The New York Herald Newspaper, March 2, 1875, Page 8

8 THE COURTS. The Extradition Case of Carl Vogt | Decided. REND ERED HE Is TO BE SUR | Application to Vacate the Harry Genet Attachment. THE ROLLWAGEN WILL CASE. Important Decisions in the Com- mon Pleas. | Some time since application was made on denalf @f the Budson River and New York Central Rail- | road Oompany to have the Metropolitan Gasligns Company sell them a triangular piece of land River, to be used for turnouts in reaching its | grain elevators in process of construction by the fiver. Judge Donahue yesterday granted the ap- plication, and appointed Messrs. Edward P. Don- polly, Joon & Lawrence and Joun Hayes commis- Moners to appraise its value. A motion was made yesterday, before Judge | Curtis, in Superior Court, Spectal Term, for a com- Mission to take the testimony vu: Spence Pettus in g@euls brought by the New York Guaranty and In- @emnity Company against Roberts and Gleason, | glieged to be implicated in the forgery of railroad bonds with Pettus. The motion was opposed on the ground that Pettas, being a convictin State | Prison, his testimony could not be used. Decision | was reserved. \ A lengthy argument was had yesterday before | the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas, | om sn appeal from the decision of Judge Van | Brant, allowing $5,000 compensation to the com- mittee of the estate of H. B. Volah, the wealthy | Parsee merchant, some time since returned in a | state of insanity to his native country. Tue ap- | peal was made on behaif of the wite of Cola. | Mr. A. Uakey Hall argued the case for the appeal, gad Stephen A. Walker in opposition. The Court | took the papers, reserving its decision. | Ip the Court of Oyer and Terminer yesterday | forty-nine out of a panel of one hundred petit Jarors tailed to attend, Judge Barrett directed Shat the delinquents appear before him on Thurs- fay and show cause why they shouid not be pun- | fehed tor contempt of Cuurt. The Supreme Conrt, General Term, Judges Davis, Brady ana Daniels on the bench, entered pesterday on its March term. It was expected that decisions would be given on the cases argued @urmng the February term. The Court gave notici however, that no decisions wouid be rendered un. tu Monday next. Judge Donahue, in Supreme Court, Chambers, vacated yesterday the injunction granted tn the | Buit of Furman against the Buil’s Head Bank. It | was made conditional, however, that the defend- | ant give a bond of $5,000 to indemnily plaintia | for any damage he may sustain through the va- | @ating of the injunction. CARL VOGI EXTRADITED. The long-contested case, in which the extradi- fon of Carl Vogt alias Joseph Supp has been Staimed by two governments in succ: ssion—Orst by the government of the German Empire and afterwa:d by the Belgian government—nas at | Jast reached all put Its final stage. Yesterday Commussioner White rendered his decision hoiding | ‘Vogt for the action of the Executive, ana decid- (og that a fair case for sucn activm has been | prove against him. {t will be remembered that ‘Vogt was charged witn having, on the nightjof the Ast and 2d of Cctober, murdered the Chevalier de Bianco, a Belgian nobleman; then setting fire to | bis Toom, by which the body was considerably | Durned, and aiterward stealing irom a safe kept fm an adjoining room bonds and securities and moneys toa very large amount. He was supse- quently traced to this country and arrested and some of the stolen bonds and securities found | upon him. There was then no extradition treaty Detween Belgium and this couutry, but Vogt, | Deing a German subject, the German government applied jor nis extradition. On the evidence taken | fm the examination then held the Commissioner | recommended bis extraditiun and was sustained Dy the Circuit Court of this district. On represen- tation, however, to ihe Executive, it was held by the Attorney Genera! tha: Vogt couid not be pi amar under the German treaty, and he was jscharged, but again arrested for bringing stolen | jo gard into toe United States, In the mean- | me a treaty of extradition las been executed be- tween the Belgian goverowent aad tue United | Btates,aod which contaiis & special provision coveribg this particular case of Vogi. This pris- ener’s counse: holds to be just as unconstitutional 96 an ex post facto law, and an appeal will be tukeo jrom the Commissioner's ruling on that | point. Below we give COMMISSIONER WHITE'S DECISION. ‘The charge against the prisoner is the commiasion of | the crimes of murder and arson on the aight of the Ist id 2d of October. in the city of Brussels, in the | inguom of beigiui nis case came originally before | we When the Germai timpire was the claimant, and | when the crime 0: rvovery was siso alleged against tbe | dimeuity | inst wr: wi crlet. Tdo pot. however, undersiand that tue appeal in toat ease trom the Comissioner to the Circuit Court was so Much Upon his fludiny M ihe iact as it was upon his decision that the came within tbe rovisions of the ixtradition Treaty between the ited States and the th claiming government (the German pwpire), and that that gove: be ition if (he evidence su: ‘This decimon Was sustained vy the the case then came back (0 the Comiuussiope certified the proceed! the Kxecative Leparine wh together with his decision, to what a Warrant of extradi How might imue. t wasthén arguea ¥> praoner's coun pel agit had been previously berore che Circuit Court, that the alleged crime havin commitied within ‘ the Kingdom of Belgium the governinent had hy right to cialm luis extraditi and, nally, the Atiorney General come within the treaty. and charged. Subsequently a tre: the United States and the hinsigm of Be ovigions of which “murder and arson” 0 ees excluded from the eflect of the treaty, regarding ees Committed prior to the making of the treaty Tue oresent treaty, in express terms. in clades the offences charged, though comuutred iw Gent to the couctu of such \reaty. ihe charges @cainst the prisoner of murder and Brson. ihe alleged victim was the Chevalier de Blanc. T do not think it necessary to go into all the tacts dis- closed by the evidence ou Lhe loriner investgauion and ts preseuted on the jater examiuation. ry ‘voluminous, and, although entirely circumsta they lead. in iny judgment, to @ more Certain aud irresistible conclusion than is ih most cases Srrived at by direct evidence. Briefly uhe rm these :—On the morning « wober 2, is7l. When the fire was extinguishes took cuarge of ali the eifecte 0 ay in 0 adjoining room sealed up with au’ oMeial seal. alstraction of any of tts nts seems tw have been | paetble unless prior to the discovery of the fre. | On the | hoof Octover the sate was tor the first opened in the presence of (he authorities, and then for the first | overen that a robbery had been com mitted, ident with, or nearly so, with whe finding of | the body 01 the ‘ead Chevalier. This led to the suspi- | C18 oF & at might have been before | conside ire Was the work of deliberate oemgn and w and formed @ part of the comm On examinauon of Fy iound inne Dames, characters and amounts of certain securities, trom the facts proven in the case must have been, on eling ‘that, in the posse: admitied | isoner that he leit Brussels during the very Py 4 when these alleged crimes were amitted. tt fs Shown that he nad been an vecupant of and had access | fo and was (eimillar With the house through a servant of fhe Chevalier, who was bis (rend, On leaving Brussels he discarded bis real name and assumed another, ie is ret traced Wo 1. he Was in pos. d securities, and wl pent laree sams in with two women ad him trom sru © subsequently ar Fived here, and on his arrest vere were ‘ound upon him ponds and securities made out in the name of the Cheva- hherand which hud never been transferred by him in 7 way. iis statements and that of the woman wh reompanied him to the coumiry, as to how he ¢ mo ei tor t {ato pomess.on of these bouds, seciiritie conelier utterly anworthy of vel accused insists Whatever, if any, Foobery. tere is mo proof that Fit marder or arson inmitied by the prisouer in fact, no such crimes Bave been proven tw bave committed at all; but if they were committed they were committed by some person other than the pris- ‘such person was the Count du Val hevalier de Bianco In my jud, mt thy pr Warrant the assumption of the counsel fs also suggested tor the prisouer that the fire which ‘caused the death of the Chevalier de Bianco, if tt was caused vy fire was au her | of these — theork is vi dence. especially when Pr Coincident aud h. e | land is not necomsary nin this Investigation Kullt or innocence of risoner, but only Whether the evidence is. such as Guihorize aud Warreut bis commitment for trial ' | a human bein; | the widow, opposed the motio | discontinuance is DOt a matter ol right, butis a | was rau over, it was claimed at the trial in th | negigence. | that the tauit was wholly that of the driver, the recovery of a debt. under the ovhers were wustees was organized, could only reiieve themselves of liability oy fling within twenty days after the lat 0; January their report. the | holds thei to their first liability. NEW YORK HERALD, TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1875.—TRIPLE SHEET. here tf rhe all ertmee had committed charged agi . 1 do Conater the pares fieient tor t must therefore commit the prisone' to await the isuance of a warrant for his ition by the: per executive authority of the government. Tne Commissioner has forwarded the necessary certified papers in the case to tn itis likely be: ernment an ap; HENRY W. GENEI’S PROPERTY. It is under pretence of using the money in building the | Harlem Court House. An attachment was ob- tained against his property in 4 suit brought by the city to recover the money. Some time since & motiod Was made in Supreme Court, Chambers, to set aside this attachment, on the ground that it Was Lot set fortn in the amidavit upon which the attachment bad been grauted that Genet had ab- sconded for the purpose of defrauding bis cred- itors, This motion was denied and an appeal taken to the General Term, where the case was erday. Mr. Oliver W. West the at only paper upon which it was granted—an aM- davit of Henrv PF. Talntor—is totally and ‘atally insuMcien. Mr. West read from tiis aM@davit, and Claimed that tt was ali upon hearsay, and that it did not show that the city had any cause of action @xainst Genet; that it did not specify the amount | O! the claim against him; that it did not cuarge any fraudulent intent upon Genet; that it did not | snow that he tad departed from the State, or that | Wo the viciwity of Sixty-Mith street and Hudson | he ,ept himeeli concealed therein, all or some of which the code impe:atively requires to appear by the amaavit in order to authorize a war- rant of aitachment. He also read irom several decisions of the General Term and Cvurt Ol Appeals im Support of bis views, and tusisted with emphasis that in the absence of any ciarge of fraudulent mtent by the city such intent could | pot be assumed and imputed 1a tue case to Genet who, he saic, never was known to have cheated out of a dollar of his due. Mr. Jobo E. Parsons followed in venai( of the city, claiming that it was not necessary to charge any Intent, or iit Were, then that it was ipferrivle from the aMdavit, At the close of the argument the Court took the papers and reserved its decision. THE ROLLWAGEN WILL CASE. An interesting legal question involving the right of discontinuance of actions as matter of course came up in the Supreme Court, Chambers, yester- day belore Judge Donohue, in a branch of the famous Rollwagen will case. In an action begun in that Court by one of the heirs of Mr. Rollwagen to contest the validity of the latter’s will in re- gard to his real estate, the widow, as will be re- membered, made an application for a monthly allowance. It appears that the income Oo! the estate some $3,000 thiy, but that the widow has estate for her support. The contes- javing been success- tants of the Rollwageo will | ful atthe last General Term, on tne appeal trom | Chetwood _ Chetwood.—Motion granted by the Surrogare, were be sed to Srop | detautr. the Supreme Cou! made toe oar vo order SUPERIOR COURT—GENERAL TERM. lo | to cut off the widow’s application lor aliowance, Her attorneys refused to accept discontinuance, and the motion yesterday was made to com| them so to do. n on the ground tnat matter within the control of the Court, and that the Court exercise its discretion and refuse dis- continuance in case injustice would be done to yot the parties by permitting, Mr. Heury L, ntou supported the motion, by taking an oppo- site view o! tne case and citing opposing authori- ties. Jodge Donohue took the papers, reserving | his decision. SUPERIOR COURT—TRIAL TERM— PART 1. Before Judge Freedman. DAMAGES FOR PUTTING HIS FOOT IN IT. Iu 1871 Patrick McGahey was employed in the paper mill owned by Henry A. Philip and others Locust Valley, Long Island. He stepped into ahole for the reception of waste paper, when his foot was caught in the machinery, causing tnjurie: on account of which he was for fourteen months under medical treatment. He brought suit for $25,000, and the trial of the case was begun yes- terday in this Court. The defence is that the acci- cent occurred tnrough the plaintif’s own negit- gence, while it is contended lor the plainti® that defendants were guilty of neglect in not 80 pro- tecting :he hole aS to make such an accident im- possible. The trial is likely to occupy a day or two. SUPERIOR COURT—TRIAL TERM — PART 2. Before Judge Monell. KILLED BY AN ELEVATOR. Elizabeth Halliday brought suit against Wil- liam Watson & Co., to recover damages on ac- count of the killing of her husband through tne breaking of the rope of an elevator 1n a builaing owned vy Mr. Watson. The evidence showed that the deceased got in the elevator, which was loaded | witn goods, tnat the elevator ‘was only used for hoisubg ard levung down goody and that he had no business in it. Upon this state of jacts and the further tact that the deceased knew tue de- lective condition of the ro.e, the motion to dis- miss the complaint was sustaimed, on the ground of cumtrivative negligence. COMMON PLEAS—GENERAL TERM. Before Chief Justice Daly and Judges Robinson and Loew. EXONERATING A CAR DRIVER, William Failen, Jr, @ boy five years old, was run over by @ car of the Central Park, North and East River Railroad Company. As the boy ran out of bis father’s house on to the track and thus below that he was gulity of contribati On the other side it was contended A verdict was given for the railroad company and this Court sustains the jucgment. LIEN ON A BLOWN DOWN HOUSE. Io the suit of Muchlit against Rusk, plaintig filed a mechanic’s lien on a house of defendant; Court | but the tact came out on the trial that before the filing of the lien, but without the knowledge of the piaintif, the jouse had beea blown down. The | Court on appeal holds that under the circum- stances the j1en could not attach, inasmucb as at | the time Of being filed the house bad no legal or actual existence. A MARRIED WOMAN'S SEPARATE ESTATE. Mary A. Cantrell, @ married woman, became in- debted to Rose Conlin in the sum of $91 60 for services asseametress. The debt not being paid suit Was brought against Mrs. Cantrell to compel its paymenw Ine deience was that the debt being for vecessaries her husband was liable. The estate she is properly charged with the debt. Court Dolds that toe delendant having a separate i LIABILITY FOR A VICIOUS HORSE. The carriages respectively owned by George S. | Hastings and Kdward F. Young were stopped in close proximity on Broadway to make room tor a | procession. One of the horses attached to Mr. Young’s carriage kicked a bole through Mr. Hasiings’ carriage. The latter brought suit tor damawes, and Ju the Court neiow recovered a ver- dict in his iavor. judgment bas been reversea on appeal, the ( ourt hoiding tnat it was not sum. cient to #low that che horse did the kicking, but it must be shown (urther that Kicking was one of his characteristics, against which the defendant was bound to guard. RESPONSIBILITY OF TRUSTEES. A. G, Studwell and others were trustees for a No | manufaccuring company, and as sucn were sued by the Huguenot National Bank of New Paitz ior The evidemce showed that Mauulacturing act, ander which Stadwell and the later General Which the corporation of As they had failed to do this the Court | COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM. Before Judge J. F. Daly. A WARNING TO THE CONTEMPTUOUS. Some time m January last Juage Daly granted 8n injunction on the application of Colonel George H. Hart restraming one L. Stuart and bis servants from interiering with the premises of one Solomon Freedman, at No, 1,268 Broadway. At this time Stuart, who was tue lessor of the premises, em- | ployed carpenters with tue intention of construct. | ing a dumb waiter throngh the premises leased to Freedman. The boss of the carpenters employed is one Jonn Guy. The injunction order was prop- erly served on Stuart and shown wo the carpen- ters employed by Guy, and Guy bad Iuli Knowledge of the order, In defiance of tie injanction Staare and Guy continued the work on the dumb waiter, resusing restr. ined, Coouel Hart then applied to Judge Daiy for a rule to cause Guy and S.uart to auswer jor con. tempt of Court, which Juage Daly prompuy granted. Stuart and Guy appeared by aie coun- | sel, but Were not able to excuse Luemseives Lo the | saciaiaction of the Court, Judge Daly finding them guiity of wilial contempt of court. Judge Duly aujudged that Stuart aod Guy cacy should pay a fine 0; $250 Lo indemnuy Freeman for toe injury done lis rights and remedies by reason of the vid- lavion of the injunction, and that both Guy and Stuart be iwprisoned in the common jail of the Executive, but fore final action is taken by the gov- jal will ve made to the Circuit | Court Ot this district, as was doue on tne previous ruling of the Commisstoner. laimed by the city that Henry W. Genet irauduleotiy obtatned from the city some $300,000 not been, pending the litigation, allowed a cent | | out of this ei ir. Henry Arnoux, on bebalt of nty for 9 period of thirty Gays, and in case t re not paid to be further imprisoned until paid, mot exceeding thirty a The promptly paid, but on the parties satis- | iying the Court that their mteption was not ma- Herons in disobeying toe ibjunction, and the coun- sel for the platutif not being desirous of exacting the extreme penalty imposed, Judge Daly wae in- @uced to remit the imprisonment, but the tne of $500 was paid over to the Clerk of the Court. Before Judge Loew, INTERESTING PARTY WABL CASE. In February last Julia Oakley, as tenant of No. 20 West Trirty-second street, through Messrs. Hall & Biandy, her counsel, applied for an injunc” tion to restraim Jonn Fettretch from using her ‘wall as a party wall, and also trom carrying said | wall back the depth of his lot and raising its height, | Judge Loew fled bis decision in the case yester- day. He held “that the deiendant should be en- joined trom extending the party wall.” This importan’ os datatmin ot, the rights of tenant: and should be considered by all real estate own: DECISIONS. SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS. By Judge Lawreuce. Muller vs. Muller; Grundy vs. Baldwia,—Memo- for counsel, retort ve. Cruger.—I think that the examination shouid proceed. ogad ve. Oakley.—Upon payment of $10, costs of motion, the plaintim? may set ease down tor | srialon first Monaay of April Term and serve Dotice of trial tor that time. In the matier of Harris.—In this case the proofs | on the part of the city have been handed in, but | the papers origimaily presented and which were returned for want oi such prools have not been | submitted, | Inthe matter of Ferris.—There i fore me that notice of this ST a jon has been | given to the parties intereste |“ Hirsh vs, Hirsh.—In this case I think that | | there should be more specific proof of the previous marriage ol the defendant, Graham vs, Currie.—Motion vo strike out parts of answer denied, with $10 costs. Lewis vs. Ross,—Motion to file @ supplemental answer denied, with cost of motior Hyman vs. Brinn.—Upon payment of $10 costs of motion and the defendant's costs betore notice of trial this case May ve set down (or trial on the third Monday of March, otherwise the notice to dismiss is granted, with $10 costs, ‘ By Judge Donohue. Kamp vs. Burgrat!.—Memorandum. Wiswell vs. Ireland; Alton vs. Ledratd.-. Grantea. Hart vs. Bouctcault.—Denied, Wheldon vs. Kridel.—Motion granted; costs to abide the event. In the matter of the application of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Com- pany lor the appointment of commissioners of ap- praisai of land of the Metropolitan Gas-Lignt Com- | pany.—Appiication granted, SUPREME COURT—SPECIAL TERM. By Judge Van Brunt, Simpson vs, Dillion et al.—Memorandum for counsel. Getty et al. vs. Devlin et al.; Holloway vs. Ste- vens.—See opinio: ne froor be- | By Chief Justice Monell and Judge Freedman. Goldnerg vs. Dougnerty.—Order overruling the aes affirmed, with costs, Opinion vy Judge jone! McMicken et al. vs. Lawrence.—Judgment af- firmed. Opinion by Judge Freedman. Holtman vs. ‘Ireaawell.—Order peceetning de- aa aMrmed, wita costs. Opinion by Juage loneli. Roderigas, administrator, &c., vs, The East River | Savings Institution; Koderigas vs Same.—Judg- ments affirmed, ‘Toe American Corrugated Iron Company vs. Eisner et al.—Judgment afirmed, with Costs. Opinion by Judge Muuell. Richards et al. vs. Woodruff et, al.—Judgment atfirmed, Opinion by Judge Freedman. By Judges Moneil anu Van Vorst. Rao vs. The Mayor, &c., of New York.—Order afirmed, with co: Opinion by Judge Monell. By Judges Freedman, Curtis ana Speir. je vs, Tue Omaha National Bank.—Judgment aMrmed, with costs. Opinton by Judge Speir. COMMON PLEAS—GENERAL TERM. By Chief Justice Daly and Judg Loew and J. F. Duly. Seaman vs. The Mayor, &c.—Judgment reversed, new trial ordered; costs (0 abide event; opinion | by Judge Loew. | eu etal. vs. Buddensick.—Judgment aMrmed, ‘With costs; opinion by sade Loew. Contin vs Cantrell.—Judgmeat affirmed, with | Iated the Excise law Sunday, JEFFERSON MARKET POLICE COURT. Before Judge Otterbourg. THE WOOSTER STREET OUTRAGE. Charles A.- Blair, the colored waiter, who as- saulted two white women, named Jane Clark and Delia Talbo:, in the nouse No. 42 Wooster street, on Sunday night, Was arraigned before Judge Otierbourg yesterday morning. Both women | preferred charges against the prisoner, and he was held in $2,000 batt to answer at the General Sessions. Ihe women were sent to the House of Detention, ESSEX MARKET POLICE COURT. Before Judge Bixby. THE DELANCEY STREET STABBING AFFRAY. John Homan, of No. 79 Norlolk street, became engaged in a quarrel with Valentine Dabren, bar- keeper of @ saloon, corner of Ludlow and Delancey streets, on Satarday night last. Dabren stabbed Homan twice in the back and once im the ne ‘The wounded man was taken to Be: italand Dabrea at the time escaped. Ulcers er &Nd Sullivan, o! the Tenth precinct, however, succeeded in arresting Dabren on Sunday eve! ing. He was brought before Judge Bixby y ter- day, at Essex Market Police Court, and held in $1,000 bail to answer. COURT CALENDAKS—THIS DAY. SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS—Held by Judge Donahue,—No, 226, SUPREME COURT—GENERAL TERM—Held »; Judges Da Brady and Dantels.—Nos. 14, 1 17, 18, 21,2, Keeping open store on 27, 29, 81, 32, 33, 35, 36, 47, 44, 60, i, 62, SUPREME COURT—SPECIAL Texm—Held by Judge Van Brunt.—lssues of law and fact—Nos, 272, 174, 99, 100, 206, 210, 211, 212, 131, 65, 182, 166. 171, 61, 167, 140, 158, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 291, 222, 223, SUPREME COURT—CrncUIT—Part 2—Held b; Se e 1256, 1258, 1260, Van Vorst.—Nos, 1306, 1166, 1238, 272, 1: 1232, 1246, 1248, 1250, "1252, 1254, 1 1262, 1264, 1270, 1272, 1274, 127434, 1276, 1278, 1282, 1284, Part 8—Held by Judge Lawrence.—Nos, 1068, 847, 2329, 917, 1187, 830, 1830, 881, 775, 56, 877, 1663, 829, 1005. 1307, 224144, 1059, 1009, 1011, ‘1015, 1017, 1019, 1028, 1025, 1027, DUPERIOR COURT--GENEBAL TERBM—Held by (ee elgg and Speir.—Nos, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, SUPERIOR COURT—TRIAL 1ERM—Part 1—Held by Judge Monell.—Nos. 801, 1225, 925, 901, 919, 034, Cy] 489, 825, 887, 861, 713, 873, 559, 533. Part 2—Hel by Judge Freedman.—Nos, 962, 1022, 1024, 1030, 1042, 1080, 28, 908, 984, 1052, 1070, 1884, 963, 922. COMMON PLEAS—TRIAL TERM—Part 1—Held_b; Jude Robdiuson.—Nos, 2099, 404, 844, 1656, 1 378, 2432, 2359, 2315, 2316, 23204;, 2409, 2228, 2376, 2371 Serre 2.—Adjourned until the first Monday of ril. VoMMom PLEAS—GENERAL TeRM—Heid by Judges Daly, Loew anu J. F, Daly.—Nos, 29, 8%, 104, 108, 109, 111, 113, 115, 120, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 181, 182, 183, 134, 136, MARINE COURI—I'RIAL TEBM—Part 1—Held by Judge Spauldiug.—Nos, 961, 990, 1356, 1536, 1299, 4172, 1638, 2091, 1657. Part 2—Heid by Judge 1211, 2840, 1600, 1405, 1606, 1607, | 1480, 1586, 1182, 1083, 1636, Part 3~Held by Joachimsen.—Nos, 3047, 2531, 648, 2008, 3175, 3245, 5277, 207, 1260, 2110, 2504, 2726, 2903, 3041, 3087. COURT OF GENKKAL SEs8I0N8s—Held by Juage Sutherland.—The People vs. Charles Taompson, ing Same vs. William Martin, burglary; Same vs. Thomas McGuire and Thomas Broderick, bur- glary ;Same vs. William McManus, feionious assault and battery; Same vs, John Morrissey, Dennis Morrissey, Jobn Burns and James Falkner, telo- nious assault and battery; Same vs, Herman Rica- | arat, grand larceny; Same vs. Thomas Hamiivon, grand larceny; Same vs. Henry J. Helms, lorgery; Same vs. Hester J. Haskins, abduction; Same Vs. Henry Snellvack, opscene literature; Same vs. Heury Daniels, petit larceny (five cases). BROOKLYN COURTS. Before Judge McCue. ANOTHER SOCIAL SCANDAL IN BROOKLYN 80- CIETY. Yesterday morning the trial of the suit for ab- solute divorce brought by George 8. Mackenzie against his wife Chariotte J. Mackenzie, was com- menced in the City Court, Part 1, Judge McCue presiding. The fact becoming known that there was @ delicious scandal going on in the closest pioximity to the Beecner trial proved quite a consoling morsel to the morbid mourners aiter immoral sensations who were waiting in line, costs; opinion by Judge Loew. Thompson vs. Lumiey ev al.—Judgment reversed, new trial ordered; costs to abide event; opinion by Judge Loew. Groez va, Daly.—Order appeaied from affirmed | ‘with costs; opinion by Judge Loew and Chief Jus- tice Daly. sebukraft vs. Ruck et al.—Judgment reversed end juagment eave for deiendant; opinion by Cniei Justice Daly. Fallon, by guardian, &c. ys, The Central Park, North aud East River Kailroad Company.—Jud, ment affirmed with cosss; opinion by Cuiel Justice Astor va. The Mayor, &c.—Jndgment aM@rmed, _ wWito costs, Mion by Chief Justice Daly. ‘the Andes Insu:ance Company vs. Loebr.— Teargument granied. No opinion. The Huguevot National Bapk vs. Studwell.— Judgment reversed; new trigi ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by Judg> Larremere. Hastings vs. on ER & reversed, With costs, Opinion vy Ciel Justice Waly. COMMON PLEAS—EQUITY TERM. By Judge Loew. Oatley vs. Fettretcu.—See memorandum wita Clerk. Kenney vs. The Seamen’s Bank, &c.—Judgme: for piaintiff. See papers. gH Taylor vs. Goodridge.—Judgment for defendant. See papers with Cier& of Part 1. COMMON PLEAS—-SPECIAL TERM. By Judge J. F. Daly. jan vs. Martinson.—Case settled, an vs. Stuart.—Oruer signed. MARINE COURT—CHAMBERS. Sto Ba rove ss hart ut vs, Harreman; schermerhorn vs, Carter; Farena vs. Decker.—Motions denied. et Fosdeck vs. Wines; Willls vs. Donell; Elsworth va. Peters; Kidd vs. Vetersen.—Motions granted on memorandums. By Judge McAdam. Feoring ve. Robinson; Aileu vs. Asbestos Felt- ing Company.—Motions granted. ichards vs. Ellison.—Motion to open default | | | | with, By Judge Gross. fehlater vs. Evans.—M tion denied. 1¢ vice allowed. | By Judge Joachimsen. i sary. vs. Holman.—Juagment for piaintit, | Kahn vs, Moses,—Judgment for plaintiff, $147 20. | _ Pleuss vs. Capmann.—Complaint dismissed as not stating facts suMictent to constitute a cause of action, with costs. we vs. Sloessel.Iudgment for plaintiff, | e CUURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. Before Judge Sutherland. THE GRAND JURY. In the Court of General Sessions, before Judge Gay morning. Assistant District Attorney Nolan Tepresented the people. The Grand Jury were em- panelled and Join M. Aicott was appointed to act as foreirau., His Honor charge, simply confloing himself tu a recapitula- tion of the statutes whica the presiding Judge is Tequired to enumerate. LAaBCESY. Richard Fleming, ailas Richard Fianagan, who | ‘was charged with having, on the 1ith of February, stolen am overcoat worth $40 trom the house of Bmma Rein, No. 76 St. Mark's place, belonging to Marcus Cohen, pleaded guuty to an attempt at grand larceny. He was sent to the State Prison for eighteen months, The same sentence was passed 3 Patrick Carios, Who piended gniity to an idiot ment charging him witu receiving stolen goous. | It seems that the store of Gordon & Skully, No. 608 Pighth avenue, was burglariousiy entered on the 2th of December and $100 worth of property stolen, @ portion of Wich Was touad iv the pris er’s possession. Before Judge Smitb. ALLEGED CONSPIRACY. William W. Austin and Andrew J, Milligan were released on their own recognizance at this Court yesterday on the charge of conspiracy. It is al- leged that on Saturday iast Milligan obtained $11 from the wife of Clear Hussey, on pretence of pay- | tng his fine, he having been locked up in tne Tombs on a charge of intoxication. Austin went to the Judge, represented that Hussey was his triend 8 E y S| E sl e © t >] = A and asked that ne be released, Wien Hussey was brought up irom jail he said te bad never seen Austin before, bat that Milligan, Who 1s the runner of the jatl, bad come to Dum in bts cell and told him he (Hussey) Was fined Hussey sent Milligan to his wie to get the y. He got $1l, and gaveareceipt tor it. Yesterday Milligan and Aastin Were brougit be- Jore Judge Smith, Who discharged them on parole | to find ball in $200 each. . | VIOLATIN THE EXCISE LAW. Fred, Bergeman, No. 147 West street; Henry Hofer, No, 209 Fulton street; 206 Wasuington street; Louis Bowling, No. 186 West | street; Peter Craven, No, 1382 Greene street} Henry Eurpken, No, 265 William street, and Charles | Sehlagal, NO, 36 Frankiors atree @ yesterday | held iu $900 ball cack to anewe James Dorcher, No, | eran Hyatt vs. Smith.—Motion granted with costs | and $25 allowacce, unless cenditions are complied | vs. Hart.—Oraer for substituted ser- | Sutherland, the March term was opened yester- | delivered a brief | for Qaving Vid } 34, 46, 37, levue Hos- | hopeiessly awaiting an opportunity to crowd into the Plymoutn trial room. The | throng immediately emptied out of the cold corridors into Part 1, with an air of | gratification which bespoke the thought upper- most as they entered, ‘‘here’s richness.” The officers on duty at this latter couri room dia not question the genuiheness o/ the tickevs presented, but took them up in regular order as presepted. Some ludicrous imeients occurred, in which people from other iocalities found their way inio Jong time eagerly reviewing the scene and cast- ing about in vain for toe Rev. Henry Ward Beecher and ‘tempest tossed” ineodore, Une of | Ihe Officers remarked to the writer, “Now, sir, if We could only get Up aaowuer divorce suitin oue of the Supreme Courts on this corridor we would have no trouble with the crowds 10; vhe juture, aud there would be breathing room in the Beecuer trial. The case in point is one of considerable interest, owing to tie respectability of the plainud and deiendant in the sult and the gross nature of tue’ complaint. The ousbaod in his complaint alleges tnat be was Married to Coarlotie J. Mackenzie November 23, 1863, 1n Brooklyn, abd cvntinued to live with ber unul last October, when ne ais- covered for the first time that sne nad been guity of adultery witn several men. He ciarges that at his residence, No. 472 State street, sne has proved talge to her marriage vows wita James M. Kan- kin, A. G. Rosvoro and one David M. Coroitt. The intidelity with the latter 13 alleged to have taken piace at the house of Mrs. U. G, Beach, No. 14 Hanover place, a8 well as at the re dence of the pigintit. Charies A. Lewis 1s also one the alleged paramours of the wife. The plaintiff is @ man about turty-tour | Years ol age aud @ tea merchant, doing an exten- Bive business in New York. ‘tne alleged guity male acquaintances oi Mrs, Mackenzie are men of | position and meaus, and the charge bas naturally excited great curiosity, as it seems to their friends To ve almost Incredible, ‘MRS. MACKENZIE’S ANSWER, The defendant is # ratner fine looking matron and hos five chiidren—three giris and two boys— the eldest being nine years and tue youngest eighteen Months. In ber anawer she denies each | and every charge made vy her husband, and lyrthermore sue accuses him of having been false 10 bls marriage VOWS at different umes and places aud with various women. One ol the Javier sue alleges to nave been @ domestic, Fanny McKernan, She charges ium with being a man | of cruel and violent temper, wuo bas treated ner in the most brutal manner, striking ner re- peatedly ou the iace and breast, sad also with having on the u of Gccober, 1874, turned her out of the bouse and locked the door on her. One of the alleged particeps minis swears tuat he, A. G. Rosbory, saw the lady, Mrs, Mackenzie, but four mes in hus ite and was very slightly ac- quainted with her. Third parties were aiwa: present when they met, und So jarasne knows | SHE IS: A PURE MINDED VIRTUOUS WOMAN. Mr. David M. Corbitt, in tis aftidavit, swears that he has known the delendant ior many years, both belore and after ner marriage, and denies that he was ever guilty o! y eruninai acts with ber. Mr. Rankin Oo swears Ww the same effect. Mrs. Mackenzie, iv her answer, #weurs that she discovered ler nusband in flagrante delictu wito Fanny McFernan, on the evening of Ocvooer 28, When she Was turned into the street by tm. | | the defendant ts the daughter of one of the | oldest iamilies of Brooklyn, and the coupie are | supposed to have been upon the most happy | terms up to Within @ short period of their separa- tion, Severai years ago the husband went to Europe on tie adviwe of bis plysician to remove some menial diflicuity wuich he Was supposed to be subject to, Mrs. Beach, of No, 14 Hanover piace, where the husoand alleges bis wile was gusty o1 infidelity with D. M. Corbett, swears that the charge Is 4 inalicious falsehood, void of the slightest 1ounda- | cause J (nearing the deiendant herein) made no clai: the Mackenzie trial, and quietly remained tora | | He tion ia jact, and that the defendan’s conduct bus | always been that of @ pure-miuded, viriuous woman. Mr. MacKenzie was called to the stand and testi- fled Wo the facts set jorth in his complaint. Fanny McFernan, woo testified jor the plaintif, stated tbat gentiemen irequeatly visited Lue Louse in the absence oi Mr. MacKenzie, and that Mra. MacKenzie was guilty 0! gross impreprieties wito tuem. ‘he case wiil be resumed to-day. COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER--THE MERRI- GAN-HAMMILL MUKDER TRIAL GOES OVER FOR THE TERM. Before Judge Pratt. Phe Kings County Court of Oyer and Termiuer was organized yesterday forenoon, Judge Pratt presiding, for the March term. A Grand Jury was empanelled. District Atto;mey Winchester Brit- | ton moved that the trial of Sarah C. Merrigan, indicted jor the murder of Margaret Hamuiil, be called, Objection was made by the counsel for Mrs. Merrigan to the motion on the ground that tuey (Messrs. Keauy aud Tracy) were vusily ep gaged in the ‘ilton-Beecher case, and it was not likely that ty would be ready to proceed with the case of Mrs, Merrigan unui next month. Upon these representations Judge Pratt ordered tae triai to be set doWn lor tue secund Monday in Apri the zsh of the month, The priouer was, it will be remembered, tried jast snmmer, and, ibe jury jailing fo agree | upon a verdict, she was remanded ‘o the Kay- mond Street Jail, where she las since since re- mained. She is in delicate heaith, and expresses hersei! a8 very anxious that ber case shouid be de- fluitely disposed ol. KINGS COUNTY SUPREME COURT CALENDAR ‘TO-DAY. 2, Liy 2h, 25, 26, 27, 20, 32, o, a Nos. 1428, 17, 18, 21. , #2, 42) | from the pa | intere: A THEATRICAL LIBEL. Application for the Arrest of Dion Boucicault. THE MOTION DENIED. Josh Hart’s Complaint Against the Dramatist. Active rehearsals are being made preliminary to introducing with proper effect on the ‘egal the libel suit brought by Josh Hart against Dion Boucicault. The former expects to make $50,000, while the latter is emphatic in the decla- ration that it will bea failure. Meantime people ed in theatrical matters are watching with keen zest the course of events. The last phase in the case—mere preludes to the forthcoming grand drama—was & renewal yesterday on behalf of Mr. Hart of the application for an order of arrest against Mr. Boucicault. This renewal was made beiore Judge Donobue, in Supreme Court, Chambers, All that was done was the submission of papers in sup- port of the application, excepting the slight alver> piece of interviewing Judge Donohue by one of tne counsel after a denial of the application. MB, HARI’S COMPLAINT, Firstin order came the complaint of Mr. Hart, in which are set forth the grounds of his suit against Mr. Boucicauit. The complaint 1s as fol lows :— New Yorx Scrnewx Covet—County rt ve. Dion Boucicault —The cot pamed plaintiff by his attorneys. reapeettully shows to this Court ylaint of the agave into! kwood and st, that until Ue hereinafter mentioned, the pisinlif bore & hate, reputation and credit, and that he has resided, and done business tor years in the oily of New York? second, that on the 18th day of February, 1875, the detendant maliciously composed, — pubfishes and cused. to be published of ana concerning the plainul in a paper called the New York HekaLD, publishes tthe city ot New York. in the count: York, and having @ large circu‘ation, « certain article containing the talse, defamatory and libellous matter tolowing. to wit:—"l (meaning the defendant herein) caught the defendant (meaning the plaintify herein) raon (ineaning on the The Jude made him kive itup, There was some other property, also stolen ‘ods, found in the pockets ot the thiet imean- Ing ‘the plain, and ause made no glaim, on that he triumphs in its — possession.» ‘The deciaion (meaning ine decision of Mr. Justice Woodruff, of granting a temporary e Ciregit Court of the United states) injunction m the cause of this | derenaant against this plaintift in said court sustains my ci pyright age Serle She Gelendants plea (meaning | the pi cause of inti ples was not original;” which said article ned. Ine false libellous’ and defamatory matter _ fol- lowing:—"In the interest ot every respect- able manager in the r 1 ett ora ate interest of the dramatic literature ot the country, I have resolved to pursue and exterminate these ium) Pirates and audacious thieves mg the plant w other persons to plaintiff nittown) who prowl aroun fhe purlleusol the drammu to. seiae on evurY succes.” ‘hird—That by means of sald publication tle plaintitt injuredin his reputation to his damage $50,000. refore pluull demauds judgment ant for said sum of $50,000 and cose LOCKWOOD & POS? Plainti(s Attorneys, 215 Broadway, New York. City and County of New York.—Josi Wart ‘bein, sworn says he {st bove-named piainull: omplaint and Knows the content there knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated on information and bellet, and as to those matters he botaey rales be 0: true. RT. Sworn to before me, this 25th day of February, James H. Frtcu, Notary Pablic, New York county MR. BOUCICAULT’S RESIDENCE, Then followed the following afflaavit of Mr. Hart, which, alter simply recapitulating the alle- gations of libel contained in the above complaint, treats of Mr. Boucicault as not having a “local habitation” in this country, and, therefore, liable, after ,ulfilling his present engagement at Wal- lack’s and a succeeding one in Buston, to piace lumeelf beyond tbe jurisdiction of the Court. City and County of New York, ss.:—Josh Hart, the said plaintiff, being duly sworn, savs—first, that he now is, and for years has been, a resident of the city of New York aid engaged in business in said city, and hag always been of me and credit; second, that on of about the lath day ot *ebruary, 1875, the avove named detenaant maliciously composed. pubushed and caused to be puulished of apd concerning the plaintiff, in a newspaper called the New York HERALD, at the city ot New York, in the county and state of New York, a cer- fain article containing the false and detamatory and Nibellous matter following, to wit:—"'I the defendant (neaaing tie deponent with ny Riolen property ou lus person (meaning the person. of deponent). The Judge made himgive ittup. There was some other property, also stolen goods, found in the pockets of the thiet (meaning this deponenv, and wa: Wi fend: on that he (meaning deponent) triumph: .” Whien said articles did also cont in_its posses- thee tal p dau Qneaning amoung who prow! around the purliens others) ot the drama to seize on every success” whereby and by means of said pudlication ‘the deponent, was greatiy injurea in his said good name and reputation. Third— Ana deponent further siys that he ts iniormed and Verily believes that the desendant is only temporarily in the state of New York: that the grounds of such beliet are the following, viz. :—ihat defendantis an actor, and 4n the course of his business as such has engagemenis at theatres in diffe parts ot the United States and Great Britam; that his wite and family reside in kng- land and are not residents of the «tite of New York; caugnt | taat he is at present playing @ theatrical en: | gagement at Wallack’s Tneatre im the Clty of Naw York, but is publicly announced to play an engagement in Boston after April 1, 1875; that deponant was recently informed by Mr. Theodore Moss, the trea- aurer of Waliack’s Theatre, that the defeudaot was Folng.to appear at a Boston theatre alter thy close ot his said engagement at Wallacs’s (hestre, about April 4, 1875, further says that within a iew And deponent days he has been intormed trom @ reliable source, and he verily believes such information to be true, thavaiter the deiendanvs engagement in Boston ts terminated, he to return to kngland to bring out in vhich he is pow act. ing ani it is uncertain when, if ever, he wil! return to this country. Fourth, for the reason aforesaid. among s, deponent verily be- . i87), the defendant will not re- main or come willingly within the jurisdiction of this Gonrt. beponent further suvs that he has commenced an action against the above named defendant in this Court for tie cause 0! action atoresaid. JOsd HART. Sworn to, velore me, this ith day of Kebruary, 1875. — Jawes Hl. Fire, Nowry Public, New York county. CORROBORATING AFFIDAVITS. A ‘Third m order ensued the following amdavits ves that atler Avi touching likewise upon tue peripavetic procliv- | ities of Mr. Boucicauit. Lhey explain themselve: ity and Comty of New York, #¢:—James B. Lockwood, ber duly sworn, says he is of the firm ‘or Lo woud & Post, plalutil’s attorneys herein; that on the 19th of Pevruary last he subuntted to wrence certain bapers ia an appiieauon for an order of arrest against the detendant above named tor libel. On the 2 inst. deponent atte Judy Lawrence w learn the result when His ih rreiurned tue papers to i, e- clining to grant the order, civing as a re: it did not seem sufficiently clear to hun from the papers that ctendalit Was & transieat person, He Judge Law- ) Infor;ned deponentaiso that he wa: lication to any ther jo itai such application himse he preferred it should be made belore another justice, JAMES B. LOCKWOOD, Sworn before me, February 25, 185.—Huseut A. Lee, Pommissioner of Veeds, New York county, City and County of New York, st:—John H, Delafield, being duly sworn, says, Ne is residing at No. 8 Bowery, 4n tie city OL Sew Yorks th knows the defendant in this wetion; that said derendantis ho perinanent eigagemeat i er during the p ¥ ry at theatres in england and in various parts of the nited states upon temporary engagements and has constantly, during that Une, passed trom place to place in both’ ‘countries: that the ‘wile and family ot said devendant reside in ngiand, and, 45 deponent verily believes, the home of said detendant is in that deiendant ‘wt present playing at Wallack’s ilicatre, but ns depo nt is Informed by public notices in the press and be- ves his engagement at said theatre terminates on or wut April 1, 18/5, and he will then leave che city, nty and State of New York; that a8 doponent verily the said detendant a ot reside permanently York, hus no howe here and inends to leave the ot voluntarily return within the FOCEBS, YIELD, 1875.—L. ngs coun- del an Sew said city soon and will Jurisdiction of this Vourt in answer to this pi YOUN Hv Sworn to before me this rh day of February, M. Euuntox, Notary Fublic New York and Ki es. COUNSEL INTERVIEWING JUDGE DONONUE, Alter Judge Donohue had read the above papers he said he could not, upon them, grant the order of arrest asked ior. Thus the matter rested until Judge Donouue leit the Court. Mr. Post, one of the counsel, at once hurried aiver him to get tur- ther posted as to tne reasons for denying the ap- plication. “Ou what grounds do you deny the applica- tion?” inquired Mr. Post. “Up to vecemwber the plainti,” Jud Tepled, was eutitied to an order of Dononue est under the code, but in the Havemeyer case Judge Bar- Teut had come to the clusion tuat the Courts could use their own discretion, 1 nave ited the other Judges, and they have coucluded pot Lo issue Orders 01 arrest in Libel Cases Unies the d fendant is a transient person, and | am not sausied ers tual Mr. Boucicauit comes within this cavegor “I can procure additional affidavits as to the revidence oi Mr. Boucicault, 1 ask permission torenew the appl.cation bvelore avother Judge,” persised Mr. vost. “‘ihat will Go no good,” said Judge Dononue 5 “lor tue reason, a8 | have already told you, that the Judges have uoanunousiy decided that this, under the rue, is not a case ior aa order of arrest.” “Tam atratd,” continued Mr. Post, ‘that if 1 should obtain a judgment against Mr. Boucicault tout it will be an empty one, “Not at ai,” replied Judge Donob ‘the judgment would be a good one, and could be en- tered auy where.” A SINGULAR VERDICT. Coroner Bicknow yesterday afternoon concinded his investigation in the case of Mrs. Matilda Weils and ber daughter ie, Whe Were burned to death | intentional contempt. during the fire in the tenement houseNo. 627 Bast Ninth street, on the 15th ult. Several additional witnesses were examined, but their testimony was substantially the same as heretofore pubd- lish ‘The jury renaered the following remark- rdict:—The undersigned jurors having beard all te vidence in relation to the cause o! death of Mrs. Wells and child are unanimously of the opinion that uo one is to biame, except the members of Mrs, Wells’ fanhly, who did not make timely efforts to escape by the scuttle or by the fire escape.” The Coroner was much astonished at the verdict, particularily as there seemed to o¢ no evidence to warrant it, BERGH'S CONTEMPT. —_—_—_—_ BECOBPER HACKETT PURGES AND LETS HIM GO—THE POINTS OF DECISION. While Judge Sutherland was busy yesterday in the Court of General Sessions empanelling the Grand Jury for the March term, Recorder Hackett entered the court room for the purpose of hearing the argument in the Bergh contempt case. Mr. Eloridge T. Gerry, counsel for the accused, began by saying that by the old common law there were two kinds of contempt, physical and constructive. The former was committed in the immediate view and presence of the Court, and the latter outside of the immediate view and presence; that he would endeavor to show that the common law rule of contempt did not now exist in this State. This sending of a communica: tion to @ Grand Jury was a constructive contempt, because It was done outside of the immediate pres- ence of the Court, The Revised Statutes in 1830 abolished the common law rule of contempt, and provided that every court of record should have power to punish for contempt persons guilty of offences committed in the immediate presence of the Court. Recorder Hackett —Are you aware that it has been decided in this State that the immediate Presence of the Court is not only the room in which the Court is being held, but means as well the room to which its petit jury retires, and the grand jury room? Mr. Gerry, in arguing upon this point, claimed shat the offence charged against his client, if ap offence at all, was not committed within the im. mediate presence of the Court. The meaning oj the woras “immediate view and presence” was that the Court must have ocalar view of the med also that his was within the statute, aa tue common law rule of contempt had been abolished ; that the offence must be committed at the bar ofthe Court, and that the letter was @ Mere expression of opinion telling the Grand Jury that they bad acted erroneously in dismissing (ne complaint. He then read the affidavit of Mr. Bergh, to the effect that on the 8th ult., eight witnesses ior the people apenares belore |thé Grand Jury, that only two of them were calied— one tue police officer who made the arrest, and the other & man who was in the place of the man Qarpenter and saw the dogs Sgbsing; that the complainant was not called ana that the accused was, Md S own language, “honorably dis- ‘ged.’ In conclusion, Mr. Gerry saia he would submit that the ‘e‘ter sent to the Grand Jury was at bi but an expression of opinion, and that there no contempt committed, inasmuch as the Grand Jury did not at the time have the case in question under consideration. ‘The Recorder then read the followiug decision :— In giving my action upon this proceeding it i 1 shoul! subinit my views in wiiuug. Tain clear that it 1s contempt of Court at common law for a witness or bystander to communicate with the Grand Jury without 1s request. butto be a contempt under the statute the communication wust savor of the degree of contempt- uous bebaviour committed during the sitting of the tt ing to Impair due respect. I think “behavior may cover the writing Grand Jury of a contemptuous It is clear from the cle- ters. from what the Court mply in the Hackley case (24th 4 p. 78), that the grand jury room is an enlai ment of the court room and part ol the court sittin, Handing to the petit jury a letter containing remar' upon the cage pending before them has been at nisi Bites adjudged a contempt, the jury for convenience if outside of the court room proper, it is true, but legally and technically nevertheless 4 Dart ot the Cour sitting, and both the*yrand and petit jury rooms ar merely extensions of the court apartment and ail under equal jurisdiction. The insinuation conveyed by this expression in the letter ot Mr, Bergh, “Asin the present instance they haye escape n'means whicn 1 for- Der to mention,” addressed to auy officer of the Court during 1s sitting could not be made worse tor col femptuous and insolent behavior tending to im- pair respect. At the commencement of the Jast October term ot this Court, J charged the then Grand Jary as tol- Yhe tes of some Krand juries have in the past distinctly shown traces as well as evidences of con- siderations, and of reconsiderations and references which can only be explained upon beef that grand juries have yielded to lobby pressure, either in finally fnding or finally dismissing bills of indictment. The grand juror Who suflers himself to be even impliedly approached biect matters pending before the body of which swort inember, not only violates hi . nds the common iaw that forbids such’ ap- proaches either in the act of the citizen or in the con- sentoi the juror. should it so happen during the pres. ent term oi your duty as grand jurors that any persons Whomsvever, except the District Attorney, who, w desired, becomes your legal adviser, sliall approa: either of you and seek to confer or endeavor to influence Your action for or agaiust the prosecution ot any co: plant pending betore you, then it will become your duty to promptly ‘communicate the tacts te in order that the person go offending may b jealt with. The District Attorney has done ower to desiroy the opportunies for this lobby influence with the grand inquest, but iijurors ailow let tors to be delivered to them by accused persons. accusers, or their counsel, or visits to be wade to them at their Dlaces of business or houses by iriends of suspected pei fons, they cannot obviate such a scandal or irustrate tl wrong intended.” It wiil thug be perceiveo that the considerations growing outof the action of Mr. sergb frenotuew aud were not susgested by the attitude taken by the late Grand Jury, and I had determined to | reprehend the first instance of Grand Jury lobbying ot outside interterence which should subinitted to my cousideration. Bat Mr. Bergh | shows rn es tor purpose, ot society both a Deputy eral and an Assistant bistriet Attorney by wri from Messrs. Pratt and Pheips. “Mr. ergh at swears “such letter was sent and intended to be sent as an ot cial communication tn the interests ot the pe t State, which deponent then honestly betieved he w then representing, and not to subserve any private personal interest, or to gratuy any individual spicen or malice. And deponent frimly ava conscientiously be- ed at the time that he was only doing his duty, and at his course was entirely Justifiable under the author- a 'd irom the Attorney Geueral and District Al In the matter of strong, in this century since, it was held of sending a scurrilous letter Jury ought not to be considered interrupt the administration of justice. Courtand directly ten that under the te and de letter. this Court pt, ac designed to ii | Supreme Court has held (Weeks Smith, 3 Abb. | Proc. Kp. 241) that ir the alleged contempt be ale of a construction consistent with of the party of any intentionat > there is no. legal contempt. It w. hat Mr. Bergh’sexplauation that he was accin ‘nt of the prosecuting officers, 1s consistent with . The Court, however, truss thatit may be done for observing that the representative of the At i anil the District Attorney owes it tu those gentlem MH not to bimseif, to infuse into his oral or written intercourse with grand juries rather the | suaviter in modo than the fortiter ia re, and to remember o . that he who impughs motives should is own.” ischarged and Mr. Henry Bergn xonerated under his explanatory oath from any Let stands WALL STREET NOTES. MORE BAILWAY COMPLICATIONS—ELECTION In THREE ©.'8 AND L—A PROPOSITION FROM ST, LOUIS AND IRON MOUNTAIN. Tue street was not actively excited yesterday except inasmucn as it worked some slight changes ted | in current valuations. Thus there were move ments without results of importance. THREE 0,'8 AND I, as itis familiarly calied, meaning Cleveland, Cole umbas, Cincinnati and Indianapolis Railroad, had @ meeting at Mr. Barlow's ofice, which contained a two-thirds representation, and considered s new ticket of direction, The new ticket was the same as last year, with the excep tion of substituung Jewett for Watson, Judge Burke, of Oleveland, was also | added to the direction, the judge representing a large portion oi the English holders of the stock. The condfict in the meeting was, reported, to exciude Devereux and Huriburt, but these gentie- men remain, This is spoken of as the end of goother tiga: on the i of Lake Shore to get boid of Three C.’s and 1. ST. LOUIS AND IRON MOUNTAIN. This company has just issued a circular propos ing to jund one uvd one-half yeurs’ interest coupons (beginning with the coupon which Will 0@ Gue May | next) upon ail 1's bonds except the first mortgage. The ooject 01 this proposition, so much In advance, 16 said tu be designed, under the ap. provai of the bondnolders, to enable the company to pay of its fuating debt, whicu oo December ai, 1874, amounted to $451,149. It 18 hoped tat the luting Of this embarrassment irom tne | company will improve tie vaiue of its bonded debt by enabling it to resume interest piyment upon such debt, The coupons are to be funded in gold certificates, payable with seven perceat in- | terest in a series of yeal time into consoildated | coupons held by a trust company, so uni of failure to the certificutes the coupon howers under their respectiy would be preserved in respect to iore ceedings. The earnings vu: r enuing De- cemoer 31, 1874, were $4 , ao inerease of $741,142 Over 1873; and fur the year 15 they are estimated at not less than $4,000,000. The con- StrucHOn ACLOUNL Is SuUbsiantiaily closed. ‘ihe im. migration to jexXas, a wood part over this ting, tm 1874, 18 Oflicta\ly stated at 200,000, AN INTERESTING CALL, ‘The bondholders of tue Chicago, Danville ana Vincennes Kaiiroad Compauy are requested 0} te trustees o! first aud second. tortgaves to call at the company’s oMlce, No. 62 William street. PACIFIC KALLIOAD BONDS, There was @ warked advance in Pacific Railway securities, may ve Hoted elsewhere, which be came towards the close @ leading feature ef yesterday’s business.