthe eveuing. Even 1m Paterson, which 1s only avout eight miles dis- tant, people circulated and readily believed the wildest rumors. Everybody had some story to tell of the great Me pa which had awakened him from his sleep, but »ovody happened to tell the trae one. Even the locality of the accident Wasunknown. The first report that reached the city in the morning was that an explosion had oc- curred at Meade’s Basin. On the train, en route terson, people were decided in their opin- 1 the mature of the calamity, Some said tt was a glycerine sxpioxion at Pompton, others de- Clared it was a powder explosion at Meade’s Basin, and there were others still who were in- clined to believe that it was some mysterious Vibration of the earth such as had recently visited Westchester county, One oiine most jaugnaole incidents wus that the superinteodent ol tne mill, who lives only flity feet from it, was aroused b; the shuck, but he thought it so slight that he told big wile the stove inthe other room must have tumbled Gown! Sv little was the shock seit at the very acene Of the expiosion. THE EARTHQUAKE SQARE, In Westchester county as well as in Rockland | county, where peopie’s nerves were set sensitive from the recent earthquake, the shock was felt distincily, and they were thoroughly irightened. Oue of the county papers, in speaking of this up- ueaval of subterranean torces, said:—‘The sbock was descrived as one similar to ‘hat produced by the explosion of a large quantity of gunpowder, and the frat impression was that some dreadful accident had occurred at cne of the ii ge powder miils im that section of the country. Careful in- Vestigation, however, and inquiry alnong persons wuo live in the neighborhood of the places where the suock was ieit indicate that it really was tho result of an earthquake o' more or less violence,”’ Mr. John G, Haiselberth, the Post ofice agent at Nyack, gave a startling picture of the severity of the earthquake at that peaceiul village. Mr. John Cruiks) Secretary of the National 1 Broadway, who lives at Spring Valley, shook violently, ‘as it someboay nocked the roof of.”, The clock was striking tweive, and he thought ‘some. thing serious bad happened,” so that he dressed himseit and aroused his servants, The report sounded to him as though a cannon had been fred off near his jront door. He said it 13 not accom. panied by “the vibrating or undulutory motion which uadally accompanies earthquakes,” and thought it was “evidently some mysterious phe- nomena of naturi The report of the evening journal goes on to say that “at first the theory that an explosion had occurred was entertained, but it was aiterward found by comparing notes that tne disturbance bad deen felt over so large @ section of the country that this explanation could not account for it. The shock was ‘elt not only at Nyack, Spring Val- ley and Little Fails, bat also at Paterson, Engle- wood, Tenafly, Taliman’s and Monsey, and seems to have been 0! almost equal violence in all i No additional information on the subject has ag yet been received by telograpn, and it is provable that many persons who lelt.the shock agcribed it to an explosion instead of its real cause.”” In Paterson the policemen were rushing about frautically, thinking that some great boiler ex- plosion had takén place; men and women put (CONTINUED ON NINTH PAGE.]