The New York Herald Newspaper, May 11, 1875, Page 4

TILWN AGAST BEECHER Opening of the Nineteenth Week of the Great Scandal Suit. RECALLED. | I MOULTON MRS. Judge Neilson Comments Severely on the Imputations of Counsel. GENERAL PRYOR SEIZED WITH VERTIGO, What a Man Saw on His Wed- ding Anniversary. ‘calietarcahe WHY MR. BEECHER LAUGHED. | The proceedings in the Beecher trial yesterday were like the weatier, rather dull. A great deal of argument ocvupien the time. Mrs. Moulton was Fecalied, and lestitied that (he interview she had with Mr, Beecher on the 2d of June, 1573, was the Same she related to Mrs. Eddy, who was also a and who stated that on the morning of that day, in ascending the steps of Mrs. Moulton’s Fesidence, she met Mr. Beecher coming out. Mrs. Moa.tou, tooking well and ‘ashiouably dressed, Was accompanied to the witness stand by her husband, She wil! be recailed ouce more to rebut Additional testimony offered by Mr. Beecher, ‘Ihe Attendance at the court room was cnly about the werage. The usual Plymouth chorch people were present, including Mr. and Mrs Beecher. THE BOOK WORMS Of the case on noth sides are Abbottand Pryor, The batte between toem came off yesterday, when Jeremian P. Robinson was produced as a witness for the purpose of testifying to a conversation he had witb bis niece, Mrs. Moulton, in Juné, 1873, in whtcn she sutd Mr. Beecher made to her on the 2 of June a contession of bis adultery with Mrs, Til- ton. It was clear this evidence would be rougut bitterly by the defendani’s counsel, General Pryor began the argument for the piaintid, with a host of authorities, English and American, He had proceeded for some fiiteen or twenty minutes when he was compelled to resume bis seat trom go atrack of vertigo. He became uncommonly fusbed in the face, and when he sat cown be dropped wis head on his hands, as «fin considerable paln, Mr. Fullerton suggested to him to cease and nave an adjournment. Judge Netlson was willing to order an adjournment. General Pryor persisted in going on, but finully ‘Was furced to succum» to the pressure of the at- tack and retired from the court room. It is a re- markabie occurrence that the three leading counsel for the plaintid’ should, at diferent periods in the trial, have beew prostrated by a timilar complaint. Mr. Fullerton has been the victim a@t one time and Mr. Beaco at anotuer,and now we have Mr. Pryor added to the list of law- gers who have yiclled to the infirmity. Mr. Pryor speaks With the Impulsivencss of the South more than apy Other man identified with the case. He throws into his advocacy Of bis Cause the earnent- oess of an intense conviction. He is a schovariy lawyer, and, save a few singularities of pronun- ciation, he may be listened to with interest and pleasure. MR. BRECHER LAUGHED very hearttiy on finding that Mr.George A. Bell, who was called on rebuttal by the plaintiff, was an ex- eellent witness for himself, Bell testified that he met Beecher at his nouse and had a conversation with him that went to confirm Beecher’s own statement about the premeditaced separation be- tween Tiiton and lis wile on account of Tilton's ntious conduct, Mr. Lewis G, Janes got married on the 2d of June, 1869, and ever since he bas been in toe habit of celebrating the anniversary of nis marriage, tarn- img icintoa sort of semi-holiday. He knew Mr. Beec ad he cestified to having seen him on the 2d of June, 1873, at nine o’clock in the morn- tog, walking in the direction of Moulton’s house on Remsen street, Brookjyn. This was the day that Mr. Beecher, according to evidence sworn in bis favor, was supposed to be in Peekskill and haa fever visited Mrs. Mouiton. Mr. Evurts cross- examinea the witness at length, but jailed to shake his testimony a4 to the fact of tis seeing eecher on that particular day iu June, 1878. 4 GREAT EFFORT femains tobe mage “to vindicat: the character of Mrs. Moulton. According to the law, as quoted by Evarts, the statements she made on oath, woich were subsequently denied by Beecher, tamnot b> sustained by corroborative state- ments made afterwards, which were not on vatn bat intre form of private conve sation to dil- ferent parties. The puviic will be much grieved to find if this trial must terminate without Mra, Moalton being allowed on opportuniry of being vindicated from the terrible cnd reckless asper- mons cast upon her. TwWo Members of the bar from Maine, Mr, Henry R. Downs and Mr. George Freeman, oc ,, | Cupled seats on the bench. TESTIMONY OF G. A. DELL. Judge Neilson wok iis seat on the bench shortly beture eleven o'clock. Ine Urs. witue-s sum- Moped to (be Stand was George A. Bell, who, Fes; onve to Mr. Fullerton, testified as follows 1 bave po reco\eciion of a deacons’ Meeting in Feferenve to the West cuaiges. Do you recodect any such proposed meet- ing after the publication of the Wooabuil scandal’ A. Yes, sir. @. bid Mr. Beecher make any request of youin regard (0 @ proposes deacons’ meeting ? r rman objected, ou the ground that this suujecQ@nad beeh iully vone into cm the previous Pxamina ion of Cue Witness. @ Mr. Fuiierton—Do you recollect Mr. Beecher calumg upon sou about tne middie o! December, 1870, in regard to diiculties in the family of Mr. Filton? A. Yes, sir. q Did you visit the house of Mrs. Morse or Mr. ‘Tiiton io Company with Mr. Beecher? A. No, sir. Where did Mr. Beecuer see you at that ume ¢ A. io bis own hous Q Under what circumstances were you tuere ? A. 1 Went there at bis request. @ What did ne say to 00, i) anything, with ref- erence to the proposed Visit of Mrs. Tillon to Mra. Morse! A. He requested my opinion; he stated to me that be had Leen sent for by Mrs. Tilvon to consait in regaru (0 the position o comestc al- foirs in her own bousenold; that sue oad leit her busvand and was theo at Mrs. Morse’s, her Mother's: that she Was in great trouble anu great wuxiety; that the conduct of ner husband hud be @ great many ways very severe, very and everything but wuat a—I was yulng to y & Gecent man’s conduct ougnt io be to “woman; be said Mr. Tilton’s conduct in regard to other matters, in regard to ijicen- Housness, was very iow; he stated he had Veen called upon by a young giri—ne didn’t mention any nawe—a young girl Why» had veen in Mr. Tiltou's Jamlly ; she had re- lated to hia circumstances occarring im the famtiy—in the noasenoid uf Mr. Tiiton—waich were xeeedingly licentions, he 1 presume I eed Not go iuto tue partic tated that at t Mrs. Tiiton had been jorced to fy trom ner ome; sie had been obiged to do so, and bad gone to Mra, Morse’s, and she bad asked for wd- Vice a8 LO Wuat Course sue should pursue, and thate he bad consuited with ject, aud that boun saould be Mrs. Beecher on the suo (bought tt was better that the menioued to members of the urca migot pot remain iguoraut as to What advice sie should receive; ne then said that be proposed to haud the matter ov M Beecoer—that it was @ miat- lady could manag better Uieman, ani toat at his tion she Would go over the next day and wita Mrs, Beecter; i don’t know whether fact i& was irom hire. Tilton or Mr. Beecher that the mcaseton ol @ permanent separation came, ana 1 course Mrs. Iilton cannot live with him is the luct as you, tiave pre 1ti# quite clear to me yet tat Be did ask me ii thie matter bad not vetter ne leit t@ the indies in the cured, and | sata, “Unques- Mowably not; that it Was a matter o1 reat dei- Cacy; that it was 4 matter far more easy to vod that it would muvege by a 'ew toan by mony @; y barmiu to ie xoeeaing|! eit to the ladies. tnatit was better to leave it in tue wands of Beecher and himeels; that was about toe suv- Hance Of that Interview; 1 lau another interview. Gable to stute the day of the mouth? ai deere i would have been if i had known the Phe {itdor fnare you were to examine me u ' fo 1s 4 couector of autog | Witness that op Jane 2, i seized all the autographs of Mr. ol it among Mis papers a iow Week mean give US thas diy A. I think it betrer pot to say ble But you can by referring to t te in ques: tion’ A. | might, but 1 am yong away trom town this afternoon to be away until Saturaay. Counsel for the defence aid not cross-examine this witness, TESTIMONY OF LEWIS G. JANES. year? A, Yes, sir; she resided then at No, 49 Kemeen street, where she now resides. (, LO you Know Heary Ward Beecher? , Pvecame acquaiated with tim im 1s71, Q. State Whether im the year 1873 you met him at or near Mrs, Mo A. I met him on ibe steps of Mrs, Moulton’s bouse; Ituink it was a the moruing. Q Where were you at the time? A. I was en- | tering the house, A, Yea, haps THE COURTS. Decision in the Jay Cooke & Co. Iron Suit. iton’s house in Kemsen street? | Mr, L, G. Janes testified that he’ resided | gate Seene Ne mnneY A ATDOWeS | 440 Variton avenue, Brooklyn; knew Mr. Beecher “ aos, by signt for the past tem years, and was lotro. PS, Fhe 9 pe eranes with Mr. Beecher at je? 7 }, Sl duced to him & lew sears ago: Mr. Seecher Was a customer of bis, his place oF business belug at No, 214 Broagway, Tbe witness jurtber stated toat the anniversary of his marriage Was on the 2d of June; on tuat day, in the year 1573, he recoliected | seeing Mr. Beecher, who at this time was uear Wa'l street ferry, coming from the direction of | Columbia Weights and going in the direction of | Mr, Moulton’s residence on Remsen street. The | Witness further stated that be lett his bouse in Brooklyn togoto New York oo the morning in | “ o. Biave Whether or met he salnted yout A, He id not, Q. Did you salute him? A. I did not, q. Did yoo see any one in the door or near the door 4% you ascended the steps? A. No, sir, 1 did not observe any one; Mrs. Moulton opened tne door for me; she must have seen me because she opened the door for me without ringing or knock- ing. Q. Mrs. Moulton let you inf A. ¥ Q. Wiat was M sir. Moulton’s condition as she question earlier then usuul, and the reason he | Temeimbe:ed the occasion oO! meeting Mr. Beeoner Aapbvesred? Did she appear agitated ? Was cecause it was anciversary of his mar- | Mr. Kvarts objected to the question, but the Tiage, which he always spent pi tly; he ange said, “We will tawe it, I think.’ © witne: notices, moreover, that Mr, Beecher seewed tu be j—She Was agitated; she did not | im troubie,and bis head was cast down; Mr, | Beecher did not recognize the witne: | Q Agitated to considerable extent? A. Greatiy agitated, CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR, EVARTS, Q. Did you say anything on the subject of her @ You think Mr. Beecner had a gioomy look? | A. Yes, str; Lrecotlect that it was a warm day, then agitation ¥ | _Q Where was Mr. Beecner when you titatgaw _ Mr. Evarts objected to witness reciting any con- him? A, ithimk 1. was in Montague Terrace; ne Yersation that took piace between berself aud | Was jost passing over @ little foot bridge that rung | Mrs. Moulton, Mr. Fullerton sata that brought th: the question, aad tae Court ruied 1t cu Q. Waat time Was thar in the morning? A. 1 think about eleven or twelve o’ciock; | saw Mr. Beecher shortly before | Went into tue country; 1 usualy go away about July 1, Oo the examination, which was conducted by Mr, Evares, witness testified :—I have been in- | over the roadWay on Montague sireet; he passed directly tn iront of me; I saw a semi-profile view of his face; the exXpression was sover and sad and joomy, * Q. Whiet side of Montague street were you on A. On the le.t band side going down to the ferry; Mr. Beecher was on Montague Terrace, on the vridge ; after he crossed the bridge he Was onthe em right to te Upper side, heading toward Remsen street; tsaw — Limate quatuted with Mrs, Moulton from Mr, Beecaer turn into Kemsen street; | stopped #bout lime of @yY Marriage; my busband ts in to See him, or slacked my pace; | bad acuriosity the employ of Messrs. Woodruff’ & Robinson as woen he turned into Remsen sireet: I went down bookkeepe has been with the firm jor seveu- the steps; | noticed this expression of his face as tech or eighteen years; ic Was as late as eleven leame near him; this Wax on the 2d day of vune, O'clock In tne moraing when I cailed at Mra. Moulton’s house om the morning of June 2; 1 usuaily called there avout (hat hour; my house is only & short distanve from there—about two blocks; | have no nearer way of idenufying tne time of the cail other tuan thatit was a few weeks beiore going to the country on the Ist of Juiy; Iknow Wasiace E, Cald weil; be ts a tamiiy trend; lremenmber Mr, Caldweli going to Earope, putt do not recullect tue particular time, however; don’t remember whether this visit [ made was before or 1873; L then wens to my office and remained there until five o'clock. TESTIMONY OF JEREMIAH P. ROBINSON. Mr. J. F. Rovinson, in reply to Mr, Morris, testl- fied as jollows:—l know Euima R. Moulron, whe of F. D. Moulton; she is my niece; I recoliect see- ing her ig several conversations witn her in reference to Mr, Beecher, © unsel called -the atrention of the witness to the vecasion of an toterview between him and Mrs. Mouiton, ana inquired whether she had re- lated to him anything that ad occurred between hersel! and Mr. Beecher. Mr. Evar's bere submitted that any conver: tion between the witness and his niece did not affect Mr. Beecher tn any way. dudge Neilson having intimated that he was Teauly to hear una ment on the pout raised, Mr. Pryor contended, in the course of an elab- orate arguinent, during Wich he cited numerous authorities, that the evidence on tuia important point was admissible, Mr. Evarts repliec, and at one o’clock the Court took @ recess, of Mr, Moultun being sick about the time of this call. MUS. EMMA K. MOULTON RECALLED. Examined by Mr. Fuderton:—1 am acquainted with Mra. Eady, the witness wno last testified; 1 recollect the cali she made meta Jane, 1833, to Which she has just testitled, \ q. On what day Was tat call made with reier- euce io the conversation with Mr. Beecher, and Which Was supposed lobe On tne 2doi June? A, it Was on the same day. q. Was Mr. Beecner just leaving the house when Mrs. Eddy entereay A. Yes, sir; he was leaving | the house, AFTER RECESS, | _ Mr. Puderton—That 1s all we shall prove by Mrs, ‘The Court assembled at two o'clock sharp, when | Moulton just now, but Imay Lave occasion to call the argumeut on the admussibuity of Mr. Robin- her again. son’s evid-nee was resuined, Mr. Eyarts cross-examined the witness, Mr. Futierton said:—Mr. Bell has inclosed to Q, Do you meun to say, Mrs, Moulton, Mrs, Edd, me the note which ne spoke of in hia testimony. ca: on you on Jduneg? A, Sue called tne day Iris addressed to him by Mr. Beecher, asking bim | had (nis Couversation With Mr. Beecner—the day to stop In On Bis Way Over, Ana 18 Gated December when he talked avout committing suicide, 15, 1870, | The jatter partof witness’ answer Mr. Evarts referred to cases decided in Englind — tion of Mr. Livarts, stricken out. to tae effect tuat this principe was expioded of ihe withess—I cannot Sx the date of Mrs, Ed- allowing testimony to be given us now proposed, | dy?s calling, except 7) relerence to Lhe conversa- Ifa Withe#s made & statement one hundred times | tion which, | remember, was on June there is one Way and one bundred times unother way the nothing eise to fix the date !n my mind, opvions Inierence Was thar he Was ulteriy destl- Mk, WOODLEIGH’S (COLORED) DUTIBS AT WOOLHULL’S tute of ali belie, To alloW a witness to make a | OFFICE, statement except unaer the sanction of an oatn Frederick W. Mitchell, being sworn, was exam- e would ve imperilimg the loerty of the citi- ined by Mr. Fulie:ton, testified :—I reside at zen, The authorities he read were on the subject Norwalk, Conu.; have no present employment; | of reception of statements of @ Witness out of was employed as bookkeeyer, in 1871, in the stuck court in condrmation of his evidence in conrt. His statements out of court should not be received in support of tis evidence in court. Tne learned gentieman read at length trou h authorities port oi TH.S POsiTiON, ed the case of vs. Ludlow, in 45 Barbour, where the rule was adhered to. In regard to Geueral Tracy's opeume in tng case, Mr, Moulton wes charged with certam hostile proceedings against Mr, Beecher, and the Wile ouly came in as & Larrater, Where Was the line to be drawn? It is aueged thac before tis suit was brought witnesses made certain statemieuts, Was it tobe allowed that Mr. futon or Mr. Moulton siovid give evidence of Statements Made by them four years beiore the suit was brouget? brokerage Oillce of Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Clafiin, at No, 44 Broad street, New York; I pave no recol- lecilon bow long (hey remained in that office alter Jieit there; L weut away October 1, 1871; 1 never visited thei aiter I lett their oMlce, Q. Do you remember a coivred boy being there, by the nume or Woodieigh daring your employ- meat? A, He was there during the whole ume [ remained in theiT employment. Q. What were Woodielrh's duties tn the oftice ? A. le swept oul tue ofice and took the newspa- pers away wad gold them, Mr, bvarts objected, and Mr, Beach inquired :— Did he sell them, the papers, on his own account ¥ the Withess—1es, sir, Q Do you kuow whether Woodleigh bad any Mr. Fullerion replied, Saying that the argument | editorial conmectton with the mewaspaper ? of Mr. Pryor had not been overthrown by auytaing A, No, sir, 1 don't think he bad; he could #aid Iu the course Of the remarks Of Mr. Evarts. | scarcely write his Dame. He agreed with Mr, Evarts tnat you could not show tements in court by # witness Consistent ments made out oi court. Mrs. Moulton wement Of &@ cOuversation sue had on the 2d of June wilt Mr. Beecher. Mr. Beecner Says Taal no such conversation ever Wok place; Lat it Was ail @ fcthon, and that she Was lofu- Q. Could read t A. 1 don’t know whether he could or mot. Q. Was he capable of making extracts from exchanges for publication in the Bewspaper ¢ A No, sir, 1 don’t think ke covld make #elec- tions from exchanges; my position was venind the desk and Woodleigh’s duties were round enced in that statement by her husband, How agooutin cilferent parts of tne oifice; there was could they meet that statement? They could nocving to obstruct ine view of the Whole oltice; meet it by showing that on tie same day she made ne never assisted behind tue counter, bor did he the same statement to tuird parties, They dia not disagree as to the general rule, bat (hey disagreed as Lo the exception lo the rule, and the excepucn Was that, a8 to @ receut stutement, they could overcome that by showing It Was uot an iuven- tion ou the part of tue witness. The learned counsel quoted the case of the People va. Bain to support gis argument, He contended toat the coUasel Ou Lhe Other side had not attempted by cirect @vidence to impeach the enaracter of Mra, Moulton for trath and veracity. Cownse! quoted @ cose in 17th Barbour, where the opinion was mark exchanges loc it; he ouly went erraud Went Jor the letters and papers to the Post Uitice; beyond ruvning to the oflices aud sweeping he had ho other duties tuere; | usually went to tae ofice about twenty minutes past Dine and remained there until hail-past (iree ovciock #. My leaving bejore the office vivsed; there were the front ofive ana the rear aparunencs, Q How often have you seen Mr. Tilton in the omice? A. Well, 1 don’t recollect, bat 1 saw him there perLaps two or three tunes a week, may be wore or less; agreat many other people also deliverea by Chief Justice Wells, Whe learned yisited the:c; my dULics coumeuced there Febru- Judge recognized the exception to the general ary 1, 1871. ruic. He asked the Court whether the relation of Cross-examined by Mr. Evarts:—I don’t know Mrs. Moulton was the same Bow \o le case a8 it what oodieigh did there ia ine year 1872; I did was in June, 1873. ‘Thea ber husband was the best not see him airer | left; i dou’t know wnecher he Iriend teat God ever raised up jor H. W. Beecher, made any progress in reading or wriung after [ spending his money ana his time to Wipe out and | jeit tuere; | saw Mr. Tilton there iwo or three aeici this scandal, That Was ihe object of Mr. times a week. aod Mrs, Moulton. But, in 1874, Mr. Beecher, with Q Did you Know what salary Woodieigh re- tar ald of two lawyers, was brought to the belief ceived per montu? A. ile didn’t make anything that Moul'on was 4 blackmaiier; he turved on Ws | to my kuowiedge; My bookkeeping was in relation God-given iriend and slew bim outright. Mrs. to siucks sold; 4 had nothioy io do with regard to Moulion Was acting Wilh Ler husbacdin airienaly the newspaper esrabitshicnt; I was exclusively way toward Mr. Beecher. But to get rid of tur ewpioyed iu the isont office, though occasionally I foul impatation they must show that ber bed to comer With Colonel Bioud, wue nad mis testimony was given with truth, when she desk in (ne rear oflce, m relation’ to the stock fod her fusdanu Were trying to save Beecher from ruin. 80 he pro posed to go back and snow tat ata peiiou long oeiure ber testimony tn court she told ihe Sale story she h@d repeated on the stand to other parties. ihe Judge said they Were all agreed as to the | general rule, aud taere Was an exception to that Tule, @s stated im the autaorities, Now, of course, tniseviaence Would not be proper save ior the purpose of removing any reflecuca on Mrs, Mowl- business; aiter Liet tae oflice | had no kuowl- edge of Wha: took place in the eveulug. Mit. TILTON’S HOUSEKEEPEN TAKES THE CHAIR. Mrs. Mary Caiherine McDowald, being sworn, Was eXauined by Mr. Fulierioa, and testile Tesiie, at present, ab No, 174 Livingston street, Brooklyn, at the nouse of Mr. iiiten; 1] nave al- Ways made my bome with Ris family; | don’t stay at his house ultosetver; it has been my babit to #0 and come to tis parents and back. tou in regard to ber testimony concerning Mr. Q bur ing What period of Uwe his it veen your Beecher, What troubled aim Was thatiftolsevi- babit of duing thact A. I bave been io the habit Ceace was received before the jury it Was not e Of doing that ever since ne has bcen married; it Gence to confirtn What she stated—it was evidence e% rid Of au imputation upon her. has beea my liaoit to visit (he cvuntry every sum. mer; 1 would go to Keyport, N, J., and come bac! ir. Beacu—We disciaim any intent in this mat- {generally spent the summer with bis parents; | ter other than the restoration of Mrs. Moulton to sometimes I would stay away ‘or two months. ber true and proper p sitivn as wita We Q Do you recoiiec: Woe Mrs. liiton went to Go bot contend taat those outside deciarations of Mrs. Moulton would bave any legitimate effect in estacisning the trata of her testimony, Mr. kvarta Made tue Closiug repiy, contending that the decisions Were against 018 learned iriends on tiv other side. Ihe lupotation against Mra. Moulton was in the Opening of counsel, and a contradiction by Mr. Beecher, How did tnas come to be @ cuse where sie Was to be supported by evidence that she nad made eariier statements on this subject? An atiempt was now made to in troauce hearsay testimony, Whiew the law ex- cluded. A wiiness who Had been impeached be supported. He had not impeached Mrs. , Moulton. The jearmed counsel at some iengtn, and with bis ususf aotlity, referred to cases as laid down in the law bo Ks, contending that tne #piTit and Score Of Chem, as Well as the decisions ol courts, were against the position takeo up vy Monticello ¢ A. Yes, sir, [do; 1 was at Mr, Tilton’s house, No. 17a Livingston siveet, Woen soe went away, and beipeu her to get ready to go; it Was, ithak, ion the frst part oj July. q What year Was that in’ A. 1 don’t kaow that I cam remeuber the year; i tumk it was three or tour years ago; | am wot certain which; I be.jeve it Was Jour summe:s ago this summer; Mi Tilton went to Mouticeilo more tian ove suai Q. Did you sé any letters wuien Mra. Jilton Wrote during ver absence at Monticello? A. I did; I bave one irom her myseif; it 1s wow at Key- port, N. J.; afier sie went to Mouticelo | re- Mained in the Livingston street house for three or jour day he weuc in the midule of the week and i remaived over Sunday; | t away toe follow. ing Munday to Mr. 11)(ou's parents, at Keyport; 1 remuinea there that thue jour or tive weeks, WHERE WAS BESSIé TURNER? the plaintif’s counsel. He asked tne Court to re Q. Now, Mrs. MeVonsid, Who went with you to Juse tne application Keyport on that occasion ? A. Novouy ; Miss Bessie Ev. ris conciading, said the question was = Turner was to go Wita me to Keyport that Monday, Simply obe of impeachinen', directly or Indireciiy; but sue left the house befure i did; sie dian't get but taey could Dut rebut, because there are no to Keyport until Tuesday; the boat went out at changed relations. four o'clock audi got there at s!x clock, the THE £VIDENCE NOT RECEIVED. Judge Newson—i an qaite satistied with this. In tue frst piace, without assuming that there may be exceptions to tue generat rule of evidence, the Teal basis of the appiicauion 1s found in the openiny of the learned counsel fur the aefeudant, and in an observation made by the defendant him seli, 1n giving lus testimony—an observacion sug- gesuve, and as may be sai¢ by his counsel, of rhetoric, The observation of the opening of the jesrned counsel, if It ts BOS proved, goes for nothing; if it ts not proved it ought not to bay been made, This observation made by the desend- ant, alter Having answered the juestion put to him, Was uncalled for, Hts mere opimion does not same eVeniug; Bes-ie Luroer was bot there UN We fullowing day; Unless she took the boat she could hot reach there be ore siX O’ciock the next day; 1 dou't tank she got to Keyport till about six o'ciock. ‘Tion’s Louse Mr, G y was there? A, He was not there when | leit the house; Mr. Tiitun ex- pected him, but he didn’t come; on Monday Mr. ‘Tilton fixed atabie for Mr. Greeley to write on; the table was not high enough tor the purpose, aud L aselsted bim ta orrangiog it: I got through know where Miss Turner Went whon she left the house on tat Monday. appear w nave any base to rest upon—does not, q Dia you see Mr. Tilton give Bessie Turner any indeed, seem to be entitied to the respect money to goto Keyport? 3. I saw nim give ber & of calling it evidence; it 18 an uncharitable -pijl, but 1 couldn't say whether it was a two-dollar observation, resting at most On mere coujecture aud saspicion. fhe theory, the suuestion whether evidence or argument that a wie who comes (0 testily in court and 14 cross-examined 1s overguadowed by ner husoand aud is ander aw or a tive-dollar bill; 6ne lest the house apvut ten oF eleven o'¢lock. Jt was now four o'clock, and Mr. Falierton’s tention being called to tue fact he desisted from furt J tne Court Was adjourned ils ti control. is @ demoraliziog theory, and anworty ¢ usual hour this forenoon. to be received in @ court of justice, I think this ——4+—__ eviuene nnot be given. REAL Mr, Beach #aid they ad offered to prove by the he calied ac tae house of Mr. Moulton and saw Mra. Mouiton, and she, being somewhat discomfiied ana agitated, communicated to Dim tne facts oi tic conversa tion betweea herseif and wr. Beecher, and apon tit ne had a conversation with ter, ia conformity With the evidenee given by Mrs. Moulton to court, They would aiso prove the same fact that had been exciuded ira. Eddy, Mr. Evars—With regard to Mrs, Eddy we will hear avout ber whet sue ts offered, Mr. Beach said they offered her as a witness now, and Mr, Evarts contended that they can’t | prove woat Mrs, Moulton said to other peopie ve- fore this trial. é sade Neilwon said the offer might be taken own. At the Exchange salesrooma yesterday the opening transactions of inc week were entirely of & legal character, and were disposed of aa fol- jows :—Messra. A. H. Maller & Son sid, by oraer of the Court, in foreclosure, under the direction of Mr, $:n6.air, reieree. the premises No, 126 Madison avenue; Messrs. £. A. Lawrence & Uo,, vy the same order, under the a tiou of J. N, Lewis, reieree, the stable property known as » 72 end 174 Mercer street; aiso a dweiling louse, with lot, on 116th str of Third avenue, and, by order ndon, referee, adjvurned tne i closure sale of AIX juts on Listh street, between Bieventh aud Twellth avenues, ior une weeks Toe foreclosure sale or tue lease of premises No. 86 Ly street ba pad ped aie, and my sT oF save of Delancey and Twent;-third street proper o 4 TESTIMONY OF MRS. EDDY. | was sdjourned until May 17. e Mrs. Sarah Kady, being sworn, was examined by NRW YORK PROPERTY—BY A. ft, MULLER AND SOM, Mr. Fullerton f‘oilows:—I resiae in Brookiyn at 15s and B bs bh. With 1, 126 Madson st., 79% i@ street; my father is Judge Jt & of Slat st. ; ivi 19x95; &. Heinck... ‘$07,000 Suvieriand; | have been in the fapit of BY E, Ad. LAWRENCE AXD CO, ‘ing Mrs. Fraucis D. Moulton; our intimacy 6 2. bk. stable, .A2and 176 Mercer, commenced about turce or four years ago—just pe- ee ea rn eh lore my marriage, Dewey, p Daa eee <» 6/806 Now, rt, uddy, | call your attenvion to 1872; | *% *,end Sth and be fie ae ee do'you revouect viding Mts, Moulton daring Wal, Wadantat | \inmemensee estas B00 after his going to kurope; i have no recollection | de. was, on mo- | Q Now, please state whether when you left Mr. | arranging the table about eleven o'clock; Idun’t | | LIABILITY OF THE BANKS ‘Looking for Payment of the Macomb’s | | Bridge Repairs. An order of condemnation was issued yesterday (in the United States District Court by Judge Blatehford against the stock of cigars ownea by Lewis Jacoby, which had been seized and held by the government on the charge that a large quan- uty of the cigars in question were stamped to | represent imported cigars—they being domestic | elgars. ‘Ihe o: was on trial for several days, and after half an hour’s absence the jury returned | verdict for the government, confiscating the cigars. The Industrial Exkibition Company yesterday obtained an injunction in Supreme Court, Coaum- _ bers, belore Judge Barrett, against Morgenthau, | Brano & Co,, their financial agents, restraining them from offering any of the bonds of the com- | pany for sale, or from holding themselves out to the world as their agents. Joseph Gabrisi and Vincent Palmer were yester- day committed by United States Commissioner Shields for trial on a charge of having counterfeit money in their possession with intent to pass the same. | In the case of Trowbridge, administrator of the Harden estate, vs, Tae Commissioners of Taxes, Judge Davis holds that Quicksliver mining stock, | a8 belug stock of @ home corporation and stock of Various f reign corporations, is not taxable within this State, but that bonds of a foreign State are | taxable. | Andrew Smith sued the city for damages arising | from the overflow of a street sewer into his cellar. ‘The Court holds as it was not shown (hat tne con- | struction of the sewer was defective and had re- corded no notiee of the overflow the city is not | Hable, | THE RAILROAD IRON CASE. | Some tme since an injunction was granted in | the Supreme Courr, Chambers, restraining the New York Guaranty and Indemnity Company | from removing a large quantity ¢f tron cats from | Woodruff’ & Robimson’s stores—the appileation j being made on benalfoi Jay Cooke & Co. and Jay | Cooke, McCulloch & Oo., of London, The facts of the case as disclosed at the time were as Jol- | lows:—The St, Paul and vacific Ratlroad Company issued mortgages for several millions.of doliars in bouas, a large portion of which were represented by Lacas, Wricson & Co., German bankers, and on Ue money raised on the bonds, tron rails were purchased in Europe and vrouguet to this country | Phe suit Was brought to levy against the tron | waich Lucas, Writgon & Co. ciaim has been bought with the money advanced by them on the bonds to be covered by the mortyage. This iron was brought Inty this country under the management of tue director of the road, and was soid by Mr, Moorhead, consvracting agent of the road, aud NEW YURK HERALY, TUESDAY, MAY If 1875.—TRIPLE SHEET, i | } to an amendment of the defendant's answer, and 1 ao not Ching that ns right to amend can be Cut off by getting an extension of the time 10 serve the account, Which extension will not expose the night of delendunt to amend, Movon denied, with- out costs, Kiersan vs. Beaver —An examination of the pleauings and aiidavits convince me that ib will take much more taun an hour to try this case. | Motion denied, without costs, Olbichs Vs. Madder Color Company et Al—An allowance O/ $160 Is yracted to the seleu Scheib, and plaincits are allowed to disconthue on payment Of Costs aud said allowance, Pe larshall Vs. Mi Nelson vs. Applegate.—Motion to place cause on Special Cireult calendar is granted; cause set down for trial for the 14th. Schaefer vs. The North and South Railroad Com. pany.—1 cannot distinguisa tos case 1a principle trom Coddington vs, Gilbert, 17 New York, 489, and must thereiore hold tuut the bonds in question are not property of the judgment debdiors to be applied in satisiaction of the judgment. ‘Meigs vs, om)ins0a.—Opinion. Saun vs. Velmar.—Counse! will find the decision upon the various objections to the question put to the witness marked upon the margin of the page opposite to each of the objections. Carson va. Conover, think that this case should be referred under the authority of Welsh v8. Darragh, 63 New York, p, 590. Ordered to ‘that effect. In the matter of Spears; in the matter of Burke; in the matter of the Haricm Protestant Bpiscoy al churen; in the matter of Budeiman; iu the matter ol Micheli; 1m tie matter of tne North America lu- surance Company; \ipriano ys. Gazzard, 1 and 2 in the matter a Ginity,-—Granted, Wright vs. Wright.—Unver the circumstances, as disclosed by the plaincin’s atiidavits in oppose tion to the motion, the apparent neglect of the piainutt in prosecuting this action seems to me to | be justified, ‘Lhe motion is dent d, without cost with leave to the deiendant to renew the motion | uniess the cause is moved before tne referee prior to the first Monday of July, 1875. Goodwin ys, Conklin.—i um satisfed that tt Will be impossible to try this cause in an hour, apd the motion to pace the Same on the Special Cir- cuit calendar is, therelore, without costs. Martin vs Stewart.—fne motion jor leave to fle a supplemental compiaint must be denied, With costs, ihe plaintiff’ seeks by way of supple- mentai comp aint to set up a vew cause of action and not matters in aid of the cause of action stated in the origina! complaint, ‘Tails be cannot be permitted to do, (Watson vs, Stiocon, 17 Abb., Bae 2 Kawards, Cuy,, 114; 1 Hotfman, Chy. Pr., ) In the matter of Cooke.—The aMidavits annexed | to the petition purport to have been verified before @masterin chancery of the Stute of New Jersey, but there 18 no certificate under the name or seal of any 1 the oiticers reterred to in the act of 1869 (chap, 133, Laws of 1969) spectiying that the said Master iu Chancery was at the time of taking said amMdavits Guiy auchorized fo take the same, &e., nor are any of the requirements of satd act as to the authentication of aMdavits taken in another Staie complica with, (see aisu 1 Laws 1809, p. 241, aud 2 K.S., p. 800; kdniunds, p. diz) rewdeil V3. Booth,—Meioranauin, Mauster Va. Seuguian.—I ceny this motion on these grounds:—First, Wf the judgment wien 19 pleaded by the dciendant is @ bar ty che plaints action, it 18 unnec y to make the cause more detinite and certain; seconu, if i Is mot a Ddir, then the remedy of the plaintufis by demurrer; thir i, the answer is but asoam answer; jourthy It is nov so clearly frivolous us to authvrige the granting Of judgment on that ground, Martz.elder v8. Myeis.—:he motion to place this cause on the Spécial Circuit calendar denied, without costs. Hoppiu vs. Cozzeus.—The aMidavit of Mr. South as to the service Of two of ihe defendants is uo- verified, and tue signing o1 the decree must be de- Jerred ULUI the omission 18 supplied, Wood vs. Conover.—tfve motuloa to strike out a portion of the auswer as 11¢.eVaut or redundaat 1s vented, With costs uf moon, Citizeus’ Insurance Company vas Harris.—1 feel constiained to deny these mouonus to strike out the de.ecdibt's auswer us sham, on the autaorlty of the cases of Muy.aud va. Jyrer, 45 N. Y., 251 | | and 284, and Thompson vs. tne Erie Rauway Bi80 a (rustee Under Lhe mortgage, the authority | to sell being subject to the necessity of only Company, 49 N. Y., 400, 472, Tne motions are therefore deuled, DUC Wi.out Costs, und Adireco | that the oriviuai answer im each of tue cases be raisng junds to meet present and future estimates for ¢ ciion, aud lor duties, | and advances. Mr. Moorhead is @ | member of the frm of Jay Cooke & Ov, and of day Cooke, McCulloch & Co, of London, A great por- tion of the iron Was piedged to Jay Cooke & Lo., and some of it was pleaged to the Guaranty and indemnity Company Of this city, and other por- tions of it pledged or sold to other parties. “An injunction was sued for to restrain ail the defend- an ny po. tiog of tue iron irom dispos- ing of 1t, or of the proceeds of any sale or sales made o1 tt, pending the decision of the Court. From ulis injunction an appeal was taken to the Genera! lerm ol Supreme Court, and yester- day decision Wus rendered on the appeal by Juige | Daniels for the full Cours, The Court rules that the mortgage bond on the tron to Moorvead, as trusiee of the mortgage, Was Charged with notice oi its term, and he bad no right, except the press- ing hecessities of the company, of which there i# no evidence, to @ of the iron to the two firms of Jay Cooke & Co, Jorthwith lied, ip the matter of the Second avenue Methodist Episcopai cuurcu.—Iiu tats case tre notice 18 Rot vl ab applicuuion im Lhe prools aiready taken ior the relies aemauded in (ue petition, but wor the taking of lurtuer prvois, 4 cannot tuereupon | graut an order yacatiug the assessmentou de- and Jay Uooke, McCulloch & Co., of which he was | a purtner; that thereiore the transiers to them are subject fo Che lien of the bondpolders, and the | Validity of these transfers to others depends on Whether the Other parties took the trapsiers im ood faith aad advanced money on them. The ‘aw York Guaranty and indemnity Company having advanced money in ignorance of Moor head’s duties, bas thereiore a rigat to sell the iron pledged to it lo make good tts lien upon it; pus any balances over must be held under injuncuon for the beuelit of tue parties who may be held as | entitled taereto at tue end of the suit. The N vy Department, who took a pledge of about 1,600 tous of the stock ior money aiready lo the hands of Jay Cooke, McCulloch & Co, stands iu bo better con- dition than toat firm as to that iron; but as to whe 4,400 tons on Which they m.de a further advance Of $100,000 they stand im tue position of piedgees ip goog iaith, but it may be suown toat these | Vances have beeu repuid. Lhe injunction, there. | fore, is modified as poicted out in the opinion, BANK LIABILITIES. Marsh and others vs. The First National Bank of jault, ws the Corporation Counsel has not been served With DOLICe O1 SUCH AL uppheativa, Pope vs. vuncan.—Memorandum, Cummings vs. McMichuel.—Kelerence ordered, Memorauaum. he Mayor.—Application sbould be Michaelis Jena,—Amdavit of abseace suouid be more iull gud the order should provide ior uepusit of pape: stu Post office. Bium vs. Beiterfleld.—i\e atiaavit oi Mr, Bium, on waick the order Of arrest Is asked jor, 1s unver- le in the matter of Haney.—Should there not be @ certificate Ol tue Secretary of State to Commis- Sluuer’s certificate, chapter 270, Laws 1890? Wheeler vs. Wheeler.—Order grauted. Hazzard V4. SteVveus.—ielerence ordered. Van Zile vs. Van Zile. atidavit must show that s.me eforts uave been de Lo serve the di fendant in this State. Kuueau vs, Rudewu.—{ do not think that this pet 1s suiliclent to authorize au urder of pub- ication, ju the matter of Southweil.—The order has not been submitted. By Juage Barrett. Scharabel vs, Netter.—Motiou denied, with $10 Memorandam. kK va. Deacon.—Motion denied, with $10 With leave to renew upon veriled papers costs, aud upon payment Oj such costs. Hieser Vs. Asten.—otiva dened, with $10 costs, sixth National Bank vs, Onicago aud Alton Ratiroad Cov any.—Motion granied, $10 costs to | abide the event. Mobile.—The defendants sent oa a billofexchange | Issued Ona cargo Of cotton, accompanied with a bili of lading of the cotton, ia favor of the drawers of the draft. Pueir agent here presented the paper to the plaiotifis, who accepted it, The jury, ou the trial of the ov returned # verdict jor the Piaintilis, On the wrognd that the bank, at the time they preseuted the drat through their agent, knew that tue drawers of the drat had not paid | for the cotfon, and tac che original sellers of the cotton were ieciuiming it The Court hoids that the bank, having misiea the plaints to the accept- ing of ti raft, is liable for ail damages eusuiug {fom non-acceptance. SUPREME COURT—OCHAMBERS. Belove Judge Barrett. THE MACOMB'S DAM REPAIRS, Imhof vs. Green.—Some time since a Mr. Im. hoff was employed vy the Department of Parks to repair Macomb’s Dam bridge. The job was larger toan he expected. and he was lorced to seud in a bili to Comptroiier Green for $2,700, This Mr. Green relus’d to pay, on tue ground that work tor more than $1,000 snow be let out by advertis-d contract. wise, and applied fora mandamus to compel pay- ment. ‘fo-cay, in Supreme Court, Chambers, dJusge Barrett aenied the application, om the wround that the cause was one ior trial, SUIT FOR DAMAGES. In the Supreme Court, Circuit, before Jadge Van Brunt, yesterday, a suit was brought by the guardian of Edward P. Doyle, a boy, against the Eye and Ear lnatirmary for $10,000 damages. Itis claimed by the plaintl taat the boy weut to the infirmary to wave tis eye treated for a mild in- fammation, Aiter being some time under treat- ment, as 18 alleged, some upplication on a brusa Was applied to the eye, causing @ vioent infam- Mativn and resulting in the loss of the signt of born eyes, The piaiatid holds that in consequence of the carelessness of the treacment a contagious ophthaimia was communicared to the boy. The trial of the case will be contiaued to-day, MARINE COURT—PART 1. Before Judge Gross. VERDICT AGAINST A STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Maurice Galvin vs. The Oceanic Steam Naviga- tion Company.—The plaintiff, in December last, purchased from @ ranner o! the White Star line at Queenstown @ passage ticket, it being given to him at areduced rate by reason of its naving been Previously issued to one Timothy Mcvarthy; he Was then taken to the curmpauy's oMce and assigned to the Baltic, on board which vessel he Was takea the nex: morniog with lis vaggage, consisting of a trunk ad Valse. The baggage Was taken charge 01 by the ship's oMcer, but upon Nis arrival ac thts port only the trunk was re- turned. Tuc action is brought tor the vaiue of the valise and content:—$146 25. she defeudants produced and svaght to pnt in evidences the ticket on Which tiey aiieged plaintid travelled, in order to take advantage of ihe ‘non-transierabie” Clause in It, but it was excluded us not being sul ficiendly identified. Defendant's counsel then moved for & dismissal of tae complaint on the ground ‘First, o: want of jurisdiction in te court, the action not being founaed upon a con- act “male, executed or delivered within this Staie’’ (session La ws of 1872, Vol, 2, cap. 629) ; ana } the decisions be sustained against a foret poration on tee evideace of the plaints ‘Tne Court denied the motion, holdin; first point that the breach of contract the urrival of the vessel here the cour jurisdiction. Verdict tor plainum. 1 COT- alone, 8 to the ing Upon acquired | | DECISIONS. | SUPREME COURT —CHAMBERS, By Judge Lawrence, | Lee vs, Hastee.—1 thing \hat tois motion, pre+ Maturcly made, was Suca as the plaintid had not complied with tae demand jor a copy ol the account, but nad ovtained an o} ton days only, oniy one da oton Was noticed, The service of tena velore tl @ account Mr. Imho® thougot other- | | cond, that an ac ton of (iis nature cannot unuer | Imhod ys. Greet.—I have given the relator ad- ditional points jor considetaiion and bave exam- ined the acis-to Which lie reters, but I still see Do Teason to doubt (that the remedy is by acnon. The m Uon ior 4 mancamus must therefore be denied, wiih $10 custs. Mater Of Puiricr et al.—Report of referee con- firmed anu order granted as umenaed, Miller vs. Granid.—Order setued a8 proposed by the plainu, Wovu vs, Moulton.—Motion for injunction de- Lied and temporary injunction dissvived, with $10 costs, Applevee vs. Odell.—Report confirmed ana order gran.ed, but without costs of tals application (ex. cept ive relerce’s ees), a8 the guardian acted on his oWn beuali and is suilcientiy remunerated | 2280, by tue order Jor payment which 18 made, Clark vs. Co.e3.—inhe upplication is made upon @b entice Misconcepuon of the ofice of a motion, to mace More vefluite and certain, The complatut ig sucieutiy Gednire and cercain, and the motion Must be denied, with $10 costs, Wilkens vs, Crandell.—fneésnerut, Mr. Conner, certainly acted turoughout in @ very proper mane ner, aod there was no cause whatever for the mocion, 80 far as he is concerned, AS to lun the Motiou must be deaied, wita $10 costs. L t could say as Much jor the Otoer parties, but | can Not ou these pavers, It looks as though tne rigat of removal hod been mace wwe of ug 4 means of private aggrandizement, which, if true, was an abuse of Our process quite apart from any que: tion as to the stay. But so serlouk & charge should not be lightiy formed, and 1 think the wite esses On Loti sides suouid be cross-examined belore & Uval vdjudication. Let at, therefore, a& to Lanizan and O'Conueli, be referred to John N. Lewis, Esq, to take auy proois which may be offered by either side ana to report witi bis opinion. Da Pasquies va. Squire.—The ¢: ts not sum. ciently clear either way to justify its disposition upou aflidaviis ulone, iiere suould be areterence, 8O tnat the Withers’ Knowledge can be tested by | cross-examtmation, aud the ‘acts upon both sides tully aud completely brougnt out. Let it accord- ingly be reierred to Cliures Li. Mudreih, bq, to tase proof of the Jacts set up in the respective aMdavits upon bora sides, and (o report with bis opinion, the wotion to be reheard uyon two days’ butice Upon the coming in of hisreport. Martineau vs. La Forge.—Motiou for injunction ana receiver yranted, With $10 costs, to avide the event, benedict vs, Wilmot Manufactaring Company.— In taking up this case tor examination I tud tnat the papers upon Which the injunction sougac to 06 dissolved Was Oblained are noc suomltred., These snould ve furnisied, and tue detendant’s papers which are submitted shoud be copied go twat they may be easily read. ‘Yas last suggestion ap- plies to tie defeudaat’s brit as fell. Phelan ys. Waiker & Co.—The confession is bad under 7 How wien was aMrmea Special Term, eapeciaily as the partnership had terminated one partuer cannos thus confess judg- t agaist the fim, Tf judgmeut be caught must be str vinplied with by the devendant— u ndant, Motion granted as to the defendant Peters individually and as @ mem- ber of tne firm, witi $10 costs. SUPREME COURT—SPECIAL TERM. By Jasge Van Brant, Leventhal ys. sceveus et al.—Fiudings and de- Cree seitied aud signed, Gourley ¥s, Campbetl; Nagle et al. v8, McGuiness Rall. et al.—Pindings sigaed, The Christopher Street and Tenth Street road Company Vs. the Centrai Crosstown Rallroaa ae Compiaint dismissea, with costs, See mn . sone? vs. Ratzer; ‘The Mercantile National b New York vs. The Blees Sewing Machine Sees y et al.—Juagment for plaimtiffs. See Butterworth va. Jay.—Demurrer overraied, ee vs. Bishop.—Decree and fu rewster vs. Mcigs.—Findings settled, Stevenson Lesiey; Kune vs. Law et al.—See opinivns, ja on Schlesinger.—Complaint aismissed, See Moore vs, Herrman; Bennett vs, Cohen et al.— Memorandums for counsel. SUPERIOR COURT—GRNERAL TERM, By Jadges Monel and Speir. Justice vs. L: ng et al sues rank afirmea. Upinion by Judge Monel, Judge Speir dissenting, visune er TERM. y Judge Monell, Durvee va Jones.—dotion denied. a ant | Motion to vacate order of b echions 882 and 333 of the code | nue cue u | ssdteieertemimneams lice | neitner dimentt nor extraordinary. |B tne starntory slowance under section 308 18 quite sudiclent, By seand Van Vorat | y Judge Vai i. | The Tribune Association vs. Smith.—The de fendunt is ms'aken in suppesing it to be a matter ol course 'o stay a trial, on appear from an mvere jocutory order, | do not think (is @ proper case for a stay. Wilets va, Kut et al.—Motion granted, | By Judge Curtis, Wireman va. Tue Kemingion Sewing Macnine | Company.—Order setiled, COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM. | By Judge Loew, | Bolz vs. Bolz.—Judguient of divorce granted and | care and custody uf children awarded to plaintd * COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. Before Judge Sutherland, WOUNDING A POLICE OFFICER. Edward B, Curry was tried yesterday upon an indictment charging bim with stabbing Officer William H, Webb in tle arm with a dirk knife on the 8d of April, The evidence for the prosecution showed that on the nignt ia question the accused went to vhe station house and requested Captain | Mount, of the Nineteenth precinct, to send an ofjcer home with him for protection, he having expressed the fear that an officer who had pre viously arrested him for disorderly conduct would assault him, Officer Webb accompanied mim home, followed vy the wife of the prisoner, to thew upartinents, No, 1.16 Second avenue. When Curry gol in the door he deliberately drew a dirs knilé and inflicted a dangerous wound in the oii- cers arm, Counsel for the prisoner, on his opening, sald he would show that Curry was laboring under a fit of delirium tremens at the ume and had oo inten. tion of barming the officer. He offered to prove this by Mrs. Curry, Who Was ruled vo be an incom. pefent witness. ‘Three gentlemen testified to the good character of the de endant Jor peace and quietness, and that | they never saw him do anything out of tbe way, | Assistant District Attorney Kollins maintained that the testuumony for tue detence exploded the theory of counsel that the man was irresponsible for his crime oi stabbing the officer. The jury, Withouc leaving their seats, rendered @ verdict of guilty of an assault witn intent to do vodily harm, Tae: Judge sentenced Curry to the State Prison for five years. A PICKPOCKET. James J. Williamson was brought up on a charge of snatching & watch chain, between nine and tea o'clock on the night of the 27th ult., from William C. Murphy, of Williamsburg, while standing om the corner of Bleecker and Wooster streets. The evidence against the accused was very strong, acd tne jury unhesitartngly pronounced him lity, whereupon Judge Sucheriana sent bim to State Prison for four years, ESSEX MARKET POLICE COURT. Before Judge Smith. STOLEN GOODS RECOVERED. On the 26th of April the house of Mr, Philip B | Marsh, No, 217 West Fifteenth street, was broken into and three bronze clocks, valued at $300, were carried away, Detective Holly Lyons, of tne Ven | ural Office, yesterday morning arrested Joseph 8, “ Wolt, of No, 275 Hudson street, while pawning 2 of the clocks in a Bowery loan office jor $15. e prisoner stated thathe was a dealer in see ond hand clocks and Watces and had bought the ciock from @ young girl for $8. The clock 18 Valuedy by lr, Marsh at 100, and the girl from whom Wolf bougnt it is named Lizzie Higgins, one of the jour young persons woo were arraigned on Satur- day charged witn being connected with @ series 0} burgiaries ou the west side of the town, Juage Smith beld Woll iu $700 bail to answer ou @ char, of receiving stolen goods. | ROBBED BY HER ROOMMATE. Laura Weed and Margaret Rogan roomed to geiler at No. 16 SuMfolk street. On the morning o} the 6th of May Miss Weed missed a quantity ot jewelry valued at $87. Oflicer Dyer, of the Teath precinct arresied Margaret aud found In her pos- session & pawn ticket representing toe stolen articles, Judge Smita peld the prisoner in $1,000 bail to answer, COURT CALENDARS—THIS DAY, Supreme Court—Cuamorrs—Held by Judge Law. rence.—Nos. 8, 21, 22, 37, 35, 39, 68, 06, 104, 107, 127, 147, 163, 160, 192, 2au,’ 224, w27, 236, 246, 261, 256, 257, 276, 277, 296, 309, 310, 311, 312. SurREMe COURT— GENERAL TeRM—Held by | | Judges Davis, Bradv and Daniels.—Nos. 126, 204, | 136, 149, 140, 146, 159, 16%, 189, 196, 205, 206, 207, 208, | 209, 210, 211, 82, 164, 165, SUPREMB COURT—CIRCUIT— Part 1—Held byJuage Dononue.—Nos. 843, 2893, 1483, 861, 1631, 1679, 1247, 182134, 981, 1581, 15953, 1001, 1615, 1619, 1157, 1401, 877, 1103, $43, 1443, 1281, 1447, 1467, 1471, 155334, 1661, 1721, 1487, 1625, 1731, 1733, 1735, 1737, 1741, 1743, Vigo, 147, 1740, 170i, 1755, 1758, 1767, 1769, 1761, | 1763; 1769, 1771, 1775, 1775, Part 2—deld by Judge Van’ Bruht.—Nos. 160, 1822, 980, 1404, 1414, 14z4, T14, 1438, 1440, 1448, 1454, 1404, 1468, 1176, 1480, 1622 2008, 2706, 1452, 1498, 522}¢, 106434, 120034, 640, 102 Part 3—Held by Judge Barrett.—Nos, 241, 1306, 1023, 55, 1213, 2575, $23, 215, 1119, 69, 2791, 1355, 2909, 2001, 1247, 831, 988, 1219. SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TerM—Held by Judge Van Vorst.—Nos. 4, 40, 1, 14, 22. SUPERIOR COURT—GENERAL TERM.—Adjourned sine die, Surerior CovrT—TRIAL TeRM—Part 1—Held 0, Judge Curus.—Nos. 413, ¥49, i, 835, 83035, 4 935, 409, 981, 1805, 1165, 1157, 1169, 1161, i169, 1171, 1178, 1175, 1479, 1181, 1188, 1185, 118%, 1189, 1191, 1193, 1199, 1291, 1205, 1207, 1209, 1213, 1215, 1217, 1221, 1225, 1227, 1229, 1231, 1283, Part 2—Heid oy Judge Speir.—Nos, 1054, 1190, 1052, 1194. 916, 1030, 324, 82, 968, LOZ, 660, 840, 734, 805, 1036,» COMMON PLEAS—GENERAL TeRM—Held by Chief Justice Daly aud Judges Robinson and Larre more.—Nos. 8, Y, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 80, 33, 87, 30, 40, 41, 40a. 80, 64, 03, 87a, 95, CoMMON PLEAS—TRIAL TarmM—Part 1—Held by Judge Loew.— Case on—N: MAKINE COURT—TRIAL ‘TeexM—Part 1—Held by Judge Gross,—Nos. 3703, 1741, 2021, 2206, 2209, 2211 8752, 1943, 3203, 1285, 1045, 4902, 2753, $192, 2211, 2273, 2389, Part 2—Heid vy Judge Joacnim- o8. 10, 579, 2142, 2155, 2164, 2174, 2255, , 8907, 2387, 2300, 230), Part 3—Held by Judge Alker.—Nos, $327, 3449, 3450, 3886, 3965, 3055, 3550, 8650, 3470, 3473, 8298, 3431, 1879, | 1816, CourT OF GENERAL Sessions—Hela by Judge Sutherland.—The People vs. Wililam Ziegler, var | giary; Same vs. Rovert G. Stewart aud Timovhy J, uléare, ourgiary ; Same Eaward Laros and Pat rick Still, ourglary ; >ame vs. James Welsa and Joha Clark, burgiary; Same Va. simon Suuth, burglary g 8. George Kawai burglary; Same v3 Owen Bukley, felontou: s*ault aod battery; Same vs. Ida Burgio, grand jarceny; Same vs. Jono Meyers and Meivilie Kegeusburg, grand larceny; Suine Vs. Jennie stelle, graud larceny; Same vs. | Henry Blessimger, grand larceny; Same vs, Gus- tav Turbitz and Elvira Turbitz, grand larcen: y Same vs. Margaret Cooney, grand larceny; Saud Sa Ls vs. va. Jeremy reeny ; Same vs. vs. Paul Hoym, A POLITICAL STORM BREWING. It is stated that within a week after the adjourm mentof the Legislature there will be some extraop dinary cuanges made in the various depart ments, and yesterday.the local politicians were considerably exercised concerning the probabilt ties of the situation. There are those who com tend that the Governor and the Mayor have do cided at last to make such changes as will put an faction im democratic m A. grand larceny. circies, the Tei their part will be the ousting of Police Commis Disvecker and Vooruls; of Fire ‘Hatch and Periey; of Corporation , and of two of the preseut Efforts were made yesterday to induce the Mayer to give his views as to these probabiliu but they jailed utte: On the otier hand it is common talk among th | democrats tnat if, by the end oi the present moath, | Governor tilden does not take some action upon the charges that were preferred against several of the Commissioners by the Mayor four montna _ ago, Tammany Hali will, im General Committee, denouvce im as a renegade from the principies of “home rule.” In the opinion of many of the members of the General Commitiee one of two things is certain now to happen—either thas the Governor, alter tue adjournment of the q islature, would join bands with the Mayor to accomplish the changes im the commission’ which the interests of the democratic party demand ould be made speedily, or that, hi ing todo sv, Tammany will come out boldly against him on the home rule platiorm. | sioners Matsell, Commissioners Counsel Smith, Park Coumissioners. 3 GREEN'S OBSTRUCTIVENESS, Comptroller Green has not yet sent to the Mayor the warrants for the pay of the firemen for the month Of April, made out as the Mayor requires they should b ind from all appearances it is be Meved that be does not intend to all the trouble he possibly can for the city employés wha can the least aiford to wait for their pay a we or two after the ist of the month he yet holde back irom tae Mayor the warrants for the pay ot wt clerks and otneremployés in the Department of Public Works, Ito is delay iu thia ma yesterday sen! the ben hd the warrants for the monthly salary a Commissioner Porter and his deputy, It is ‘that some o/ the firemen intend to sue out @ man+ damus to compel the ge i de id to make out the Pas gta eee ord ith the M Gaon ue leaat jasonable wi w (OAD ges tagit money, be He