The New York Herald Newspaper, May 5, 1875, Page 4

THE TILTON SUL. oo Eighty-second Day of the Great Scandal Trial. ELIZABETH TILTON’S LETTER, Its Purport and How It Was Treated. THE DOCUMENT IGNORED IN COURT Mrs. Tilton Gives It to the Outside Public. “1AM INNOCENT OF THE CHARGE.” *T Would Like to Tell My Story Truthfully.” The dramatic scene expected at the opening of the morning session of the great Brooklyn trial yesterday did not come olf, much to the disap- Dotment of the curiosity hunters. To those ace eustomed to the constant series of surprises in this scandal suit 1t was not improbable that when the court opened yesterday Mrs. Tiiton would be Present, and the first thing in order would be the reading of her mysterious letter to Judge Neilson, Joliowed by the answer of the Judge, and then @ probable retort from the piucky !ittle lacy, who 13 tall of spirit and not easily extinguished or put down. Taking these events as likely to occur, the shrewd observer no doubt looked torward to see a ret of bewlidered lawyers— Shearman in tears, Tracy in @ Wid sort of rage, Evarts multipiving hs wrinkles, Bcd the audience in open-mouthed wonder at the whoie afuir. Vols would be accompanied by a mystified joy, and the whole stall of reporters in perfect ecstasic: But noting of the kind Occurred, and a new sensation was lost. Mra, Tuton did wot even come to court to look aller the fate of her communication. The Jaage putitdown im his pockes to keep it there tne previous day, and return it to her unannounced te@ the world or give it to the public if she decided to do so herself, This was truly A GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT. What the Judge actually did was to send back w ote early in the moruing by a messenger. He found it contained notoing on which he could take ection, nothing that demanded any steps frum him, it was jor the counsel to decide the matter between themselves. Areporter of the HeRaLD, during recess, went down to see Mrs, Tilton and jearn the probable fate of her sensationai missive, Mrs. Ovington ppened the door and said Mrs. Tilton was up stuirs. Phe house isa plain, unpretentious trame bail. ing, of no particular character inside or out. TALK WITH MRS. OVINGTON. Mrs. Ovingtoa was asked if Mrs. Tilton had de- termined on giving the letter she senc Judge Neilson for publication to the press. “She has not yet decided.” “How long will lt take her te decide?” “Perhaps till to-moriow. You per- ceive Mrs. Tilton ia not hasty io her decisions, She is aware of the Importance of this letter or whe would not have addressed it to the Judge, She may make her mind up in the meantime, and make it also convenient for all tne morning papers to ootain @ copy.” “| understand Mrs. Tilton asks the privilege of ‘estiiying on her own benals, if the lawyers will allow?” “You will soon see the purpose of ner applica- | tion.” Subsequently Mrs, Tilton decided to give her let- ter for publication. THE AY 3, 1 JupGe Nettson—I ask the priviiege from you fora few words in my own benall. I feel very @eepiy the injustice of my position iu the law ani before the Court now sitting; and while I bave understood and respected trom the beginuing Mr. Everts’ principle in (be matter, yet since your last session I have been so sensible of tee power of my enemies that my soul cries out velore you Sud the genticmeno of the jury, that they ceware bow, by a diviced verdict, they consign to my children @ fulse ua irrevocable stain upon their mother. For five years past! have been ine viceum of circumstances most cruei and untor- tanaie; straggling irom time to time only ior & Diace to live nonorably and trusvfully. Keleased WF some months Irom the Will by whose power apconsciously | criminated myseifagain and again, I deciare solemuiy belore you, wita. ut fear of man and by faith in Goo, that | am innocent of the crimes charged agains: me. I wonid like \o tell my whole sad story truchfully—to acknowledge the frequent talsenoods wrung from me vy com- pUlsion—though at toe same time uowilling to re- of my married le, whieh ovly the vital impurtaoce of my position makes neces- 1 assume tue entire responsivility of this nown to friend or counsel of eitoer , and it Your Houor's honorable decision. ‘itu great respect, ELIZABETH KR, TILTON. JUDGE NEILSON'S REPLY, CORRESPONDENCE. | CHAMBERS OF THE CITY COURT OF BROOK- LYN, N.Y, BROOKLYN, May 4, 1870. Mrs. TILtoN— am directed by Chief Judge a to return your letter, it cannot feaa iu court, Also to state that im ci anes the right to reirain irom calling any a witness, however competent, ama that ther the Court Bor (he client can interfere wita We exercise of that rignt. ‘The Jucge also instructs me to say that the questicn Whether you could be a witness stands on quite other ground irow that considered when your husband was called and sworn. He @ competent Witness to testify in bis ff against a third person, de‘encant, aod policy of the law Wus to Some extent in- ved, i the statute of May 10, 1s# she to be .ncompetent @ Witness jor or Against the husband. Yours respectiully, GEO. W. KNAEBEL, Vierk City Court, &c, ‘MRS, TILTON’S BETE NOTRE. Mr. Avarts, Quiding the key of the situation, re- selved to adhere to bis preannounced policy to keep Mrs, Tilton out of the case on the ground that as the Tilton family nad already suftered epeugh between the upper and nether millstones of this scandal it would be too cruel to pash the @issection any fartner. Mrs. Tilton will visit the tourt room no more. She has taken her farewell of the memorabie scene. She has done woat she deemed her part before leavin id it her hopes were weil meaot it is the jast and saddest biow this Much afflicted woman has yet received. Tue REBUTTAL PaRT. The heavy, broad-shouldered senior member of the firm of Woodrum. Robinson & Co. Frank- lin Woodrad, resumed toe stand in the mornin, His testimony id & good Geai to do with Tracy, who sat at the eloow of the pious Shearman and kept in incessant fire of suggestions in she ear of bis colleague, Woodradt we only a middung wiiness. He lacks the quality of quickness and his memory is not the clearest, bot he isa man of good reputation and his evi- dence is no dowot trustwortny. ie jeading point sought to be established through Woodruf by tne cros#-examination Was that he mast bave kuown ‘wom whom came the $5,000 that Was on Geposis with his firm. He testified that he never knew from whom the money came Upsil the statements appeared jast sum mer, These jements gave tim the clew We the ownersnip of tue mon A series of questions, very Slow, tedious and frivolous, were ssked a8 to What tue wituess said to one Mr. Boatiwick. Le was askeu if he ever said to soutn- Wick, “We must drive Beevner ou: of Brookiyn, nd whether Soutawick replied, “You may be avie to drive @ fisu and salt business, Mr. Woodrud, out when you undertake \o orive Henry Ward Beecher UE Of Brvoklyn you try on too big @ jov.” When the witness Was about to step down Beacn handea Dim the famous yellow siip thar came attached to Tilton’s cheos for $7,000, and the witness oi @igimed any koowieoge Oo! the sip, though he ‘Sought it was landed bim by Tlivon, RICHARDS AGALN. Ati Wok piace at last when Richards, Mrs, —— NEW YORK HERALD, WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1875.-TRIPLE SHEET, | Tilton’s brother, came on the stand once more, | He is 4 dark-featured man of a weil Enit igure, & full beard and @ shopely head. He spoke with clearness and firmness, while not the smallest emotion rufiied his jeatures. The excitement in the court rvom rose higher and bigher as the arguments on defendant's side went on to stave off the mevitable, The plaintiff's point was to re- buv Tracy's evidence where he described the in- terview between Richards and himsel!/, when the former appeared befure the Church Committee of | Investigation, Tne jury paid extra atten- | lon to the aebate and testimony. Rich- | ards has been all along nearer the arcana of the secret im this = trial than any other man. He was almost a witness to the act in fagrande deticto, His evidence 18 preg- Rant, as ig was before. He swore clearly and em- phatically that wnen Tracy met him at the time the Plymouth church investigation was going on he declined to answer the question whether or not bis sister nad committed adultery with Mr. Beecher. Tracy replied that bis declining to say | anything would be as bad as admitting the charge. | Finally be went before the committee and de- | clined saying anything. Then he impeached the | golden-haired, biue-eyed jewel of the defence, Bessie Turner, by | life spoke to nim about the cruelti ot Tilton | to his wile or to any of his tamily, and that she never came to him in his office at the Lvening Post, | he swears she did, to tell him of anything of | the kind happening; never at allcame to him at the Avening Post ofice. MOTHER AND DAUGHTER, Accompaniea by Mr. Tilvon the two fair looking | ladies who entered the court room the day pre- | vious, Air | peared again on the scene iu the morning of yes- terday. Miss Middlebrook, who was generally taken for Miss Florence Tilton on the occasion of her début, 18 a young girl of extremely fair com- plexton and jet black hair, Her mother is of @ deeper and radaier color and hair of deep faxen shade, Both sat close to fuiton, POOR MRS, BRECHER, aring that she never in her | Middlebrook and her daughter, @p- © | a beer barrel, was avotier of the host of witnesses with no other woman pear her, sits all the weary | day listening to the dull, tolling witnesses and the glib and ruesome lawyers. Her pale Jace ts framed in a jet black bonnet, the head drops repeatedly on the hand, the eye droops and it isa weary, weary walting—waiting tor the May. MR, EVARTS ON REBUTTAL. | storekeeper, or else he would never have known | Tryon Row and Tilton made such an impression ‘The rebuttal has brought out Mr. Evarts im re- | doubled iorce, It 1s so customary now to see him pop up a dozen Umes in a brief debate that it bas come to be a source Of amusement, and Mr. Beaca 1s cougratuiated by lis colleagues when he e3- capes having nalf a dozen mterruptions snot into his ear in uphaiting succession, A few more wit- nesses are still left, and ali the evidence may be expected in by Friday next. THE EVIDENCE. Franklin Woodrut was recalled. THE INTERVIEW AT SCHULTZ’S HOUR. By Mr. Beach—Q. In that interview, to which your attention was caliead yesterday, at Mr. Scnultz’s, when ‘Tracy, Tilton and Moulton were present, and when the starting of a new paper was the subject of conversation, did Mr, Tuton say, in substance, to Mr. Schultz, thar he could not accept any ald irom Mr. Beecher—that he could not place himself under any obligations of that kind? A, He said in substance, that he could not accept apy alu from Mr, Beecuer; that Was in connection with the subject o! starting the Golden Age. Q. Mr, Schultz stated in his testimony that you calue to that interview in company wito Mr. ‘Tii- ton, that you did not remain louger than ten or fie teeu minutes. isthatse? A. lwent there with Mr, Tilton and we remained there from a hall to | \uree-quarters of an hour, when we le/t together. Q Then Mr, Schultz is mistaken when be says that you dia not remain more than tweive or uf teen minutes+ A. Yes, sir, be 1s mistaken; | way preseot during the whule of tue Conversation that ensued on the occasion of our Vieit. q Mr. fracy stated thatin the conversation on Subday, at Mouiton’s house, om the presentation o( the letter of apology—or letter of contrition— Moulton said, in convection with its presentation, “It ig @ memoranda, or notes of conversation, I had with Mr. Beecher,” was amy such expression in lorm or substance used? A, It was understood | thatthe letter of apology Was @ genuine letter. Mr. Evar's objected to the answer, bu: uo argu- ment ensued. | Crosseexamined by Mr. Shearman:—Q. How | long bave you been acquainted with General | Tracy? A. Five or six years; { have met him and | known him pretty intimately during these years. | "@ As#ociaied with Lim In politics? A, Some. what; | bave been @ littie in politica, not very | much; my acquaintance with nim otnerwise has | been very timate; | have seen and talked witn | him sométimes every day; sometimes | have not Seen him for three months. | @ Upto what time did that intimacy exist? A. | Inever knew tnat it had ceased. Q, Dia you see him frequently during the sum- mer of 1s74f =A. No, sir, bot frequentiv during 1si4; Lrecoliect one interview I bau with bim in ‘hat year; it was in the summer, July or August. Q. You 'taiked with Mim on a variety ol sub- jects; your relatious were uot merely of a busi- ness cliuracter? A. I did, sir, our relations were Ot Of @ business Ui aacter. Q He was nut the regular counsel of your firm? A, No, sir; be Was sometimes our counsel. @ | Gesire to koow the nai 01 some of the persons or iriends you Were most intimate with 1p Brooklyn w York, outside of your firm. Mr. Beach, objecting, asked what was tne im- portance of the— Judge Nelison—it may be preliminary to some- thing else, Mr. Sucarman—lIt 1s, The Witness—There are a good many. Q. some four or five of them? A. George S. Nicools, W. McLean and Samuel McLean—io fact, most everybody round the Heiwbts. Q Did you talk with Mr. Nichols about some things? A. i did, about some things, and aveut some matters with Mr, Soutuwick. Q Then! may assume these were fidential ends outside the firm? A. have been otners that I talkea wi | Q Did you ever talk with ‘hose gentiemen | about the scandal? A. | have, unquestion«biy. wid you tals With auy of these geutiewen about counsel pefore you consulted wita General ‘Tracy m regard to this very matter? A. Very likely J may have; I toink I spoke with Mr, Me- Lean adoat counsel in connection With this our con- here may matter. Q, That was before you consuited with General Tracy? A. It was; I bave no recollection ta: I laiked with any of these gentemen on ‘he subd) of the conversa‘ion between myseif and Tracy; I may have done so, but I don’t recollect that 1 have, however, wita! @ fo wuich of tue about that matier? A. [have tatked with them aii within two or three days. GENERAL TRACY'S PUBLISHED STATEMENT. Q. Do you rememuer reading @ statement of an interview reportes in the Brovalyu Unwn of June 26, 1874, vetweeu @ reporter of that paper snd douw’t ect You have tamed @bout it, question shown ty witness.) Withess—i have no doubt that I saw that at the time it was print Mr, Siear@an thea read (rom the paper meut of General Tracy (hat Mr, Beevher w Cuarged with adultery by air. Titon, sud asked the witness if Mr. McLean bad nut called nis at- teption to the paragrapn ? Mr. Fullertou ovjected to the reading of the in- terview ac length. Mr. Evar's asxed what was the objection ? Mr. B acu said tue objec tion Was that (nere was DO proos o! tals asilegea nore LOW velwre the Court. it was rreptitious attempt to get ai- ieged statements of Generai iracy belore tne jury. udge Neilson suggested that the remaluing Paragraph be put io (ue form of a question. q via you at any ume Lave any talk with Mr. McLean in relation to this interview? A. 1 may have; | ved @ talk Wita Mr. McLean last might; 1 told lim then the Whole of the case. Mr. >aearmau—We don’t want taat. q Dia you have aa juterview with Geveral Tracy aiter tue pur red to? A. | lad several at various plac @ vid you cowpiuin to General iracy that he cation Of tais interview refer- 3. haa misre)Treseated (ne in (Bat case? A. I did; 1 complained that he had spoken to Mr. Moulton avvut (he mouey transaction; that he Moulton woo told tim, which and i remimded Tracy o: tne sacred promise be had made, aud that | jovked upon his conduct in the watter as betrayal of niidence; be (Iracy) said he reierred to the 0.0 transaction aiterward, ana | toid him | bever knew where the $5,000 came irom; 1 told him about this only & few days be.ore i engaged him a@# counsel, and ne then promised me ne would never allude to the mouey (rausaction; that is avout tne whole substance of the interview; the cecasion Of that interview Was, thas I went to see Tracy ubout (Wo Watters; One Was about & card, pabiisned by George Beecuer, reflecting on the firm, wm counection with the ary! trans. aclious, supposing at the time that he bad told Mr. Mouiton that I bad toid hia avout t Q Dia you tell Mr. fracy ai that tme that you did not Khuw where the $6,000 came irom! A. oid; | may bave said (o jim that I supposed it came irom Mr. Beecuer; | vou't recollect \uat Mr, Iracy suid that Mr, Beecher vad Leen at the bank God drew out the money; we spoke of the $6,000 transsction; 1 told lim that tie $5,000 tac been Diaced ov dur books to the credit Oo; woulton, and I thougut toat it cume from Beecver; he (fracy) sai it Might have come from ais aucie viata; had told wr. meant myseil, J imtendea and aid veli him a@li the \rato, 60 far as | i Koew it, of bese money trausactions | earn you teil nim anytniog abour sie Tar. . No, sir; 1 am certaia 1 mid nor @ Did Mr. Motiton keep an: count? A. i dun’t know vi ression tat (hese a Vawue imp) St y private bank did; 1 ha | the last witness on the stand yesterday, | only time to outitne nis life and his works when | A flow of enor- | within the scope of the Convention; | | spiritual LJ were drawn on | | Woodram & Robinson and charged to Moulton and | invitation of the committee: Mr, Tracy sald he | Wanted to say something to ine; that be Was Mr, | Sent 'o somebody Wet, Q. Did you teil Mr, Tracy that Mr. Beecher went to the bank bimsell, Aud drew the money out and gave it co Moulton? A, Ldoa’tremember whether Taid or not, Q. When was your interview with Tracy? A. I can't mive the day ; I Wept tn the afternoon about | four or Hulf-past four aad stayed ull atter dark; we next morning | went again, and Moulton fol- owed me. Q. Was anything said in the interview between Moulton and Tracy aboat Bessie Turner? A. No, sir; | may have testified that Moultoa told Tracy ali ‘avout the case, Q. Do you recollect an interview you had with Mr. Southwick sbortly ater the pubiication of tbe Woodhull scandal? A, Yes ; at taat interview | don’t recoliecs liaving Said that it would be best to drive Mr. Beecher out of Brooklyn. Q. Did you say to Mr. Southwick, “I will show yous letter, which if publishéd, will drive Mr. Beecher out of Brooklyn? A. No; 1 don’t think I did. I might have said I have seen letters, or | something of that kind. | Q. And which, if shown er grany, would the effect of driving tim ont’ A. I may have that, | bave complained to Mr, Southwick that he had ey points in the case to Tracy, because I thought he could not have kuown otherwise. I am Dot DoW a member of the firm of Wooaru & Robinsoa, REDIRECT, Mr. Beach showed to the witness Mr. Bowen's check for $7,000. Wituess sald ne handed th check to Mr, Partridge, but did not rememper the yeilow paper memorandum having been a euee toil; i think Mr. ‘Tilton handed in the check, Q. Have you any recollection of the words or th sentiinent, “Spuils from new iriends for the en- Tichment of ola’? A, | bave now ‘The Court then tovk a recess. APTER THE RECESS. Mrs, Middleorook, the friend of Tilton, took the stand after the court reassembled, She very soon after made the apnouncement that she belonged tothe Society of American Spiritualists, Tere was nothing Whatever about this woman of the ideal spirit medium, She Rad @ good stout body, @ full rosy pair of cheeks, a bright twinkling eye. Her voice was singular, It was partly masculine aud partiy feminine, but pleasans to bear. Sne bad little or nothing to tel, A man named Jolin Brenner, a German, round and stout as who have come and gone to prove pro ana con that Tilton eituer roge or walked in the Commune procession, Jotn’s head was clear, his voice me! low, and surely he must have been a Commane, though his occupation ts that of a United States all these Communists, He first saw Tilton on 1 | | on him that he never forgot him. “You zee,” said John, explaining how he knew Swinton, “our body was so zmall we could regog- nize our frenz.”” John gave @ good deal of amusement, which was baaly needed, for the day was dismal and dark. ‘The tail, ghostly gray “ pantarck,” as he calis him sell, Stepven Pearl Andrews, wno has hovered a goo dea! about the trial since its beginning, was He had the hour of adjournment arrived, mous jaw-breakers wil! set in to-day. When the session opened it was agreed between counsel on both sides that the last professional | visit of Dr. T, W. Skiles to Mrs. Tilton was on the | 80th of December, 1870, TESTIMONY OF HANNAH M, MIDDLEBROOK. Hannan M. Middlebrook, sworn :—1 ama married lady; my ousband 18 in business; Ihave met Mr. ‘Yitcon 1a the summer of 1871; met him again in the autumn at Wooanuil’s house; I am ac- quainted with Woodhall; met her at a woman's rights convention; called once in the morning at Mrs. Woodbull’s house as 1 was going to Hartford; | am conneeted with the American Board of Spiritualists 1 wrote some articles for Mrs. Woodhull’s paper; | recollect being intro- duced at Mrs. Wooudnuil’s to two gentlemen, one of Whom Was from Lowell; met Mr. Tilton, Mr. Bacon, Mr, Wheelock, Miss Claflin, Mra. Woodhull, Mr. Cowley and several others; at that time the so-called Beecher scandal was not the sudject of conversation; I am positive it was mot spoken of then. Mr. Fullerton read from the evidence, at page © 261, Lo Show that a witness had testified there was taik at that gathering as tu whether Mr. Beecher or Mr. Tilton was the father of the ebildren, Witness said there was nothing of that kina talked of; there was notning said to the effect that if Mrs. ii/ton made one contession she could make avother; the company were assembled in a — long parior; | was in Bostonin September, 1872, when Mrs, Woodhull addressed an audience; it was the annual meeting of the American Spiritualists. Q. Was the alleged scandal relerred tot A. Mrs. | Woodhull referred to the scandal; she said she | had been sorely pressed by & number of persons ‘Who opposed her; she referred to @ number of per- sons Who, she said, were living in criminal inter- course, and, among others, she mentioned Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton, . CROSS-EXAMINED by Mr. Evarts—Tuis topic of the scandal was not I think the scandal was briefly noticed in the Spiri H ouly one or two papers mentioned the scandal; 1 think # paper in Chicago reierred to the incident inthe Convention about the scandal; it was un episude of the Convention; in December, | 1872 I saw a puodiication about the #¢an- | i think my acquainiance with Woodhull began in the spring of 1871; Mrs. {@ might have been in the spring of 1870; I hi been toner office whea I came to New York find po entry in my diary of the dave of my Intro- duction vo Mrs. Woodhull; I first met Mr, Tilton in the OMce of Mrs. Woodhull; (hat might have been & few weeks alter my first acquaintance with Mrs, Woodhuli: i have written a@ few arvcles jor her paper; | have written for other papers; my being | at the house of Mrs, Woodhall in the eveniug was a pure uccwent; [attended at her office a meet- fog of Spiritualists, aod, the evening bt Mra. Woodhull asked me to go to her hou not Know that tlere Was to pe a meeting at her house ontil 1 got there; 1 think there were no jaqies present out Mrs. Wooubnll and Ciafin; Mr. Wheerer made @ Spiritual- | © speech, but I do not remember Mr. on reporting it; there was a discussion im reference to the restoration of liberty among the Lowell operatives; i taink | mage a few remal by tion be. tween Mr. Cowley and Mra, avout Mr. Beecher; | think I would have heard icif there was, as 1 Was there three or four hours; i do not thluk we were interrupted by any new comers; Ithink my last communication to Mrs. Woud- huil’s paper was two or three years ago; it nad no reference to the Beecher scandal; I believe in some points of the Christian tait beli in the system Of rewurds and punishmence; tne ad- Gress of Mr. Wheeler was an improvisation in poe'ry on the subject of Spiritualism. To Mr. Fullertou—Mr. Tilton criticised thas ad- dress of Mr. Wheeler. 4 POINT. On the redirect examination Mrs. Middiebrook was asked if Mr. Tilton made any criticism on ¢ istic speeches made at his house that | evening. “Yes, sir,” replied the witness. He asked “why it was that literary characters did not retain their finish of expression in the spirit.’ “Perhaps it’s because they have loat their educa- | tion,” chimed in Fallerton, Further en Evarts nad his joke by asking whether the spirit or the medium had fallen back in his literary studies, Witn weat on to say:—There were varioi answers to Mr. Tilton’s questions oy tue spirits; Mr. Wheeler's effort I thought was a poor effort; I could not say Which Was in taat, Mr, Wheeler or | the spirit. (Laugbter.) JOSEPH H. RICHARDS RRCALLED, Joseph H, Kicnards recaticd—i recollect going before the Iavestizeting Committee last summer; lsaw General iracy there; General Tracy was pot there when Jacrived; 1 bad a conversation with some memvers O1 Cie committee before bis are rival; | wag smtroduced to Genera Tracy. Q What did General Tracy say to you afier you ‘Were introauced to him? Ovjected to q state What occurred after you were intro. duced to him, A, | was belore the coamitt when Mr. Iracy came in to ulm; he beckoned me to go into the front par+ jor. Mr. Beach read along passage from the testi- mony 0: General Tracy 19 reierence to bis inter- view with Mr. Kichards. The Court said tie proposition now was to con- tradict Mr. Tracy or SuuW bias or whatever it was. Mr. Evarts said. ihe jaw required his at om cailed ty the matter. Tos winess Was cailed to show the extra-judicial statement made by Mr. cy; ‘0 Con‘rast a series of facts outside of the se aud entirely collateral. it was & matter within the issue they could giv deuce to contradic: Mr. Tracy; bul the pisinud could Bot Low Oller testimony to contradict him on @ Col ateral fact OU!side Lhe Issue. Toe Judge Said that astatement made by one Wwituess cuuid be Coptradicted vy anotuer In refer- elice to anyfhing that Was important or reevunt. Mr. Beach said the deience pave the tesimony a8 substantive evidence, and he waintaimed that ha had a rgut tO give (ue evidence o1 Mr. Ricoards as to tle Lo terview witn Mr, Tri the Court—Persaps Mr. Tracy gave only part ch—If he gave oni Dot mive the Whole Of it as bers it? Mr. Evarts argued that the matter was collat- eral, Gud did bus affect the question as between wir, Beeener aud Mr, Tilton. Mr, Beach suid Mr. iragy bad been asked what he said to Mr, Richards.” Was it not compeent for Mr. Kichards to show What was really sad to | part ot it may w 1. Kichards remem- hime Mr. Tracy Was asked, “Now, will you state What occur) ed?” Tae Jud (repeating the ianguage just ‘ow, Wii you state what ovcurred?’”’ | quoted) — | De) Witness—I said | was there im resvonse to the Beecher’scounsel; | said thar made po vitference in my regan +l wanted ho preperation to go beiore the committee; he said he Had to ask opty one questiot he then made known to me the quesion as If ulreaay appears; ve asked me if my ister ever Made & cOniession to me of adultery with My, Beecher; | said to him tnas 1 DECLINED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION; he said my declining to answer would be as bad as admitting it; 1 said must state the tacts; that [ Would decline to answer the question; be asked me if Tdid not regard my sisier’s reputation; | suid of course I vid regard her reputation, that I had a cousuitalion Wich her that afternoon, and she said it would be beter jor me to appear before the committve than not to appear; Mr, Tracy went further into detail, but | declined to say anything, saying that my course for years was to say pothing @boutit, Well,” said Mr, Tracy, “that 18 what you should say, Go be/ore the com- mittee and say that;” Laid go before the commit. tee and did say that; Lam quite sure that on that occasion Mr. Tracy said be was Mr. Beecher’s counsel. Q Bessie Turner states in her evidence that in the month of December, 1870, she called upon you at the ofiice of the Kvening Post, in New York, and made 4 certain communication to you in regard 2. imal abuse of his wife and Of ner (Bessie er). Ar, Kvarts—On what page is that? Mr. Seach—It 18 on the page of my memory. Mr. Shearmau—We object to the question until We can ind the passage. Mr. Evaris—W nat Was told Mr. Richards by Bes- sie ‘Luruer is wholly immacerial Mr. Fullerton spoke at length, reviewing what ihe witness, Miss Turner, had testified. She had said that sne told Mr. Kichards, Miss Oakley, Mrs. Bradshaw and others of the alleged assault of Theodore Tilton upon her and of his ii treatment | Ol Mrs. Tilton, Now, was it not proper to procuce other Witnesses to show that it was not go?’ They | (cou.sei for piaintift) suppose that this conversa. | ton Was gotien up by Mrs. Ovington. It was, he claimed, decidedly relevant to the issue of this case. Mr, Beach read from the evidence of Bessie Tur ner, in which she says she told five nebo that Taendore ‘Tilton bad attempted to violate her per- son. Judge Neilson said:—“Taking that issue the question comes very close to Mr. Tilton.” Mr. Evarts stil objected, and argued against their undertaking to give evidence to contradict | the face thata witness had not told the same | story out ol court that she did im court, As the | party cilllog ber Cau’t show that she told the same story out of court, It 18 DOF a subject ol con- tradicuon, Judge Neilson said in one aspect of the case it ts @ matter that reaches Mr, Tilton directly. The witness has stated certain features In her view of ue case, and it was proper for Tlitou in cross-ex- amination fo suow That sbe didn’t see these per- sons abd to contradict it in collateral, * Q Well, Mr. Richards, will you be kind enough | Church Gisaster have been instituted by Ulman, he | Remington & Porter tn vue Supreme Court, on be- Evaris aguin objected to the introduction of | wairor tne persons who were attending service in taponyse that question? i the testimony, q& Mr. Kichards, the question is, whether in the month of Dececiver, 1siv, Bessie Tui ner called on you at the office of the Avening Post und wade a | commubication of ill-treatment at any ume of your sister (Mrs. Tiltou) by ber husband (ur. Tue | ton)? A. L have no recollection o1 seeing her there @t aby time or of auy sucu relation of the subject. Q. What was your connection wita the vening | Post at that time, in December, 1s70% A. 1 was | business manager Oi the Avening Post at taat tine. | don’t Know anything about that—(lau-hter); 1 | Beeche Q Have you any recoiiection 0: Miss Turner caling On You a any timer A, | have po recoliec- tion of her calling on me at any time. \. Nor of hearing her make any charge against Mr, Tiiton, of tis having uttempied to Violate her person’ A. Noue, whatever, si. Q Is your mewory as to circumstances and in- | Mott, Wagner and otiers, Which has been pend- cidents goou, Mr. Richards’ A. My memory is | ingior a iong time in tue courts, an important cl’as tu enable me tv say Very positively that — e hever aliuded Lo such a subject, Mr, Beaen—!bat is ali, sir. The Court—Any thing more from this witness? Mr, Suearman (iter @ brief conference with | his associates)—We ave nothing, sir, Morris cullea Mr, Charies H, Farrell. genvieman Was not present; and JOUN BREMER took the stand, Benz sworn, Mr, Bremer was eXamined by Mr. Morris, aud iu reply to the inter- Togatories, repied—Ii reside in the city of New York; my Occupation is that of United Scates storekeeper; I am acquainted with fneodore ‘tildon, thar 13 to say, | kuow him by sight; I saw him in December, 1571; | paraded inthe Commune procession On (nat day; 1 joined tie procession on tue Bowery Lear Division street; Was about the cen- tre of tue procession; saw Ttiton first while about Great Jones sir ne Was Wulking in company With a gentieman whom l have since learaed was | Mr. Johu Swinton: L recognized him as the man t then saw walkiag with Swinton; my position in the ranks Was aout two or three lines vehiud them; Lcontiaued to march in tue procession, and so did Mr, Tilton the enure length of the route; did noc sve him in @ carriage; | saw ladies were walking rigat behind the colored troops; one oi the women carried a bauner; there were sume carriages in the rear oi the procession; I Was at the time acqnainted with Mrs, Woodhull and also with Miss Cladin, who were in the pro- cession atthe time; 1 saw chem When tne pro- cession Was disbauding ou Fourteenth street, with tue Marshal; Lheodore Tilton was nov with them there, nor du | know where he went alter parade; 1 did Lot see the ladies take a carriage. cross-examined by Mr. Evaris—My sivuation as United States storekeeper is at No, 278 South street, New York, at Mr, Drigg’s storenouses; 1 first saw Mr. Tilton walking on the sidewalk on ‘Tryon row, New York, and he mage such un im- | essi00 Upon me tuen that | pever forgot him; | tween the tive 1s8aw bim on iryon row aod | the procession il saw him ouly once; that wasin | Nassau street; thal may possibly be six years ago 1 jomed the procession when it started, and Went ail the way through; my attenuon was cailed tohim ov: rieod WhO Was Waiking WIth me, who said Tthere’s Tilton;’ 1 didn’t say anything when be made tat remark; didn’t = say “t think wnat is Tilton did not+ay “A man Who once sees Mr. Milton will never forget him,” Joun Berver poluved uum out to me; | Know Joan Swinton persouaily; i made his acquaintance at the fompkins square meeting, walcu Was aiter this procession; 1 don’t remem- ver WhOIt Was that! first saw with Mr. Jiiton ta the processioD; Our boay Was so smali that we recol- ject our friends—(jaughter) ; 1 saw Mr. dilton on the road Way up the procession, when it Wes about Fieenth street; didn’t see Mr. swinton joining the him in it; my p procession; 1 was outside, on tue left of the line. (Lauguter.) Q What i want to get atis whether you were neur tue tead or the tail of the division? A. I don’t know wheter /iltoa was in my aivision or not. STRPHEN PEARL ANDREWS. Stephen Pearl Andrews, being sworn, was ex- | @minea by wr. Fuiervon and & Hed :—1 reside | in New York, since 164 1 jived in Boston jor six years, and before gotng 10 Boston | re- | eidea for four years Texas; prior to u 1 tue State of Louisiana, d prior to that 1 resided in Massachusetcs and New Hampshire. Q. What has been your occupation since you re- siaed ia New York? A, Since I came to New York 1 bave been an educationalist; | came here to tu- | troducé a system of phonography and paoneties, founding toils proiession that i» serving me now, | q Have you been engaged since Pi me to w York in any otuer business? A, o, in the | Whole course o! my ife? Q. Have yeu been in any otner business? A. In that vusiness, with reyortiug and pronetics, | was conuected on nce | came to New York, for about two yea my occupation since I gave that | course of the trial as to the liability of the city for | IMPORTANT REAL ESTATE DECISION. | It thas year. ‘ir. Kichards thereupoa witudrew, and Mr. tained against Brittou for $i7,0uv, which was a The latter jien on | unuertaking, | aguinst the plaiatis’ property. {| forth, ve tuily substantiated, there can be lithe | Inierior in quality to the wine received by the | Powmerania, and thereiore liabie 10 leas daty. Tbe | mouch of | baskets of the good wine to be removed from the | THE COURTS. A Decision of Importance to Real Estate Owners. HOW TO AVOID PAYMENT OF DUTY. ee Damages Claimed for the St. An- drew’s Church Disaster. Steal, AS A Convicted Thief Objects to the Peni- tentiary. In the six million doilar sult against William M. Tweed there was another postponement yester- day of the argument on the motion to compel the furnishing ofa bill of particulars. The case was set down peremptorily for to-day, betore Judge Bar- rett, in Supreme Court, Champers, The opening of the May term ip the court has generally, on account of s0 many moving, been attended with dificuity in obtaining jurors. Owlug to the new system adopted by Mr. Douglas Taylor, Commissioner of Jurors, there was no such dimiculty the present term. On the contrary, 640 jurors presented themselves, and not @ single extra panel nad to be called. As will bo seen, this ig quite a force of jurymen, but none too mauy for the thirteen State courts now in session. In the United States courts yesterday 4,500 cigars, smuggled on the steamer Vera Cruz, were condemned, no claimant appearing. A Woman named Cornelta Coalbar was arrested and taken before United States Commissiouer shields, charged with receiving @ pension due ner by the death of her husband, woo was a soldier during the war, but to which she was not entiled upon remarrying. She was heid in $1,000 bail to awalt examination, Several suits for the recovery of damages result- ing from the accident knowa as the St, Audrew’s Ube church atthe time the accident occurred, and received 1ujuries from the falling of the roof, The city, together with the owner aud contractor of the Shaw building, have been made parties de- Jendant to tue action, Corporation vounsel BE, Delatield Smith represents the city, and some in- teresting legal ques‘iens ere likely to arise in the damages sustaine*l by the injured persons, In the suit broaght vy Barnes and others against decision wag rendered yesterday by the General | Term of the Court of Common Pieas, Judge Loew writing the opinion, Jno 1848 certain property was heid by tne plaintiffs and by one Britton, who soid Aiter the sale ajudgment was ob- the land. An appeal was taken jrom that judgment, “aud two years later a jurther appeal was taken vy the Gourt or Appeals. Aa undertaking Wiso two sureties was given to pay the judgiment sould it be affivmeu vy the latter Court. due Court of Ap- peais allirmed the judgment, and the judgment creditors commenced au action on Loe Undertak- ing. Tbe sureties were released by the cefendant, Wagner. ‘ihe decision Was timaily coufirmed, and Wagner took an assignment of the judgment. ie thereupon entered a reloase to tue sureties, and the assignment passed to Mot. Britton being, «#8 alleged, insoivent, the Sherif levied upon tie plamtil’s prop- erty. This suit Was brought by the planus for a perpetuai injunction agaiust thas juagment being enforced agaiusi their property. the General Term holds that the plaiotifs stand in re- ard to the property as sureties entitier to all the relief of the original judgment creditors against other sureties im Case they paid the judgment, Also that as the iime in which the debt was due tad been prolunged by tue sureties in the undertaking, they had rigtts against such sureties Which they could Have enforced in the sult Nad piaintifs paid whe judgment. 11 1s held, further, tnat Waguer having, with full kuowleage of all t jacis, discharged tle sureties oo their be wad so prejudged the plaimtils’ Tights 4s to release their property, aud that Mott, standing onlyin Wagaei’s sQves, could not en- force the judgment any more than Wagner A NOVEL WAY TO EVADE DUTY. Acurious case came to light yesterday belore Commissioner Shields, and, suould the sacts as set doubt that the government js much greater vice tim to revenue frauds than is generaily supposed, According to certain ufldavits made belore tue Commissioner, Adolpa Geonard was arrested on & Charge of Conspiracy to defraud tue States under tue Jollowing cireamstances Appeured that on the 7th of January, the house of Springmanua & Geonars, wine luporters, carrying Ob LUsNess at No, 4 Broad street, received by tie steamship rommerauia 1U0 baskets Of Chumpaxne, twenty-four pint bLottias in each baske:, of the brana anowh as Lac Or. inis wine was Wwarehoused at Nos. id 4 Scone street aud the required vond g.ven to the government. Prior to ‘this Maportauion the frm had imported, in cases of twenty-four pint botties each, a Wine Which tueir customers com)iained about aud which was much red Was that Gebsard, ia the wary last, cuused thirty-seven charge now preie Fe bonded warenouse and copveyed to the house of the firm in Broad street, aud that other wine Was Substituted in its stead, With the iutention of de- Iraading the Unifed States, The accused was ar | Tested On A Wairant ana taken beiore Commis. #ion-T Sdieids, Woo eid him (oO bail in the sum of $5,000 for exainination. MARINE COURT—PART 2 COMMITTED FOR PERJURY—IMPORTANT TO LITI- | GANTS. Betore Judge Joachimsen. A case was tried yesterday in the Marine Court pefore Judge Joachimsen and @ jury, invoiving but a small matter of interest seemingly as be- tween the parties, but which was fraught with serious Consequences to the dejeudant in the suit It was the case o! Prime vs. Mulien, These parties had entered in.0 4 copartnersuip ta the liquor up bas Deen the hew, or sume wWuat NeW, aud scleus business, at Nu. S01 Second avenue, In Septemoer, utc investigation toward social reform; f have | 1872, continuing tie same to the following been all tavougn my ive am author im December, when they solid out, The pome spontaneous edoris; I have been aimost as volum- | at issue Was principally On the question as to Mousia my Writings, | think, as Kev, Heary Ward ; | aseries 01 legal Transiations irom (he Spaniso; | employed tu the further elabvration o: this o my firs: independent work Was @ “lreatise oo Eutails, legal Work; thea Woea my connection with p.onograpby came 1 puvlisaed an encire se- Fies of teXt bouks On (Hat Subject; wy neXt puvil- cation Was @ controversy between Horace Ureeies, Mr. James aud myseif oo the suvject o: “Love, Marriage and Divorce,” [ tven printed a work ou “gocial Solutions ;” works on Freuch instruction, alter the manner of Uliendorf; more recently I bave printed wo or three Woras on “Uuiverso.ogy,” which ls the nawe { uave given ty my uew discovery in language, the “rrimary Syuopsis’’ and the “Basic Vatiines of Uuiversology,”’ the iatter o large book, a4 big as (he Hibie; Lam now entirely L tion of it as discovered scienve~-ia the prow have tue opportunity, You were acqua ed with Mr. Gerrit Smith, were you hot, Mr rewsr A, | was acquatuted with Mr. Gerrit 5 ; 1 often visived tim at his Fesiaence and sympata jo his anti-siavery labors; and bere, I tay say, £ might give a live untoid nistory in counection with him, whetuer the pluiucidl Wad more than @ business in- my rst publication was Wole in texas, | terest in the couceru, or Whether that iterest extended to the lease and fixtures whica the de- Jendant claimed to have exclusive interest im. The business, lease and Axtu;es were sold to one Hackett for $1,100, for which $700 was pald in casa, the pialuciiy receiving ms Jair share aceord- ing to Miy iucerest in the ousiness. in presenting his case, in Wuica He sought to recover $20u, the haif interest in the mortgage. he offered in evi- the Appietons printed two | dence Waat purporied to ve an assignment o: hat of tue mortgage drawn up and signed by toe de- fenaant, The delendant, io support of bis case, swore positively le never drew up or signed the | document in question, The gravamen o! | the case centres were, if the plainut ented 10 the Court @ fraudulent paper of tne kind, suspicioa of forgery id perjury must act against pim. The delen t on the other hand, denying upon oath shat he had ever signed the paper, must, if plaintiil was cor- Tect, Have sworu jaisely. Judge voactimsen called the jury’s attention to | the necessity of a careiul deliberation of the case, | d wita him very mOch and tual body, a ter a Half hour's absence, brougnt | in a verdict for the pluintift. Judge Joacuimeen then audressed the counse! on | either side, Mr. Thomas V. Actor Jor defendant Mir, Evarts—I would be glad to have itremain | and ar. Corneil for pluintif, saying that in furtuer- | auce Of tbe due administration of justice be felt untold, Your iouur, Mr. Fuslertoo said he proposed to show what | pound to cow mit Mr, Muilen, the the Witness bad been doing. Mi. LVarte—Witn (iis witness that is not neces- ry; be 4 mere witness, Ar. Fuliertou—Mr, Keecner was a mere Withesy tive relations witnesses were not entirely diferent. ith in t @ You periormed some service ior Mr, Delaware at one time? A. Yes, sir; I was vowa wo Delaware by Gerric Dinitu to negotiate witu (he public nen of that State abolition of slavery ou the condition ol purchase; there were about two thonsand slaves in the state when Gerrit Smith conceived tue idea of cuyimg tuem our of 1 com- i business with the Sena! was Sick Wit Drala fevers witer that tuere was | lung Gone; that Was all (hat came ofit; when in the thea Repuoue of Texas Leptered on a | movement to «accomplish tne bulitloa siavery there; it proved disastous ana 1 went to England ond renewed con- nections with twe government; Mr. Tappan Was so much interested in the prow ade taat by nis ara L Was Orougut Immediately lute con- ference with Lord Averdeeu aad other members of tue britisy Govero mentor that day; 1 remained io Bugiand for five mvBths, Mr. iva: ts Galigd attention to the clock, It being four, ana Mr, Falerton saying he Would Hot pro- ceed furtuer, the Court adjouraed til eleven O'clock tuls iorenoom, Of | effect be entered, jeudant, on & | charge of perjury for the action uf the Gana Jury. | Tue commitment was drawn Up ani the de ena- antremoved, The Court fixed bail in tne sam of $2,000, Which Was suosequeatly given, and Mr, Mullen discharged, DECISIONS. SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS. By Judge Lawrence. The National Piovo-Chemical Company vs. Ab- bott (tw motious).—Motion 10 Cuange piace of tia, dene |, With $10 costs. Kiliott vs Williams e+ al—Explanation re- quired. bilison va, Esper.—Under the circumsta think that che proposition of the plaimuti's ney (nat toe Wri. be discontinued Without costs Wo either party is proper. Let order to Lhat In the matter of Malaney; Smith vs Gill: Bde Wards vs, Hathawa: Barnard et al, Waters vs. Oi awfo Barker; Cuase vs. Nortou; Kamper vs, Kamper: th River Bavings Bauk vs. Beaver et ai.; Hememan @t al vs. Jarvis, Jr.; Bridge va, McCormack et al; Me- ‘Teague, V8, Mcieavue; Whey va, Miliers; Calweli Vs, Wiljiams; Is@acs vs. Isaacs; Heragtty vs. Pray; bell; Nichols vs, slegel; Morey va. ve =‘Laurston— i Rexsord ys, Boger; Sixth Natiooa bank Granted. Soratt vs. Crawford.—Tnere mast be a refercnce | rendered a verdict of guilty, | | burglary; Same v: | Sauwe vs, Charles Bretuerton, IS 1n this case to ascertain the amount of money pald to receiver, Parvies may agrey on Lhe rereree. Patrick Va, Lemist,—Upon payment of the cost betore notice oj trial aud $10 ¢ sts of moun tne plaintiff may strike the name of Robert Patrick Out as plaintiul, and the action 1s to proceed 1b all Tespects us if originaliy commenced in the Dame of the remaining partuers, Vanderburgn and Hal- lock. An allowance of $50 granted co plaintt Bank of Calitornia vs. Garta; Bank of California vs. Cullins,—Motion lor stay 01 proceedings granted until hearme avd determination of appeal irom Judge Donolue’s order, Yost vs. Yost.—Report of referee confirmed and judgment of divorce granted to the plaimtul, with custody Of Gaild Loreizo vs. Cassara.—Granted, with an allow- ance of $150 to the defendant, Nationul Bank of the Republic va, Palmer, Jr., and avother.—Motion for allowarce denied, witn Out costs. Maguire vs. Dinsmore, President, &c., 67 Howard, p. 11.) Mann vs. Willoughby.—Granted on default and reference ordered. Metzger vs. Jansen,—Upon payment of the costa before notice of trial and $10 of motion de- fault is opened and case se: down for May 10, 18755 Judgment to stand as security, Bridge Vs. McCormack,—Judgment granted, Loeb ys. Peekskill Iron Company; Wellenkam orth; Citizens’ Savings Bank ya, O'Neil; Egerton; King vs. Anthony; Merritt va Flanagan; Chapman vs. Weluberg; Morrison va, Conen,—Judgment granted, Gouirey vs. Moser.—Undertaking approved, SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. By Jadge Van Vorst. Prince ys. the Twenty-third Street Railway Com pany.—Commission should issue. Mislauns vs. Sullivan,—Supplemental answer ma) be filed on payment of $10 costs o| motion, Warner et al. vs. Delinonico,—Motion denied. McDonald et al, vs. Prager et al—the demurres ig not irivolous, Motion denied, Wehle vs, Conner, Sheriff, &c.—The new matter set up in proposed amended answer is no defence. Motion denied. Boyce, trustee, &c., vs. Wright.—This is nota case for the short calendar, Dart vs. Watkins.—Order granted, Toomey vs. McGough et al.—Notice of applica- tion for the order should be given to the aefendans personally and to the bank. By Judge Speir. Porter vs, McGratn.—The plaintiff! must have judgment for $1,000 damages and costs, Fieiding vs. Waterhouse.—Motion granted for @ new trial on Judge’s minutes. Chapman vs, The Phenix Bank.—The defendant must have judgment, with costs. COMMON PLEAS—EQUITY TERM, By Judge J. F. Daly, Vervloet vs, Courtney.—Judgment for plainta. See opinion, By Judge Larremore. @ Herring vs. Mortimer.—Finuings settled. COMMON PLEAS—CHAMBERS, By Judge J, F. Daly. Rhodes va, The Svectator Company,—Bail re- duced to $2,000, No cosis. See opinion, mare vs. Griswold.—Motion granted, withous cost COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, Before Judge Sutneriand, ROBBERY IN CITY HALL PARK. In the Court of General Sessions, before Judge Sutherland, yesterday morning the fret cuse called by Assistant District Attorney Nolan wad an indictment against Thomas Murphy, who was charged with acting in complicity with two young men, Wo escaped, in revving Henry Ludwig oo the bight of the 26th of April. ‘The complainant, who ts a resident of St. Lous, and a guest al French's Hotel, testified that while be was passing through the City Hall Park, near Chambers stree' he was assaulted by three young men and robve of $60 in money. Murphy did not take tne mone: but he stood by while bis confederates pinionet Mr. Ludwig's arnrs and then ran away, He wae pursued and caught by a policeman, The are Judge Sutherland sentenced Murphy to the State Prison Jor fiiteem years. PERSONATING AN OFFICER. Mark Wallace was tried and convicted on an im dictment drawo upon @ special staiute for pere sonaung an officer of the Police Department of thig city. The proof was that on the 22d of April last he visited the house of Elizabeth Porter, in West I'wenty-second street, aud obtained $5 from her by stating that he was @ policeman, and at the same time Leister d @ shield, which the prise oner, when examined, said was a sergeant-ate arms shield of a soc club with which he was connected in Philadelphia, He admitted on cross. examination that he had served two teras ip the Peniteutlary, Previoas to tne sentence Wal- lace said taat when in the Penitentiary he wrote a communication to the NEW YoRK HERALD, which was publsned, complaining of the manner In which prisoners were treated there, and he had heard that some o! the keepers threatened to take nis life, He asked the Judge to send him te the State Prison. His Honor remarked that he was dound to a& sume that be would not be improperly treated, and sentenced him to the Penitentiary for Ove months, AN ASSAULT. Joun Stewart, who was charged with rat of James O'Reilly, a barkeeper, on the corner Ninth avenue and Sixteenth street, on the 21st last month, was found guilty of assault and bat tery. He was sent to the Penitentiary for one year. WASHINGTON PLACE POLICE COURT. Before Jadge Wandell. SUFFERING FOR HER HUSBAND. A woman named Ann Connelly was arraigned at the above Court yesterday on a charge of steal- ing agold watch valued at $75. On the 7th of July Thomas Smith, of No. 11 East Twenty-seventh street, lost a Watch Which Was taken from a vest banging up in a coachhouse at the above namber. vo trace of Ime .oSt article Was discovered till @ jew days ago, when it Was ascertained tat it was 1p the possession of Mr. Bernard Ciark, of No. 179 Varick street. Mr. Clark testified yesterday Unat s Apu Connelly had rented apartments from lum, at No. 179 Varick street last summer, and had leit the watch as security that sue would pay Tent due him. Itis supposed that the Watch was origtvally stolea by Mrs. Connelly’s busband, who is DoW serving Our a term ia State Prison for theft. ‘The prisoner was held in $1,000 bail to answer. ROBBED BY A WAITER. William Smith, @ colored waiter, was charged Wwitn stealing $62 in money and a silk skirt valued at $50 oy Mr. William T. Cole, of No. 67 West Nine teenth street. On Sunday nignt last, about balf past seven o’clock, Mr. Ovie leit the house in the possession of the prisoner, and on nis return above property Was missing, a5 also was Sib, Woo was arrested by Oficer Dunlap, of tae twen “ninth precinet, and was committed by andeil in $1,000 bail to answe COURT fALENDARS—THIS DAY, su T—CHAMBERS—Held by Judge Law- rene 10, 20, 24, 35, 40, 43, 45, 49, Su, 51, 67, 86, 92, 104, 114, 45. 149, 150, 161, 1s 204, 229, 23), 281, 234, 236, 237, 238, 257, 260, 261, 270, 279, 28a, 265, 289, 200, 201. * wae CouRT—SPECIAL TERM.—Adjourned te jay 10, Scraeme CovrT—GexeraL TaaM—Held by Judges Davis, Brady and Danie!s.—Nos, 83, 134, 7, 57, 61, 63, 66, 67, 68, 74, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 162, 158, 154, 157, 159, 100, 101. SurkeMB VouRT—CincurT— Part l—Held by Juage Donotiue.—Nos. 2783, 843, 1235, 1541, 1251, 2730, 1605, 42843, 1417, 1437, 1447, 1449, 1407, 1471, 1483, 1071, 861, 1499, 1601, 1603, 4505, 1607, 1509, 1513, 1615, 1517, 1621, 1623, 1527, 1631, 1633, 1637, 1530, 1543, 1647, 1651, 1563, 156314, 1655, 1567, 1659, 1563, 1565, 1667, 1569, 1671, 1573, 1577, 1679, 157955. Part 2—Held by Judge Van Brant.—Nos. 1266, 1708, 1165, 160 1822, 2774, 980, 1404, i414, 1424, 714, 1438, 1440, 1443, 1454, 1464, 1468, 1176, 1488, 1522, 1562, 2005, 2758, 1412)g, 1418. Part 3 -Heid by Judge Barrett.—Nos. 241, 381, $37, 1207, 1305, 1023, 1185, 65, 1214, 1411, 2675, 828, 1223, 215, 1225. 1119, 1219, 69, 1189, Screnion COoURT—GsNeRAL Tenm—Held by chief Justice Moneil and Judges Freedman and 26, 28, 29, Bedgwick.—Nos, 6, 18,19, 21, 23, 24, 30, 31, 82. SursRion Covnt—Srecial Term—Held by Judge Van Vorst.—Nos, 24, 37. SUPERIOR CoURT—IRIAL TeRM—Part 1—Held by Judge Curis. —Nos. 413, 941, 1719, 1/95, 637, 881, 1949, 909, 1416, 715, 887, 861, 873, 569. Part 2—Hei by Judge Speir.—Nos, 992, 1022, 1064, 1190, T174, 1052, 1194, 1196, 916, 495, 1884, 970, 1030, 620, 1546, COMMON PLEAS—GENERAL TeExM—Held by Chiei Justice Daly and Judges Robinson and Larre- more.—Nos. 96, 98, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108) 10%, 110, 870, 06, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, Common PLeas—[RIAL Temm—Part 1—Held by Judge Loew.—Case on—No. 1154 Part = journed tor the term. MAKINE UoURT—IRIAL TERM—Part 1—Held_ by Jadge Gross.—Nos, 2247, 2050, 2204, 2, 2185, 3708, 4330, 2316, 2323, 2324, 20, Part tw Heid vy Judge Joachimsen. 10, 2288, 4571, 2409, 2314 8007, 1156, 2297, 2403, 2304, 2305, 2300, 231s, 2820, 2522, Pare i—Hela oy Judge Alkers< NOS, 1629, 345, 1002, J440, 3450, 3404, 2552, 8220, $132, 3808, 679, 3356, 3477, 3109, 2350. COURT OF GENERAL Sessions.—Held by Judge Sutnerland.—Lae Veople va. Richard Smith and Thomas McDonald, rovbery; Same vs. James Lee and Jonn Reilly, ourgiary; Sane vs. Joun H. Sloan, James cken and Freiertck Hawbarger, ourgiar); Sam 38. William Smita, burglary; Same vs. George Edwa ds, bargiaty; felonious assault and battery; same vs. mes Doovey, feloulous assault aod batiery; Same Vs. James Fox, felonious assauitand vaitery; Sime vs, Jouu Weitzel, felo- Divus aagagit aud battery; Sawe vs. Margaret Cooney, grand jarceny; Same vs. Patrick Cauraey, graud larceny; same va. Francia Boyi id larceny . Jacob A. Morris, grand ; Same V Jouns laise pretence; Sa vs. James Fiaoigan, larceay trom th Same V4 Mary Aon Carroll, peut jarceny; Sam ys. Joseps Suiltu, roboery; same VWs Henry Downs, embecziewent, COMMISSION OF APPEALS. ALBANY, N. Y., May 4, 1878. The following is the aay culenaar of the Com Mission o: Appeals tor Wednesday, May 6i—Noa B87, Bhs, Bid, 345, UAE, B47, 460, Bi, BO8, BObe Ade journed dati to-morrow at ton A. M.