The New York Herald Newspaper, March 13, 1875, Page 8

_ THE COURTS. Important Criminal and Civil Suit Decisions. TEMPLETON I D BAIL Argument in the Suit Against | Harry Genet. Patrick Rooney and Thomas A, Groom, indicted by the Grand Jary of the United states Cirentt for having !aisely sworn as bailsmen that they severally #nd separately Owned certain property in this city and in Brooklyn pleaded guilty on arraignment | yesterday. Judge Benedict remanded them lor sentence. Abratam Gardner yesterday pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with embezzling let- ters, in the United States Circuit Court. Remanded for sentence. Daniei Barrett, indicted for receiving property stolen irom tne matis yesterday, in the Unitea States Court, pleaded gutity to the charge. Re- manded for sentence, Marla Alquair yesterday brought suit tn the Marine Court, Part 1, before Judge Spauiding, — against August Bleau, for slander and delamation | of character, There was no deience, and the jury, by direction of the Court, directed a@ verdict for | the plaintiff in $1,000. TEMPLETON NOT ADMITTED TO BAIL. In the case of Duncan D. Templeton, convicted | 4n the Geuerai Sessions of shooting his wire with | intent to kill her, which judgment was reversed at the General Term and a new trial ordered, a motion was made a few days since by Mr. Jon D. Townsend, the prisoner’s counsel, to admit him | to bail rending the final verdict, Judge Barrett, in the Court of Oyer and Terminer, before wiiom (he motion was made, who heard the argomenr, gave bis aecision yesterday denying the application. He gave aa his grounds for refusing We mouion that within ten days the case wouid be argued at the Court of Appeals on the appeal | jp; from the decision of the General Term, and that the new trial was granted simply on an error of law m the charge, respecting | which there may be some constterabie doubt as to whether it imfluenced the | veruict. He stated that he had conferred witi the judges who gave the decision at the | General Term and they all agreed that, upder all the circumstances, the prisoner cught not in the resent cundision of the case be admitted to ball. { the prisoner was ili he could obtain the benefits ofthe hospital exactly the same as if the jadg- | ment bad not been reversed. He would, there. | fore, leave the matter where it stands until the decision of the Couit of Appeals, and ‘or this rea- son he dented the dail, dismissed the writ and re- manded the prisoner. THE SUIT AGAINST HENRY GENET. In February, 1874, a suit was instituted by the city against Henry W. Genet to recover money | alleged to have been cbtained by him (raudulently from the city treasury, under pretence of using the same in building the Hariem Court House. The complaint alleges that he drew from the Treasury $243,580 43 on the representation that the same was due for services, labor and material in connection with the constriction of such building. Jt 18 claimed that cut of this stm he appropfiated over £150,000 to his own use, and i is Jor the recovery | that the sult is brought, All Of these allegatiqns were of ¢ urse spectfi- | cally denied by Genet. The case was placed on ine Supreme Coart, Circuit, calendar for trial, and subsequently & motion was made on bebalf of «10 have the case sent before areferce. This Motion was denied and an appeal was taken to the General Term, where the case came up for argu- ment yesterday before Judges Davis, Brady ana bartels. i° was orged on veoulf of the appeal that the trial will Invclve the examination 0! a loog ace connt; thatevery account on file in the Finance Department or elsewhere for the work and mate- rials In question will have to be investigated ; that all the vyoucbers wiil have to be overtiauied, ana fiaally that tkere were no laches on the part of tha deendant mm making the motion, The points raised in opposition were ‘that this is an action and cheretoie But referrabis; that the nee must necessarily be of a genera! eharac- peculiarly of a Kind to be passed upon by a that @ thie! does not render an account of jen by Limsell, and that the tuvest:- wast require the decision of dificult ny of law whch will not admit of a refer- Court took thé papers, reserving its TE COURT—GENERAL TERM. Beiure Judges Davis, Brady and Daniels, | DECISIONS IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL | CASES. \ « Evers was tried and convicted in Jane dast, in the Court of General Sessions, of shooting James Curran with intent to take his life, and scn- tenced to three years in State Privon. Numerous exceptions Were taken during the trial by mr. William F, Howe, the prisener’s counsel, and on such exceptions the case was carried to the Su- preme Court, General Term, and a new trial asked, The shooting wes admitted, but justided on the ground of selfdefence. Recorfer Hackett during the trial asked the prisoner this question, “Now, cah you explain to me tais theory, while Curran, who Was adic lo Woip you, Kept picking at you for amusemen’, Why siowid be Lave put his hand In his , OCket alter giving you three teinife licks in the sace—what @ occasion of drawing a 1?” Hon 10 this question was one ain Its Cecision yesterday ppe Tle General Term nable, inas- to Inrnign the regarded kul Lim or Among tie us to the admission tain eviden crloa to the reading Midavil made by the prisoner previous to so eXcepilons to certain portions ‘s charge. Judge Brady wrote the na the excep. tue judgment [ eptions were objec trons taken t veiow una or SCHIEF! yET. | George 5. Schiefu wv convicted in the Court of Oser and Terminer of murder in the secoad cegres, the victim of the murder being tis wile. ‘heir previous relations had been of an unlriendly charactor, and both were addicied to the usc of intoxicating liquors. The prisouers story was that on the evenime of the arsault be saw his wie under circumstances mdicating tat she had been ‘ity of aduitery, Tesum ny fradicting (his was offered, however, do the trial. ihe theory ot the defeuce was that er injaries by striking her head ppeal Was taken jroin the judg and Terminer to the Gene on Was rendered yesterday, Term, wh Judge ba gthe opinion of the Court. The d sthe judgment of the Cour below, voiding that neit of tue points pre- sented in the prisoner's behalf would warrant a revyersai ol th rdic THE BLACK FRIDAY SUITS. On the appeal brought by Allert Speyers from the ¢ nofthe Jacge in Chambers, holding Wat the suit to 1ecover commissions lor bis bro- ker’s porciaees on behalf of Fisk & Gould on “Hieek brtday’ could bot be wWalntamed agameas the estate of Fiak, the Supreme Court rendered a nolding that itcan, This re- of the Uourt below, } | ' Jucgmen DECISIONS, | SRT CHAMBERS, | ge Barrett, } Order granted, | Wrence. By Judg German Upiown sav ine; Cowing vs. Cassidy; Manton 5 granted, ige vonoh eard, receiv nce Company.— in the mat tional Lie insur Memoraudurte. Javole v4. More.—Granted. SUPREME COURT—SPECIAL TERM. by Judge Van Brent, kin ys, Kur j.—-Findings settiod. npebornet vl vs Lavarello ot al.—Diudings gud Gecree sett coMMo! my PLEAS ~ GENERA! TERM, jarda et al.—Juégment on ro s.ou.d be affirmed, Opinion vy ‘cl. Ward 9s, tue Mayor, &c.— | ne People ext Order appealed Wow afirmed, Opinion by Chief dusticn vaiy Korzman va. 8 paker, &¢.--Jadgment modt- fled by redlueng OVery (OXC:USIVe Of COALS) Jegma $260 30 to F (ci hen of $100 and interest | from Juv 22, iS72 fo Jane 26, 1574), ADd as 80 } modified and reduced, if be allrmed without costa ofthis appeal, Opinion by Judge Robinson. } ‘ihe Pe Cotman and anotier—Ap plivation roerianm Duiton v » Jdlgment affirmed with | Ly @osbs por Culiius | with $10 costs and disbursements, | Ment reversed and new trial grante: NEW YORK HERALD, SATURDAY, MARCH 13, 1875—WITH SUPPLEMENT. Brown Vs. vormening and another.sudgment affirmed. Opinion by Chief Justice Daly. = SUPREME COURT—GENERAL TERM. By Judges Davis, Brady and Daniels. In the matter of Kelly.—Order of Spectal Term atfirmed, with $10 costs besides disbursements. Opinioa by Judge Davis, Howlett vs. Wood and another.—Order aMirmed, with $10 costs. Opinion by Judge Davis. Same vs. Same.—Order affirmed, with $10 costs. Tue People ex ret Jenny vs. Brennan, Sheriff, &c,—Order reversed, with $10 costs besides dis- bursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs, Opinion by Jadge Daniels, janover Fire Insurance Company vs. Tomlin- son.—Order reversed, with $10 costs and disburse- ment, and motion dented, with costs. Opinion by Juage Davis. Fry vs. Fry.—Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Opinion by Judge Davis. ‘The People ex rei. Doyle vs, Green et al.—Order affirmed, With $10 costs and disbursements. Opens by Judge Davis, ann vs. Norrie.—Order reversed, with $10 costs of the appeal, besides disbursements, and motion below cepied, with 310 costs; disbursemeits to be adjusted by the Clerk, and, with the costs, set oil ainst the costs already adjusted to defendant Noirte. Opinion by Judge Davis. Stevens vs, Thé board of Education of Brook- lyn.—Order reversed and ¢emurrer sustained With costs, and With leave to piaintit! to amend in twetty days on payment oO: costs. Opinion by Judge Brady. Loder vs, Tae New York, Utica and Ogdensburg Ratlroad Company.—Order affirmed, with $10 costs ang disbursements, Opinion by Judge Daniels. jouraud vs, Trust.—Order aflirmed, with #10 — besides disbursements. Opinion by Judge avs, In the matter of the application o1 Schell, trns- | tee of the estate of Appiey, for an accounting for the year ending March 1, 18%8.—Order aflirmes, | with $10 costs, besides disbursements, Opinion | by Judge Brady. | Cowan vs. The Mayor.—Judgment reversed and | new trial ordered, cysts to abide event. Opinion | by Judge Davis, | Finnigan vs. The Mayor.—Judgment reversed | and new trial ordered, cost8 to abide event. Opin+ Jon by Judge Davis. Healy vs, The Mayor, &c.—Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Judge Brauy. Penfield, gnardian, &c., vs. James et al.—Order , afirmed, with $!0 costs, besides disbursements. Opinion by Judge Davis. Lathrop vs, Godirey.—Judgment reversed and | new trial ordered, with costs to abide event. | Opaton by Judge Davis, he Tradesmen’s National Bank vs. McFeeley | and ancther and executors, &c,—Order afiirmed, | Opinion by Judge Brady. Same ve. Same.—Same crder, Fisher and another vs. tne beh ck Rea peated r 3 costs to abide event. Opinion by Judge Davis. Barnes vs. Morgan.—Order affirmed, with $19 costs, besides disbursements. Opinion by Judge Ys Gilman vs. Giiman et al.—Order affirmed, with $10 costs, Opinion by Judge Daniels. Harris v3, the Equitable Assurance Society of the United trial granted, costs to al Judge Davis. Whalen ys. Gloucester.Judgment afarmed, Opinion by Jud, nea George the Count Johannes vs. Jennings and another.—Judgment reversed and new trial panes, costs to abide event. Opinion by Judge vis. Zimmerman, by her guardian, vs. Schoenteidt,— Judgment atirmed. Opinion by Judge Brady. Schenck vs. Ingraham, Jr., et al—Judgment af- firmed, Without costs. Opinion by Judge Danie! In the matter of Schenck, survivor.—Order r versed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and or- der directed making appellant y, &¢., a8 provided in the opinion. Opinion Judge Dan- lels Order to be Settled by Judge Daniels. Merritu, receiver, &c., vs. Scott and another.— Judgment reversed and new trial granted as to -de event. aelendant Hoyt, costs to abide event. Opinion by | Juige Davis, Gray vs, Green et al.—Order appealed from re- versed, with $10 costs, besides disbursements, and motion deuied, with 310 costs. Opinion by Judge vaniels. Evers va. The People.—Judgment reversed and Dew trial ordered. Opinion by Judge Brady. Brown vs. Yhe Mayor, &c.—Juigment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by Judge Daniels. Collins ¥s. "hé Mayor, &c.—Jodgment affirmed. Opinion by Judge Davis, Mullaiy vs. The Mayor, &c.—Judgment ordered for de eudant On the verdict, Opinion by Judge Daniels. __ By Judges Davis, Daniels and James. Voortues et al. vs, Oimstead et al.—M tion for ew trial denied ana judgment ordered tor de- fendants on the verdict. Opinion by Judge Davis, Judge Dantels concurring and Judge James ais- senting, ' Delavan vs, Duncan.—Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event, Opinion by Judge Brady. Voornies, 'r., vs. The Mayor, &c.—Judgment re- Versed and t>¥ trial ordered, Costs to abide event, pinion by Jadge Danicls. ‘The Bowery Nutional Bank ys. The Mayor, &c.— Judgment afirmed, Bariow et al. vs. Upinion by Judge Brady. Freund et a', vs, Tle Importers and Traders’ National Bank.—yudgmentreversed and new trial Opinion by Judge Davis. Myers.—Judgment affirmed. ordered, Custs to abide event. Opinion by Judge | Daniels, Matihews vs. Meytey et al.—Judgment aflrmed, Opinion by Judge Davis. Spejers vs. Fisk, executrix, &c.—Order* ro- verse; demurrer overruled With costs, with leave nuantto aoswer within twenty days ou herit of costs. Opinion by Judge Brady, Same Same.—Sime order, by Judges Brady and Daniels. Schonberg vs, Cheney —Judgment reversed, new tria! ordered, costato abide event, Opinion by Jndze Dantels. / quarters, where I was incarcerated; 1 saw Super- tes.—Judgment reversed and new | Opinion py | | garet McEvoy, were arraigned at the above Court yesterday, charged, respectively, with grand lar- ceny and receiving stolen goods. Mr. Freeman Barnum, the proprietor of Bar- | num’s Horel, on Broadway, made the complaint | end alleged that some few days ago be missed $35 worth of silverware and subsequently found jt in the house ot Margaret McEvoy, No, 334 East Thirty- sixth street, where Elien Sheridan, a former emi- | | ploys, boarded. Jusuce Kasmire held both women iu $1,500 ball | eaca to answer. POLICE’ SUPERINTENDENT WALLING, aaenniibicmiemaies HIS TRIAL YESTERDAY BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, The fail Board of Police Commissioners met in the court room at Headquarters yesterday after: | | Boon at two o’clock, President Matsell presiding, to try Superintendent Walling on the charges pre- ferred against him by Mr. A. Oakey Hall for | the illegal detention of John Sweeny, Daniel Hawry and James Drew, sr:esied on the 6'h of | last month on suspicion of being tmplicated in the | Adams Express robbery. The court room was | comfortably filled with spectators, and the lovbies | of the building were alive witn knots of men anxiously discussing the probable result of the trial. Ex-Mayor A. Oakey Hall-appeared tor the pros2- cution and Counseilor John H. Strahan repro- sented the defence. : ‘The first witness called was the Assistant Clerk of the First District Police Court, wno testified | that Court was held on Saturday, February 6, and Suzday, February 7, from nine to balf-past ten | A. M. JOHN SWEENY, one of the arrested men, next took the stand and testified as follows:—Friday, February 5, I was | arrested at midnight and brought to volice Head- intendent Walling the following day in the fore- noon, and was questioned by him in regard to the Adams Express robbery; I was told on Sanday morning by Superintendent Walling that A, Oakey Hall was my counsel; did not know that he had been engaged until I was so informea by Mr, Walling; the superintendent read aletter | trom Mr, Hat ting that he (Hali) had been en- gaged to act as counsel for me; was detained im | the cell at Police Headquarters until the following Monday morning, when | was taken bejore Justice | Kiibreth at the Toombs, MARGARET SWEENY, the sister of the lest witness, testified that she came to Police Headquarters on Saturday morn- ing, February 6, between nine and ten o’qjock. and ed superintendent Walling jor permission to ¢ her brother John, who was conflued there as a risoner; he refased my request, saying, ‘Come | here at five o’clock this evening and I will see about | ity? came back at bout tive o’clock the same day | and again renewed my request of Superintendent | Walling and was again refused; I then toid him | that [had seen counsel and that they hav in- formed me that he (Walling) was acting illegally in not alowing the prisoner to be brought to court; he (tse Superintendent) replied, saying, “send your counsel here and Ill send them to | the State Prison.” On the cross-examination by Counsellor Strahan the witness stated that sne had emplosed A. Oake; Hall to act as counsellor for her brother, ant had paid him from a tund o! $3,0¢0 placed in her hands | by her brother previous to his arrest, to bali | posed of in employing legal aid should he bé ar. rested. The witness further stated that she had paid the unexpended balance of this fund into the Dis- | trict Attorney’s oilice. MRS, HAWRY, | the wife of one of the prisoners, took the stand | andswore that she had songht permission o! Superintendent Waliinz to see her nusband woile | he was confined as a Relaan se, in Police Headquar- | ters, and had been refased. | James Drew, one of the arrested men, testifle 1 that he was arrested on Friday night, February 5, oa suspicion of being concerued in the Adams Express robvery; was confined at Police Lead. , quarters until the following Monday morning, When he was takei to court and discharged. Toc defence, in cross-questioning, clicited from tho Witness the fact that he !requently associated | with Sweeny and Hawry. ‘SUPERINTENDENT WALLING was next placed on the stand and subjected to a Jong series of skufully put inrerrogatories by Counsellor Hail, who aimed to make the witness | admit that he had violated the law in detaining | the prisoners over twenty-four hoars in a ceili without oringing them before a police magistrate ; also that ne hal Violated the police regulation | thar makes !t compulsory upon tie Superin- | tendent to norily te Board of Police Comnmnsston- ers when any prisoner has been detatued over | twenty-four hours without being brought before a | Magistrate. ‘The Superintendent's testimony was to the ‘elect that he had acted conscientiousiv mm the premises, doing what he conceived to be his duty; he nad not notified the Hoara of Comm ssloners, as required by police regulations, simply because | there Was no Board to nowfy during the time the | Men Were in custody; no session of the Board had | been heid trom the time the mea were arrested to the ume tbey were brought to court; the wit- | ness felt that he had noi exceeded his authority | in doing as be did, aud was satistied, had | he ected differently, tue robsers would’ nave evaded justice; te denied having usea tne lan- | guage alleged by the wituess, Margaret Sweeny. At the vonuclusion of Superintendent Walling’s | testimony Ex-Mayor Hail stated to the Board that 4 4 es he Was there, not a8 counsel, but merely, by the Gilman ve Giiman—Order modified, and, 88 Le.mission of the Bard, ro cross-exawine the Wit- noained » affirmed without costs. i ed ny Pony a Vee uo apeseh toiiske. He then wie: Judge Dinies. Order to be settled by Judge Dan- | Grew from tne room, Manton va. Cabot et al.—Jadgment affirmed. | Opipion by Judge Davis. Leland, execaior, &c., v8. Manning.—Judgment amfrmed. Opinion oy Judge Brady. Hontington vs. Dinsmore.—Judgments affirmed. | Opinion by jadge Davis, Harris vs. The Veople.—Judgment aMrmed, | Opinion by Judge Bragy. Adams vs. The People.—Judgment afirmed. Opinion by Judge Davis. Frisbie vs. Fitzsimmons.—Judgment efirmed. | Opinion by Judge Dentels, Redmond vs. Hoge.—Motion for reargument de- nied. Opinion by Judge vavis. Oakley V4. Tho Mayor, 4c.—Joagment affirmed, | Opinion by Judge Davis. Treat vs. Hathorne,—Judgment affirmed. | Opinion by Judge Davis, | defendant bad used disrespectiul iangt Board of Commissioners of Pilots vs. Spofford.— Moijon denied, with 310 costs. Opinion by Judge Davie The Board of Supervisors of New York va, Tweed.—Order afiirmed, disbursements. Opioton by Judge Daniels. The Board of Supervisors vs. Milier.—Order a firmed, Wilh $10 costs, besides disbursements. Opinion by Judge Daniels, SUPERIOR COURT—SPYCIAL TERM. By Juage Curtis. Strom vs. Wiliaiws.—iie trial of this action may be stayed unti (be retura of the Commission, pro- vided that same be returned within thirty days irom March | 4c BOL beyond that period. Coleman e+ al, vs, Crump.—The defendant should have access to the plaintiffs exhibits and coptes, Lo abnex 10 the Case, and in default thereot he may proceed Withou: annexing the same, but the originuis should be produced ip this argu- meut. Aruold et al. v8. Hrown.—Undertaking approved, | By Judye Sedgwick. The Indla Rubber Comp Vompsny vs. Meyer.— Mojion to contifue injunciiou granted. Memo- randun Gale Fox.—Findings settled, COMMON PLEAS SPECIAL TERM. Ry Jadge Lorremore. Cloud Cloud.- Divorce granted to plaintim. Lewis Vs. Goldsteia —See decision, Astor vs. Watsob.—WFil 01 assistance allowed, Force vs. Gibbs. —Orders settied in two cases. CUCRT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. Before Jadge Sutherland, VICTIONS AND BENTE ES. Faward Wilson, whe, on the 6ih of this month, je $259 from the z of Hdward N. Lusk, st pleaded guilty. He wag sent to the State Prison for two yeara and #1x months. Michael Paine was tricd upon a charge of cut- ting Julio Bush in the chcek with a stiletto on ti of ve ry at No. 54 Mott street. The partica ave Itaians and quarrelled about an Eng- | ash women, It Was shown that Bush presegted the prisouer. A verdict of not ed by the jury without leaving ivaded | gulity Jackson, Who Was | four cota, valued at $ Hahn, pleaded guilty Apia M, Siith | Of larceny, ba Buit Of cloves Wor Eighsi avenue, ihese prisoners were cach sent to the Poniton- | tery for six montas, | Phebe Goodwin, ® colored woman, pleaded | guilty to aa as-au.t with Intent to do bodily harm. | dhe ia nent charged that on the 20¢h of Feb- | ruary she cut Agnie Krown in the throat with a (. She was sent to the state Prison for two arged with stealing property of Jaeud t lnteeny. o a similar grade @ on the bth inst. woolen a 4% $00 Irom a room at No, Z70 nh an indietment fwo checks for $25.0 3 Bei waa tried w | charging tim with stealing | and $500 im money from boender v. Dunlap, & | resident of Cama, Me. on tue 22d of February, The complat t alleged that while at a@ liquor loon in Amity etree) Beil bad ts bands in the eckel Which Coniained the Money and checks he ost, It Wad shown that the complainant was under the infaence of liquor, and, ve accused having proved a good character tor bonesty, tue jury rendered @ verutct of wot gully, JEFFERSON MARKET POLICE COURT. Bofora Judge Kasniire. A DISHONTST CitAMiEnMArID, Two Women, hated Lica Sheridan and Mare with 310 costs, besides | Mr. Strahan, in summing op for the de‘ence, read frum the Statutes and irom the police rege: | lations to show that it wes within the discretion Ol the Superintendent of Police to detain a pris- oner over twenty-four bours without bringing him | before @ magistrate, provided that such de- tention was brought to the notice of | | the Boerd of Police Commissioners, In the present case Mr. Watling could not have | | Roulivd the Goard o1 his action, because, as the records would show, they were not in ses- | sion. Had they been im session during tne time the prisoners were isid in custody at Headquar- | | ters che Superintentent migut have been keid to | | answer, out there being no Hoard in session it Was | Impossible for nim to neLily ay required, Indtvid- ual members ald rot c ng itute a Boara, ln regard to the third epecificatian that the nage the counsel urged tuat the denial of the deendant snould bave greater welgit than the assertion of Margaret Sweeny. President Matsei! tnen adjourned the Board, stating that te docision was reserved. . MUNICIPAL NOTES. | + | The heads of the various departments had a con- feren’e yesterday in the Mayor's office, There | were present Commissioners Stebbins and Stewart, of the Parks; Geueral Porter, of the Pub- lic Works; Commissioner Weies, of the Docks, and | Mr. Adims, Superintendent of Buildings. The ob- ject of the meeting was to consider the advisabii- uy of placing the wages paid to the laborers and | Joremen in the departments on a uniform basis, It was suown that in some cases ioremen were paid $3 a day, while in others foremen got $475 | and $5 a day, and that where some jaborers of the | unskilled class were paid §1 75 tor the same kind | of work other unskilled laborers were allowed | $2 and ¢2 50. A general discussion was had on the subject of so Axing the rates that the wages | @t least for foremen and laborers who are not re- , | quired to be ekiued mechanics should be made | uniform, Each Commissioner gave his views | freely and the Mayor bimeeli joined in the dis- | cussion, No decision was ariived at when the | meeting adjourned, but it is believed thatina | few y# some arrangement will be made by which the rates a'l round willbe made the same. Tnere 18 ah impression among the workingmen in atl the depariments that making the Wages uniiorm Means nothing less thau a reduction of the wages of those who are now well paid to the levei or those who are the worst pat. Itis now fixed 1#@ that before the close of | next week erai Porter will have all hts plans completed lor whut the bhoys cali a “reyointion” Of iis department. Some important changes were to lave been made to-day, it 18 said; but Lb has been deeime | best Now not to create havoc in the Jeading bure of the depar not until a genera! change is made On one and the sane di So, many Who are now tn fat oflices in aepart- Gent miy as well have weir tiaps packed by tae | 19th inst. A romor prevaued j esterday in political circies thot Mr, Wickham tid pot ofily received the Gov- | ernor's approvai of the Mayor’s removal of the Fire Co orissioners, but that he nad appointed their successors, A ing to the Mayor there Was no truth in the ramor. However, from cer tain info fon that ven transmitted trom Alvany to a promine olitician of the Tammany orcer, the mystery that now seems to surround the jale of the Fire Commissioners will be re- moved by the Governor bo'ore Wednesday. A lorge bumber of property Owners Who reside on aud near Leunox fill calicd upon General Porter yesterday and complained that of late the | flow of Croton wa in the pipes of their neigh- Lorhvod had becn very meagre, and asked him to some measures for thelr reife: General ter called tue attention o: rai Tracy, the Unie! Poginecr, to the subject, The Law ¢ mittee of tne Board of Aldermen, Who are Investigating Comptrolier Green, hoid 2 Session to-day ut three o'ciock, when the pantie | Woo have beeu at ached for pot appearing hereto- | fore when subpa will be aliowed to explain | Why they refused to tesufy when called upon, | | i@ Yacahey which occurs in the Park Commis- | 1 hon the }4 of May quil, itis satd, be filled by j tie appoinlacnt of Joida@a i. Mott, of Mout | | Mayen, , | Hlegal and votd. WILLIAM M. TWEED Important Action in the Criminal Suit. | THE HABEAS CORPUS DECISION. Both the Verdict and Sentence Sustained. PROCEEDINGS IN THE CIVIL SsvIT. Since the memorable 224 of November, 1873, when William M. Tweed, was proved guilty, in the Court of Oyer and Terminer, of the charges em- bodied in the famous so called “omnibus indict- | ment,” and m addition to paying some $12,000 fines, sentenced tothe Penitentiary for twelve years, his couasel have resoried to every legal strategy to lessen the term of his imprisonment, the subject of the fines being matter of un- important consideration.. As a final re- | source,” having unsuccessfully tried almost every other imaginable means of rescue for the unhappy prisoner, they invoked the writ of habeas corpus. Under these habeas corpus pro- ceedings the case has peen hanging for months in the courts, There have been motions and coup- ter motions, and affidavit on aflaavit, like Pelion on Ossa. It is unnecessary to follow the case through all its legal tortuous windings and com- plications a8 at each successive stage they were fully reported in the HeRaLp. At length, in the couse of events and characterized of course with the usual “law’s delay,” the case reached the Supreme Court, General Term, There there waa a lengthy and exhaustive7argu- ment. The case was argued before Judges West- brook, Daniels and Donohue. Tie Court yesterday rendered its dec‘sion, Judges Westbrook and Dan- leis writing the opinions. The Court affirms the judgihent in the Court of Oyer and Terminer. We give below the main points 0. the opinions, OPINION OF JUDGE WESTBROOK. The answer of the relator tothe return of the respondent substantially alleges:-- First—that the Court of Oyer and Terminer of ; the city and counry of New York had no jurisdic- | tion or power to try the alleged misdemeanor tor the commission of which he was held. Second—Toat the jury which rendered the ver- dict upon which the sentence was pronounced ; Was not a lawiul one. Third—That the Court had no rower to punish more than @ single misdemeanor, and conse- queatly all flu‘s in excess of axingle one of $250 and all imprisonment beyond a single year Were Fourth—Vhat the penalty tor the offence charged in the indictment was a fine of $250 only. Alter cearing the habeas corpus the Court of Oyer and Terminer discharged the writ and re- mauded the prisoner, Proceedings were brought into this Court on writ of certiorari on the ques- ton raised in the Court below, and there deter- mined against the reiatcr, are presented for re- view and determination, ‘The relator is held by virtue of the final sentence | and judgment of a Court vf Oyer and Terminer, | pronounced on a verdict of a jury, rendered upon the trial in that Court of an indictment charging | various misdemeanors, Upon the trial the Court held that it was proper | and legal to unite several misdemeanors in one | indictment, @nd to try and convict the accused | upon each, and that as several misaomeanors were, intact, josnod and cuarged in tne indict- | ment, upon Which a@ separate veraict Was ren- dered, judgment could be and was pronounced against Gin jor eack crime of which he was jound gu ity. As the attempt to have Mr. Tweed reieased was Made by habeus Corpus, this preliminary question meets us—“ What power had the Court or officer before which such Writ was reiuraable by virtue thereof in the prem:ses?” The office of the writ ana the duties 0} the officer or Court are very Clearly defined hy statute, and the hmitations upon the power are Stated with great precisicn. A reierence to some of the provi-lons of the | Habeas Corpus act bearing on the question at issue wil show the difliculties which the reiator has to encounter in presenting to the Court the points Upon a be claimed he is cutitied to be dis- charge Firei—By section 22 of that act (2 Edmond’s Statutes, 984) among the persons who are therein deciarca to be not “entitied to prosecute such writ’ are those wno are “committed or detained by virtue ui tue fiual yadgment or decree oi any competent trivuaal of crime or criminal jurisdic- 100. Second—By section 23 (2 Edmonds, 585) the peti. tion must state in substance that the party apply- ing is not detained by virtue of any process, Judg- ment, decree or execution, a8 specified in sec. © tion 22, Third-—By section 40 (2 Edmonds, 588) it 18 deciared tu ve tie du'y of the cout or officer to remand the prisoner should it appear that he is detained by virtue of the finai judgment of a com- | petént criminal or civil tribunat or on any execu. tion issued upon such judgment, j Fourth—By section 42 (2 Edmonds, 588) i it ap- Pear that the jurisdiction of such court or oficer Dag been exceeded either as to matter, place, sum or purpose the prisoner may be discharged. Fifth— By section 42 (2 Edmonds, 589), no court. or oficer on the return of any haoe.s corpus or certiorari shall have power tu go into the legality or jusuice of any process, juegment, decree or | execution. The relator c'aims that the expression, ‘‘Any competeut tribunal,’ contaiued in tic twenty- second section, justifies the presentation of all the questions now submitted, It ts argued that Wheuever the final judgment ordered was not such @ one as the tribunal, in the opinion of Court or offiver, Was competent to pronounce the prisoner should be discharged, In giving tho statute this construction the cons:- | quences cannot be overlooked. Wilitt be argued that our lawmakers intended that the judgments 1 the Court of Oyer and Terminer, which consti- tute the wighest grade Of cours possessing orlgi- — nal criminal jurisdiction, should be summariiy reviewed and practically reversed by aay officer, who, while he Is 11 the judicial system of inierior rank to the judge who presides at suc Oyer and Terminer, is yet empowered to issue (his writ? It this question be answered iu the affrimative suca answer involves a want of symmetry in our judictai system which as a rule provides for ap- peuis omy from inferior to super.or courts, Apart jrom the lacongraity of which tae practice of a local officer seudiog @ prisoner back to Oyer and Teratuer ‘or a reseutence would involve, anotier cousequence, even more serious, would ensue. Tag oticer allowing the writ has no such power, and in every case where, in his judgment, the power of the Court had been exceeded ne would be compelled to open the prison door aud direct the criminals to go ree and unpunished. Did our Legislature imtend this? It certainly did if tne position of the reiator ts sound. Again, if the position of the relator ts sound, | what ase to have Made special provisions, 48 has been done In section 41 (¢ Edmonds, 68 )? In dis- cussing the point as to “competent jumsdiction” raised by the rejators counsel, Judge Wester- | brook says there seems to ve no difficulty im nat- | moniziig the phrase of the statute. If we construe them to mean a tribunal having jurisdicticn of the subject matter and of the per- gon the whole act {8 harmonious, Such a triounal as the Oyer and Terwiner ts harmonious and com- petent to try the questions and the party belore it. The decivions of such a Dody, according to the whole theory 0! our laws, are to be revicwed by a superior oné and not summarily disposed of by an | inierior officer, {Here is cited te case of People vs. Cossels (@ Hii 164) which involved the valiutty of a com- | mitment of wiiness for contempt in refusing to tions before a Ju tice of the Peace.) plication Of the conclusions arrived av taled above will now be applied to the points raised in beball of the selator. First, 19 the several convictions and sentences upon a Single indictment; second, to the lawfainess ol the jury, and third, to the several culivictious. Firsi, the alleged iegality of the several con- vietions and several sent ment. The jurisdiction of the Gov crimes and the person being conceded this point present more tan the icgality of the judgment Wile nas been pronounced? Yet this bs y tinny Which the statute declares the ofiicer, Upon the return of the writ 13 powericss to touch, Our arguments thus Jar have been ascies: if we have failed to prove that tie eX essiven:ss Of a judginent (which is all that even the counsel claim this point involves) tn a criminal case cat bot be inquired into Upon this proceeding. Ample power so {to do iS @X- pressly conferred mn & party ts de- tained upon a Civil process, but its exercise in @ criminal one, where tie O ut wiich pronounced judgment had power to try the offence and render a judgment Is forbidden by an express declaration that the courts or otticers shall have no ‘power to inquire into the legality or justice’ thereof, Does tie case pres question of excess of J ment? 1tis u that Mr. Tweed has been cuny demexnors and that severa: judgments have veen prosounced thereon, It is het clauned that the aggregate of tue severai pupishments was in ex- Coas of what the Court was authorized to inflict, The polut, then, hecessarily is that the joinder of the several offences in a single tndiciment aod the separate convictions thercon were illegal, The question admita the jurisdiction, but questions the manner of its exercise, The judgment upon the crime and the oflender eg? uo graver than the law allowed, What are the intervening questions but siniply those of prastice, which, While they may be pronounced erroneous In a paper proceeding to 8 UPOH a s.nele indict- over the | review thei, can end do not render the judgment void? Il it was a nev joindér to accuse the relator of | anndry misdemeanors brosented by separate | thereupon, duly certified by such clerk, which | Same accordingly. (3d R, s., Sth ed., 1,032, E., 13.) | city, | maue should be enacted felative to the commit- | referred to in which that imprisonment could ve | commitment | Sessions of counts in a pingle accusation, did the Court 1ose thereby its jurisdiction? Suppose ta a civil action the defendant ia brought by proper process before the Court, and ts Fequized to answer a com- plaint roperly unites various Causes of action, and after issue thus joined the cause proceeds to trial and juagment, ts Such judsment void, provided it was hot In excess of the power 01 the Court over all the cause of ac- tion separately ? This will hardly be preteuded, and yet it is the identical question preseuied, regards the Court betere which Mr. ‘Tweed was | tried, it had competent jurisdiction over the accu- | sation and rhe accused, but it is urzed that be- cause he was compelied to deiend himself tn a single trial against all the accusations that the Whole proceeding ts void, The soundness of this proposition can only be established by showing | that the grouping of offences in a single indict- ment Is 8o illegai as to make null the preliminary | Proceeaings, thus assuming all subsequent action thereunder void. To do.this it must be demor- strated that every indictment, in order to give | the court Jurisdiciton over offender and offence, | Inust accase of a single and only a single crime. | Burns’ Justice, vol, 2, page 602, thus states the | Tule:—“I1 there be one offender and ¢everal Offences, such us burglary and larceny, they may be contained 1n one indictment.’’ Judge Westbrook takes up the second point, tn- volving the constitutionalty ot the new jury laws of 1872 and 1873, He decides that the question cannot be presented on habeas corpus, though he holds the law to be constitutional. ‘The next point—that Mr. Tweed could only be sentenced to pay a fine of $250, because that was the penalty peeacrined for such an offence by a member o! a joa'd of Supervisors—is met by the answer that a court of Ceres Jurisdiction has decided other- Wiso; that the fines which tt 18 conceded could be imposed are not paid, and tie detencion for such Lon-payment would be proper; and last, that the point assumes @ lact which not correct. No provision 1a made for unish:ng a supervisor hy criminal prosecution. ‘he section only prescribes a penalty, to bere. covered in a civil action, for a simple refusal or Degiect to perform aduty, Tne element of willul- ness Which makes the act criminal is absent irom the enactment, AS to the remaining questions, Judge Westbrook simply concurs with Juage Daniels, and in conclusion says :— “In the decision which we are to give we are to answer simply legal questions. No discretion to abate or lighten punisument 1s confided to us, nor is there any op- portunity on Lois proceeding to review any alieged errors upon the trial, or tue ‘improper exercise of discretion by the Vourt betore which the convic- | tion took place. We certainly do not impute error or abuse o! discretion, but simply desire to say that, as to the existence of any such, no opinion 13 expressed. In our opinion, the Oyer and Terminer, in discharging tne writ 0! habeas corpus and remanding the prisoner, committed no error, and tat such order must be aflirmed,” JUDGE DANIELS! OPINION. From the return which the respondent made to the writ of nadeas corpus it was made to appear that the relator was tu mis custody as Warden of the Penitentiary upon a fual conviction in the court of Oyer and Terminer of the county of New York for Various misaemeanors. This appeared by the comnutment itse:f, a copy of which was ln. cluded in the return, and the direct statement of the fact in terms in sach retarn. The commitment was, in orm and substance, a8 the statute re- quired it should be in order to justity the impris- onment and detention of the relator, Tne provis- jon made upon this eudject is that “whenever a sentence o! imprisonmentin a county jail shall pe Row tod upon any person convicted of any ol- nee, the clerk of tne Court shall, as soon as may be, Make out ana deiiver to the Sherif of tne county a trenseript of tue entry of such Conviction 1 the minutes of tae Court aud of the sentence spall be a sufficient author.ty tv such Sherif to execute sucii sentence, and be shalt execate the The conviction ana sentence of the reiator was eutered anu certified a8 this sec“ion required that it should be, That very clearly appeared from the copies certified by the Clerk o1 the Court, re- turned to th writ ol habeas corpus and prodaced by toe Warden of the Penitentiary on toe hearing, ‘The sentence, as well as the commitment, of the relasor were for imprisonment in tue Peniten- tiary, but that did not render the provision of this statute inapplicable to the proceeding, ior the Penitentiary mentioned was tue County Jail, or Couaty Prison—which Is substantially the same thing--1or Lhe detenuon and panisument of per- sons convicted im the county of New York of offences not punishable by imprisonment | in the State Prison and not spectully rendered | anishable elsewhere. This is rendered very clear Dy the provision mace upon the subject by chap- ter 176 of the Laws oi 1314, ‘tae preamble to that act recited thatit Was represented by tne Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council of the city of New York that they were erecting aud had nearly completed the builaing designed to be used as & jai for the confiaemeut 0: such Offenders as wore ts be kept at labor during their imprison- ment, and requested thay iv should be estapiished as ose of the jails of the and that the provisions afterward | ments of olenders to such prison. It was then Provided tuat the building referred to should be- come one Of the jails of the city by the name of the Penitentiary 0: Now York, and that it should henceforth continue the jail of said city tor the confinement and safe kceping of all persons con: vicied of aly crime or misdemeanor and sen- | tenced to coifincmeaot there by any Court of Oyer avd Termiocr tu such city, That the keeper ol suci Penitentiary should keep all per- sons committed to it in the same man- ner and under the same penalties as | the Sheriff of other counties in the State ought to keep in the jails ol the respective coun. fdes the crimigals cormmitied to them, (Laws of 1si4, 208-9, sections 1, 3.) These provisions still remain in force withour any substantial change in Wier effect, and taey created the Penitentiary | @ prison for the punishment and confinement of @ Cla-s oi offenders convicted of offences not pun- i:hable by imprisoument in a State privon, Yor that purpose it was created a jull of the city of New York to which offenders convicted of mis- demeanecrs no: only couid be but should be sent, as they otherwise would have been simply to tue jail of tne county. Tne keeper was required to receive and keep that class O! offenders in the same manner as sheriffs of other counties receive aud kept the same descrip- tion of persons. And that since the Kevised Stat utes weut into effect tas been by means, and un- der the authority of tne commitment provided for by the section ‘alrerdy quoted, other acis more Tecentiy enacted have for certaia purposes re- ferred Lo the prison still under the special charge of the Sheriif of tho county of New York as the County Jail, But they in po way modified the | provisions contained in the act ol 1814, by which the Penitentiary was created and designated as @ jail for tne punishment of persons convicted cf crimes. By that actit sttll contioucs to be the proper prison for persons couvicted of | misdemeanors in courts of Oyer and Yerminer held in tne city of New York as well as iu the other courts mentioned in the law. Aad woile it was denominated a city jrt! the objects to whica it was devoted render it in reality the city and county rison for the purposes designated in the act, The relator was formally committed '0 toat prison by the commitment which was issued, and | Irom the eutry made in the minutes of the Court it appears that he was actually sentenced, pon his colviction, to such imprisonment. In these respects the case presented was sirictly conformed to What the act ol 1814 required it sbouid be to render the imprisonment lawlul and proper. [f the statement contained ta the judg. Ment recoid ts to be considered no change Will be | prodaced by ii which can result in any advautage to the relator, By that it appears that it was ad- judged tuat he suouid be imprisoned in the Coanty Jail during the. perioas mentioged and declared, The siguificatiou of the terms used a8 descrip- tive of tue prison must be determined by the circumstaness under which they were used. The | relator had been c nvictes of certain misacmean- ors properly punishable by imprisonment in tue Penitentiary, aud for that purpos3 it had been un- lawiully desinated as the jail to which such | convicts couid ve sent by Courts of Oyer and Ter- | miner hetd im the ccunty of New York. It must | tor these reasons have been understood as well as designed that by adjudging that tne r@ator shoud be imprisoned im the County Jail, that the jau was roperly ade, and that was the Penitentiary. | {8 conciusion ts very clearly tudicated by the further circumstance vbat while the matter was | Bull cngaying the attention of the Court and io process Of consummation the entry was omede in its =minules = and the issued — eXpreasiy designating ' the Penitentiary a+ the prison in which it was in- teudod the relator was to be contined, At most the record contaiied bui a misdeseription, which the entry in tue minutes and these Jour of the commutment jiully corrected, The law provided for his detention and pumishmentin the Peniten- ary and that Was inthe eud properly secured, ‘That 1t way bot have been done throughout in the most approved ana artistic manner presents no good reason jor bis discharge by mesns oO: the | Wiit of hayoas corpus, The object vt the law in | this respect was attatued 4 any substaniial prejudice to the relator and while that appears to be the case, he has no proper ground of complaint arising out of the circumstance that in the record the prison ie was assigned to was cated the County Jail instead of the Penitentiary, For the orfences he fiad committed he could prop- erly be lmprisoned no Where else. And that must bave been vhe place (he Court designed he stiould goto, when the County Jad was mentioned, for The process immediately following the sentence expressly consigu-d him there, and the law re- quucd that he should be sent there, but, it is claimed in the rejator’s behball, that the Court of Oyer and Terwiner m the county of New York had no power to try him for the otfences of which he was convicted and lis confinement in the Penitentiary was tor that reason unlawiul, This position is supposed to be maintained by certain provisions coutamed in chapter 337 of the Laws of 1855. Those relied Upon 4s being attended with that resuit are found in the filth section of the act. That provides that “the Court of Special Sessions of the peace in and for the city and couniy of New York shall have power to hear, determine and punish according to law all complaints for tisdemeanors, and shall possess exclivive jurisdiction thereof unless the said Court of Special Sessions shall order any sach complaint to be sent to the Court of General the peace, and unless the ac- arrested and brought before the cused when | Bossions of | county Of New York, But this does not sustain FP peat on taken by the relator, For itis gos of I) Misdemeanors that exciuaive jurisdiction was | given to the Coatt of Sp Session, but onty of | Complaints (or misdemeanors. It Was suaQly Over = umitting Magistrate shali elect to Lave the case | appointments now heard and determined by the Court of General | aad apportioned to the varions district commit 10 Peace in and for the city and | tees to select nominees therefor. | saat deal of trad offences of this description for which complaints should be made that this exclusive juris- diction was = extended, and that =n. cluded only cases commenced by compiaint, & course of criminal proceeding: reviously Well known to the laws of the State. Belore this statute was enacted the laws had provided tor making compia‘nts io crimtnal cases. It was simply a iormal application on order for a warrant against @ person supposed to have committed some crime, It was known to the common as well as thestatutory law of the State (3d KR, S., Stn ed., 933; secs, 1, 2, Barbour’s Criminal Law, 2d ed., 512), and when used to fesignate @ criminal pro- ceeding the term compinint had a definite legal signification. It formed the tnitlutory step in the institution of a criminal prosecu- tion before a Magistrate, and that 19 to be presumed to bave been the legisia- uve Understanding of it as it was used in the enactment of tie law of 1855. Notning can be found io the act itse!f that 13 inconsistent with that conclusion, Anu when that 1s the case, legat terms made ure of in the enactment of laws are presumed to have been employed in their strict legal sense, Judge Daniels comes to the conclu- sion that the act 01 1855 refers only to complain's made as the foundation of an app'ication for a warrant in the mode prescribed by the Revised Statutes, and it is only oi complaints of that nature that the Spectal Sessions nas exclusi¥e jurisdiction, This does not impair the power of the Court of Oyer and Ter- miter. Judge Daniels then foilows the reasoning of Judge Westbrook as to the want of power of the Court on habeas corpus to inquire into the legality of the sentence or the extent of it. He says, 1 concluston:—‘The case of the relator is in the samo condition under the counts of tho indictment on which It was claimed that he cou'd not be imprisoned,. Tae facts were all be‘ore the Court of Oyer and Terminer, and upon them it decided his imprisonment to be lawiul, It was the juugment of a competent Court upon the subject, and that was conclusive under the express pi visions of the statute upon the hearing of the writ of haveas corpus, Tue writ was proper dismissed and the order made should wb afirmed.” THE TWEED CIVIL SUIT. The appeal of William M. Tweed trom the order erputin as continuance Of tue «uit brought against im in the name ot the Board of Supervisors. with the Mayor, Aldermen and Commona!ty of the city ot New York substituted as plaintifts, which was argued on Thursday iu the Supreme Court, Gen- eral ‘Term, was decided yesterday, Judge Daniels readering the opinion, The proceeding 1s held to be in all respects a proper one under the act con- solldating the city and county, There was noth- ing In the claim as urged by the deiendant that should permit him to serve @ further answer, 4s it aid not change the charges against him. This suit, as will be remembered, is to recover $11,000,000 claimed to have been fraudulently ob- tained from the city treasury in connection with the building of the new County Court House. THE INTERNATIONAL RIFLE MATCH. 3 GETTING READY FOR NEXT SUMMER'S CONTEST IN IRELAND. The joint committees of the Natienal Rifle As- sociation and Amateur Rifle Club, having charge of the arrangements for tne international match, in Ireland, next June, mot yesterday afternoon at No. 194 Broadway, Colonel Wingate presiding. The usual pre'iminary business being disposed of the Chairman reported that Mr. Alexander T. Sewart had forwarded them a check for $500 in ald of the {und to send the team across the Atlan- Uc; also that Mr. Royal Phelps had sent them $100, Mr. John W, Masury $25 and Adjutant Gen- eral Franklin Townsend $109 for the same object. Colonel Gildersie:ve reported that he had dis- posed of a box for $109 to the First division staf offivers, for the entertainment at the Academy of Music neXt Month; als» 30 admission tickets had been sola by him. Mr. J. A. Bird, who 13 arranging the details of the periorm- ance, stated that 700 tickets had been suid at bis office, Colonel Wingate informed the | committee that be had received a letter, under the date of January 1, 1875, from Mr. Adam Smith, Honorary Secretary of the Poona (Kast Indies) Ride Club, regarding the late match between the American and Irish teams at Creedmoor, Mr. Smith says that the report of the event had just been recelved tn that country, and the riflemen there were surprised that the American team used breech-loaders made by Remington and Sharpe. Mr, Smith also desired to know if thera could be arranged a simultancous international match between the — India and American riflemen toward the fall of this year, the conditions being six or eight of & side, With ten shots at 200, 400 and 500 yards wito -577 bore rifle on one day, aud ten shots at 800, 900 and 1,030 yards on the following day with match rifles; all shots to be fired from any posl- tion, ‘The communication was reierred to the Executive Commitee of the Amateur Ride Club, ‘the joiut committees then adjournea and the Executive Commitice ag above was called to order, Ou motion ot Licutenant Fulton, the Presi dect of the Amatear Rifle Clud was requested to cali a special Meeting on Wednesday evening, 17th inst., for the purpose of advising its members to use every possib.e endcay Fr tu make the diamatic entertainment at the Academy oi Music a success and lor the transaction of any other business, in- cluding the amendment of the bylaws, that may come velore them. Colonel! Cildersieeve tendered the First Divison rendezvous, No. 7 West Thir- teenth street, lor the meeting, Wich Was accepted with thanks, Mr. J. F. Luther, who has offered to present the elab with a gold medal for competition, and which offer has been accepted, let the matter of the character of the con:est in the hands of the com- mittee, It was agreed tuat it should be shot for under the same terms as the last ama-eur bi wish five shots and two sighting shots at 800, and 1,000 yards, to be won thre timea belore becoming the property gf the winner. ‘his will bs Known as the Luther Medal, and will be open to all rifies under the rules of the association. Adjourned. : THE CITIZENS’ RAPID TRANSIT AS. SOCIATION. ‘The Citizens’ Rapid Transit Assoctation are evt- dently determined to leave no stone unturned for the accomplishment of the design for which the organization was effected, Yesterday the follow. ing circular was sent to many prominent business men and real estate owners in the city:— Mr, ———— :— | Phe andersigned Committee on Petitions respectful: request you to procure signatures to the be josed peth- tion and return the same ty the office of the Secretary. J. Romaine brown, Griffith Rowe, Lowis J. Philips, Aaron Raymond, Henry P. McGowan, Liewellyn F, Barry, James F, Ruggles, \OBART } COTT, Secrotary. The petition reads To tHe Lucistatone ov tux State or New Yoree— We, the undersigned, residents of the city of New York, respectfully pedtion that your houorable body Will, in such manner and forin ag shall to you seem Wise ass @ law that will give the Mayor and Com, mon Counetl of this city the authority to desiynate and la; out suitable routes of rapid transit in this cit, or o.herwise, ant power to make such ru.és aud rega- lations for construeting and operating the sani as they y deem fit and best. ‘This petition has already received a large nam- ber of signatures, and as goon as possible tt will be sent to Albany, whore the Association have a committee watching tie interests of rapid transit, be‘ore the Railroad Committee. A meeting of the Executive Committee o: the Association wi] be held at the office ot J. Romaine Brown, corner of se ie street and Broadway, on Monday next, TAMMANY HALL. tee THE PATRONAGE OF THB DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS --A NEW RESOLUTION OF SECRECY. Tre Tammany Committee on Organization held @ meeting yesterday afternocn, with John Kelly in the chair, for the purpose of recelving and act- ing on the report of the Sub-Committee appointed to confor with General Porter in reference to the disiripution of the patronage attached to the Department of Public Works, it having been deemed by tae Tammany organization that tho bomination of ofiiciais and employéa was due to tiem in view of the part taken by the organization in the elections of last fall, Previous to the reading of the report of tho sub- committee Mr. Kelly took occasion to remark that the proceedings of the commiltco were always reported ip the HenaLb on the moruing af-cr any miceting was held, He sald he was at @ loss to understand how this could happen unless it was that some of the members of tie committee cave the tuiormation. To do 30 he thought was a breach of faith and contrary to the rules of the organisa. tion and those adopted by the commutice. ile thereiore oifered a resolution, Walch wrs adopted, by which every member Was solemnly pieiged to abstain from giving aby information to the press. Alter the adoption ol tuis reso!ntion of secrecy the sub-committee reported that they hud bad an luterview with Porter, the new Com- missioner of Pablic Works, who lad go iar agreed to concede to Tammany the nomination of all inspectors, foreman and laborers to be emp.oyed by the department, with the understanding that for the ollices of tnspectors good and conipetent men should bo selected, He further, tt was re- ge would give them some reply in regard to he other aud moro important positions on Thursday next. This report cauaed considerable discussion, and @ great deal of lecilng was cx- hibited, it being considered that the whole ot the appointments resting With the head ut the Depart- ment of Public Works should bave at once been given to Tammany, The question was finally over until Friday ext in ordor that the sub-comn- mittee might take a final report, A list of the cohcuued Was then read over the Meeting there was a done among the metpers the committeo, some sWa,pping Of au bbe (CONTINUED ON NUNTH PAGEL] On the brea King Wp of