The New York Herald Newspaper, December 31, 1875, Page 6

6 THE COURTS. A Stay in the Proceedings Against Tweed’s Sureties. REDEMPTION YS. GRACE. The Rights and Wrongs of City Railroads. The Irrepressible Snow Plough Controversy. It having been"arranged that the counsel should set- tle their order yesterday in the matter of forfeiting the bail of William M. Tweed, there was, of course, quite a pumber of people hanging around the outskirts of the Dyer and Terminer Court room, evidently om the “anxious seat,” Mr. Charles E, Devlin and Alfréd B. Bands, the two most interested parties, failed to mal an appearance, however, for the reason, no doubt, that they were fully aware of the ultimate disposition of the matter, Promptly at half-past ten o'clock Assistant District Attorney Lyons walked into court, closely fol- lowed by Mr. Sparks, the gentlemanly clerk of the Court of Oyer and Terminer. Alter a few minutes Mr. Dudley Field graced the room by his presence, and the it be; be Field, on behalf of Mr. Charles E. Devlin ana Alfred B. Sands, the sureties on the forfeiting recogni- Bances, presented the form of order which he wished ‘o have signed by the Court, reciting the facts of the proceedings. Mr. Lyons said the proceeding was an ex parte ono on Yhe part of the District Attorney, and the bails had no standing in Court, and no right to bo represented by tounsel or even to notice the proceeding. He protested against the recital in the order of facts which must necessarily be set out on the writ of error, and he pro- posed for adoption the form prepared by the Clork. Judge Donobue agreed with Mr, Lyons so far as to strike out the statement that certain facts were not disputed by the prosecution, for the Court declared they were not real objections and there was no need to flispute them. As to the recital of the defences raised, and which the order declares were all overruled, be shought it should be retained, and that the bails, uuder the spirit of Oyer and Terminer proceedings, ‘wore supposed to be under notice. The bails make cer- tain objections, and the order should recite them. The order, as settled upon, was signed by Judge Donohue Jatey in the day, and Mr.(Field, counsel for the bail, sued out immediately afterward a writ of certiorari removing the whole matter to the eral Term for review. On this application Mr. Field submitted seven aM davits, one relating to the recognizance on each of the seven criminal indictments, The affidavits are similar tn each case and aver substanually that the decision of Judge Donohue was erroneous on various grounds, pne of which was that the recognizance was for appear- ance in the Court of General Sessions; that it wus not filed there, but in the Court of Oyer and Terminer; that the indictment was in Oyer and Terminer, and that the People prevented the appearance of Tweed, all of whi@h is more fully set forth in the annexed papers. Of course this last move stays all proceedings against the bail, pending the decision of the General Term. WAR BETWEEN TWO CHURCHES. In the case of the Rector of the Church of the Re- demption, appellant, against the Rector of Grace church, respondent, judgment wasrendered yesterday. ‘The matter came up on appeal from judgment re- tovered in favor of the defendant on trial at Special Term. Tho plaintiff was a religious corporation in this tity since 1864, and the defendant had been a religious ration since 1809. Both claimed title to a tot of land situated on Fourteenth street, between Third and Fourth avenues and the church edilice erected on it. The plaintiff was excluded from its possession and occupaney in the year 1868 by the defendant, and brought an action for the purpose of procuring an ad- Judication confirmatory of its title, and for a formal tonveyance of it by the defendant. was conveyed by deed to the defendant, and ever since then it has clatmed to be the legal and equitable owner of the property, and as such entitied to exclude the plain. tiff from its possgssion. The lund was purchased and the title to it acquired for the purpose of erecting upon it a ehurch edifice to be used as an Episcopal free church. And it has so maintained possession from the compie- tion of the edifice, in the year i861, to the time of the incorporation of the plaiatiff, in’ 1856, and substan- tally so until the time of the plaintif’s expulsion from It. The defendant aiso claimed title by purchase in conjunction with the plaintif. The action was not brought for a cotiversion of the property, but for an ac- counting inequity. The Court held that tho fact that church edifice was destroyed by fire in December, “1872, did not change the legal aspect of the case in any respect. The most that conld be claimed by the plaintiff was that the insurance moncy should be ap- plied to rebuilding the editice and replacing the organ and church furniture for the use and convenience of the congrogation. The appeal taken from the jndg- ment could not be sustained. The jadgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs. ANOTHER SNOW PLOUGH CASE. The Forty-second Street and Grand Street Ferry Railroad Company has instituted a suit, in the Supreme Court, against the Mayor and the Board of Police to re- strain them from ¢arrying into operation the ordinance passed by the Board of Aldermen on the 26th of last February, which is to operate as a check on the use of the snow plough on the city railroads. It is substen- tially stated in the complaint that the plaintiffs carry bn their road fully 18,500 people every day, and that by their charter they are required to keep the cars run- bing for the convenience of passengers, and that they tre further required to keep their tracks clear of snow, by the best means possibic, and that for this purpose they have for some time past psed the snow plough and veraper. The plaintiffs claim that it is impossible to remove the snow by carts, and there is no dumping ground for the snow if so carted away. They then aay the city is threatening to pass an ordinance lorbidding the use of the snow plough unless the railroad com- panies will enter into agreements containing onerous terms and conditions, impracticable and impossible, They therefore pray for an order to enjoin the defend- ants from attempting to enforce the ordinance re- lerred to, A temporary injunction has been granted, returmable on the first Monday in January. DECISIONS. SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS, By Judge Donohue. Rutten vs. Southern Railroad Association.—Order of discontinuance granted, on payment of taxable costs. ‘Bernhard vs. Monahan; American Exchange National Bank vs. Lingham; Lewis vs. Koss; Milliken va. Whit- tmav.—Motions denied. Royce vs. Murphy.—Motion granted. (See 3 Watts’ Practice, 54, rule 36.) Costs to abide event. Gaul ys. Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company.— Motion granted. Memoranduin. Collins vs. Buddensick. —Baii reduced to $: iy vs, McVean.—Memorandum. . Torrens vs. Schwabe.—Motion granted. Curry vs. Curry; Livingston vs, White—Orders granted. Matter of Vemicister, &c.; MacKellar vs. Griffiths; Bruce vs. Griscom; Matter of Seventy-third street; Stuyvesant vs. Lalor, and Towle vs. DeWitt. Granted. Vandeventer vs. Brady.—Opinion. Matter of Crossiey, &c.—I wish to see counsel. Andrews vs. Cox.—Reference ordered. Buchman vs. Simmons.—Five per cent allowance granted. Memorandum. SUPREME COURT—GENERAL TERM. By Judges Davis, Brady and Daniels. Park vs, Musgrave et-al.—Order aflirmed, with costs, Opinion by Judge Brady. Matter, &c., of Trask vs. Peekskill Plough Works. — Report modified by directing interest to be paid trom Nevember 27, 1874, and confirmed as modified and order of Special Term affirmed without costs. Opinion by Jndge Brady and Judge Davis. Pierce vs. Morrison.—Judgment reversed, new trial Se costs to abide event, Opinion by Judge irady. The People ex rel, Schomacher, &c., vs Tho Marino Court of the City of New York.—Order reversed. Opin- ton by Judge Brady, Lag &e., ve. Burnham.—Order affirmed, with costs, Opinion by Juage Davis. Gormley, Ac, vs. without costs. Opinion by Judge Brady. Cushman v-. Martin.—Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Judge Daniel ‘Johnson et al. vs. Davideon.—JIndgment affirmed, with costs. (pinions by Judges Brady and Daniels. Ross vs. Ross and Another, &c.—Judgment affirmed, ‘with costs. Opinion by Judge Daniels. Greaves vx Gonge.—Order affirmed, with costs, Opinions by Juages Brady and Davis. ‘Whitmore vs. The Mayor, &c.—Motion for leave of racy. Odell vs. Montross. —Jndgment reversed and jude. ment ordered for defendant, with costs. Opinion by Judge Brady. Knight vs, Maloney. ‘der affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, without prejudice to an application lor resettioment of the order of tho General Term. Opinion by Lege Daniels. Brimer vs. Meigs et al.—Judgment affirmed with posts. Opinion by Judge Daniols, Jadge Brady dissent- Ao) Tne Rector, ve, Rector, &c., of Grace church.—Judgment afirmed with costs’ Opinion by Judge Daniels, Dayton, &c., vs. MoCabill,—Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Judge Daniels. Wfarner va. The Pennsylvania Railrond Company. — 01 affirmed with costs. Opinion by Judge Danirle. ter, &e., of New York Central and Hudson River In 1859 the land | Campbell.—Judgment affirmed, | &e,, of the Charch of the Redemption, | | Castor to Isaias Meyer; liabilities, $116,057 7 | given to Officer Nevin to be served at once. granted. Opinions by Judges Daniels and | Railroad Company vs. The Metropolitan Gas Light Gom- | reversed and pruceedings remanded to a6 directed in opinion, without costs of by Judge Davis, Judge Brady taking New eeney eae densce, Bi pany. —Order comm wo ‘ appeal nior 20 in the jer et al. vs. affirmed. NEW YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1875. Rush vs. Marston.—Order affirmed with $10 costs and disbursemems. Opinion by Judge Daniela Linden vs. Beach.—Order reversed with $10 costs disbursements, and order entered deaying pla! $ motion with $10 costs. Opinion by Judge Dan- ‘or, &¢c.—Judement reve: trial ordered, to abide event. Opinion by Davis, Judge Brady taking no part in the decision. Taber vs. Hovey.—Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Judge Westbrook. Nelson etal. vs. De Graw.—Judgment reversed, now joss aaa costs to abide event. Opinion by Judge janiels. SUPREME COURT—-SPECIAL TEBM. By Judge Van Brunt Getty vs. Devliv.—Case settled. udge Donohue, Strong vs. Ditmars et al.—Judgment for plaintiff. By Judge Van Vorst. Clark vs, Coles.—Order signed, Pond’s Extract Company vs. Humphrey's Specific Homdopathlo Medical Company.—Judgment for piain- ug Ds judge SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. By Judge Sedgwick. Glenny vs. World Matual Life Insurance Company.— Memorandum. Salmon etal, vs, Dinsmore, &c.—Motion granted. SUMMARY OF LAW CASES. The General Term of the Supreme Court met yester- day, and handed in about twenty decisions and heard a few short arguments, Chief Justice Davis announced that, owing to the illness of Judge Brady, the matter of the proceedings against certain attorneys would have to be postponed. In the suit of G. W. Fowler and otbers vs. The New York Gold Exchange Bank, arising out of ‘Black Friday” transactions, the General Term affirmed the Judgment of the Court below. The receiver of the Erie Railway has in readiness to be filed three schedules for September, October and November, The referee, Mr, Spencer, has two reports Teady as to contracts and other matters belonging to the road. ‘The following schedules were filed yesterday in tho Court of Common Piews:—Henry Rosenthal to Adolph Zodey; liabilities, , $06,561 54; nominal assets, $37,666 86; real, $24,166 86; bond in $30,000; ap- proved by Judge C. P. Daly. "Abve Meyer and Aaron ; gross assets, $127,473 61; real, 000; bond in $80,000; ap- proved by Judge C.'P. Daly, Some few days agoa temporary injunction was issued against the proprietors of the Gramercy Park Hall ana Myers’ Hull, restraining them trom giving further per- formances until they pay their license fee. There was quite au argument on the order to show cause, made returnable yesterday. It was claimed on bebalt of the defendants that their performances did not come within the statute relating to “theatrical licences.’ It was urged on theother hand that if they had not violated the law they could not be injured by the injunction, and it should remain. Decision reserved. The New York Central Railroad Company applied some time ago to take a strip of land between Fifty- filth and Fifty-sixth streets, near Tenth avenue, for the purpose of laying additional tr: on land belonging to the Mutual Gaslight Compa ‘he matter was re- ferred to commissioners to appraise the value of the lots. The commissioners set down the value at $30,000 as city lots, That appraisement was appealed from on the ground that the commissioners were not limited to value the land as city lots and should consider evidence ok value for any purpose for which they could be used. The Court ordered that the matter be sent back to the commissioners for a new appraisement, with di- rections that the estimate upon the value of the land be taken again and damages to the residue of the G: light Company’s land situated between the railroad track and Twelfth avenue. The following criminals were sentenced yesterday by Indge Benedict, of the United States Circuit Court:— John A. Lant, for sending obscene literature through the mails, eighteen months inthe State Prison and a fino of $500; W. J. Kelly, for embezzling letters, two years in State Prison; ‘William E, Brown, who had pleaded guilty to stealing letters trom the Post oflice, wa: discharged. Upon examination it was ascertained thi his previous character bad been unexceptionably good— 80 good, in fact, that his employer will reinstate him to his former position, Acontract was entered into by James Bigler with the Department of Docks, by which he agreed to supply them timber and iumber, and being refused on the ground that the quality of timber contracted for was not supplied, a suit was brougbt, The Court directed a verdict for him and defendants appealed to the Gen- eral Term of the Supreme Court. Jadge Davis, grving the decision yesterday, recited the defendants’ answer that plaintiff fnrnished an inferior quality of timber to them and fraudulently procured the same to be certitied to them as being according to contract, whereby dam- ages were caused in excess of the amount done under proof that the timber was sound und the Court erred in excluding letters of his tothe firm who delivered the timber from Georgia, and which were offered by plain- ti’ in evidence, Other evidence for plainti® which should have beon admitted was excluded. In conclu- sion, the Court orders a new trial In February last Albert Weise, a sailor on board the German bark Philip Weyergang, brought a suit in the Marine Court tor damages for an assault committed by the first mate of that vessel. The matter was brought to the attention of the German Consul, and on his rep- Tesentations the order of arrest against the mate was vacated. The Consul claimed exclusive jurisdiction in the case under the treaties, and accordingly made appli- cation to have the case dismissed, which was denied. Application was then made in the Supreme Court, Chambers, for a writ of prohibition against the Marine Court, which was also denied. An appeal was taken trom that decision in the name of the German Consul, General Herman Schumacher, to the General Term. The treaty, it appears, sets forth that the German Cou- sui shall have exclusive cognizance of differences of every kind on board German vessels, except in cases where the differences are of a nature to disturb the peace and public order in port or on shore. Judge Brady, in rendering the General Term decision, held that is was not a disturbance calculated to distarb tho ogg and therefore reverses the order made in Cham- rs. WASHINGTON PLACE POLICE COURT. Before Judge Kilbreth. SHOPLIFTING. Willtam Boynton and Edward Day were held in $300 each for stealing six rubber dolls, valued at sixty cents, from Ehrich’s store, No, 287 Eighth avenue. The | the contract. The plaintiff, however, freely offered | THE BARMORE WILL CASE, SUBROGATE HUTCHINGS’ DECISION—HE DECREES THAT THE WILL IS NOT ENTITLED TO PRO- BATE—WHAT CONSTITUTES UNDUB INFLU- ENCE, Surrogate Hutchings yesterday gave his decision in ‘the matter of the probate of the will of Alfred Barmore, refusing to admit the instrument to probate, The case has excited so much attention that a sketch of it and ‘the maker of the will, as given in the Surrogate’s deci- | Sion, will be found of interest, now that the contest has at last been decided :— Mr. Barmore had been for many years in this city in the ice basiness, and under his judicious management ithad grown from small proportions into ao almost unrestricted monopoly, of which he, as President of the Knickerbocker Ice Company, was the head. He was a man of more than ordinary intelligence, active business habits, strong will and remarkable sagacity and judg- ment, as the success which attended his enterprises abundantly proved. The will he made, and which was the subject of the long contest just closed, provided in substance that the sum of $20,000 should be placed in the hands of trus- tees, and that the income thereof be paid to his daughter Emma, the wife of Titus B. Eldridge, during her life, with remainder over to his other children, and that the reside of his cs*ate should be divided equally between his sou, William H. Barmore, and his daughters, Martha A.’ MeCullongh, Jullett Shindler and Georgiana Maclay, The instrument contested by Mrs. Eldridge, upon allegations of a want of testamentary capacity in the decedent, and of fraud and undue influence practised upon him by the other legatees and those interested with them in the pro- curement of the execution of the paper. Mr. Barmore died on the 13th day of May, 1875, at the age of sixty- Seven, possessing an estate estimated at about $1,000,000, of which, as stated, the contestant is be- queathed a life interest only in $20,000, with no re- mainder over to her issue. So marked a disparage- ment of one member of his family, while the others were made equal beneficiaries of substantially all the decedent's estate, was a fact, as the Surrogate re: marks, to excite comment and to justify a close scrutiny into the causes of the discrimination. It seems that in 1864 seventy-four shares of the Washington Ice Company were purchased tn Mr. Barmore’s namo ana sixty-four in the namo of Mr. Eldridge, and were transferred to them respectively on the books of the company. Mr. Eldridge claimed that all of tbe transactions in the purchase of stock at this period were made upon the Joint account of the decedent and himself, This claim of Mr. Eldridge seems to have been recognized by the decedent, so far as the New York lee Company is con- cerned, 10 the extent of a payment to him of $23,500, But in respect to the sixty-lour shares of the Washing- ton Ice Company stock, which stood in Mr. Eldriage’s name, there was an absolute denial by the decedent of any ‘interest im Mr. Eldridge, though the certificates had been standing in his name from the date of their purchase until Inte in 1868, at which time, the stock purchased at par, having increased in value 200 per cent, the dece- dent made a demand upon Mr. Eldridge for the cer- tificates, which the latter refused to give up unless the value of the shares was paid to him. A settlement was finally effected by which mutual releases wore ex- changed on the payment to Mr. Eldridge of the sum of $2,400. Mr. Barmore, however, after this continued to insist that Mr. Eldridge had never bad any equitable Tight to the sixty-four shares. It was these shares ie parently which brought about the severance of friendly relatious between Mr. Barmore and his son-in-law and his daughter. Until. the dispute over theso shares oc- curred the relations between them were of cordial in- timacy. The sixty-four shares of stock which stood in Mr. Eldridge’s name were sold by him early in Janu- ary, 1869, at the rate of $300 a share, he receiving therefor the sum of $19,200. About two months after, on the Sth of March, 1869, he exccuted a will, by tho terms of which he set aside $20,000 for his wife and the fame amount for each of his children, except Mrs, Sldridge, and divided the residue of his estate equally among all his children. After having briefly reviewed the evidence in the case the Surrogate says:—'At the threshold of this case we are met with the extraordinary fact of a father who had for many years of his Iifo expressed a great affec- tion for his daughter, and who, when dividing a very large estate among ins children, gives to his other children substantially all, and practically disinherits her, and, as far as can be ascortained, for no actual sin of her own, but because of conduct of her husband, in which she had no part, and for whose acts she states that she never expressed sympathy or acquiescence, being determined, in the disagreeable dilemma of a controversy between husband and father, to remain neutral, This disinheritance took place when all the Witnesses unite in saying that, until the production of the will AYTER THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT there had been no want of friendship between the daughter and the other members of his family. Then there is a failure by the proponents to prove that the sisters aud brother sought to remove the feeling of hostility which no doubt existed against Mrs. Eldridge, for it is incomprehensible that the deccdert could have disinherited her unless he entertained such sentiments, and it is equally incomprehensible that they could have existed in bis mind without the knowledge of his family.” He then adds:—‘‘lam satisfied that there was a continuous inflnence over the decedent by the three daughters and their husbanos which led to the result to oe accomplished ‘vy this will, if it shall be ultimately sustained. Under the circumstances of the case, with motive and access on the part of the principal legatees and the practical exciusion of Mrs, Eldridge from private communica- tion with the decedent as its marked features, it is not necessary to prove an active or declared influence. A passive influence may be just aseffectual in the accom- plishment of a purpose as an active agency. Even jence at times is more significant than positive declara- tion, It is also a question with me whether the family may not have been in such a condition of mind, caused by the hatred which they entertained toward Mr. Eldridge, that they were almost incapable of acting m a reasonable or even just manner to their sister. There is, however, another and an important fea- ture in this case to which I shall now allude, and trom which the inference is strong that the decedent was ‘THE SUPJKCT OF INFLUENCE by those who desired or who sympathized with the dis- inheritance of Mrs. Eldridge.” Referring to the deed of trust, dated the 10th of May, 1875, executed within two days’ of his death, the Surrogate remarked that there bad been no intimation made in the case by the pro- ponents or their counsel that such a paper was in ex- istence. ‘The Surrogate closed by saying:—“‘All the evidence points to undue influence by parties interested in the paper; the subsequent execution of the deed of trust complainant was Alexander G. Sisson, one of Ehrich’s | confirms the existence of such influence, and the employés, who witnessed the robbery. LARCENY FROM THE PERSON. Amanda Johnson was held in $300 for stealing $13 25 from Samuel Lyons, of No. 188 South Fifth avenue, STEALING A HANDCART. Peter Tully, of No. 267 West Twenty-fifth street, was held in $1,000 for stealing » handcart and a barrel of flour, valued at $44, from Irving H. Scholes, of No. 83 Seventh street, THE EXCISE LAW. ‘The following persons were held in $100 bail each for violation of the Excise law;—James Morrow, No. 250 West Forty-second street; Daniel Clifford, No. 296 Tenth avenue; Peter Guerdan, No. 263 West Twenty- {th street; Thomas Lewis, No. 132 Park avenue; Hugh Bannon, No. 620 West Thirty-pinth street; Fred Kellar, No. 130’ Park avenue, and Frederick K. Hedden, No. 463 Sixth avenue. PETIT LARCENY. Allen Fenton was held in $300 to answer for stealing a stove pipe, four stove legs and covers from Philip Elard, of No. 24 Thompeon street, ESSEX MARKET POLICE COURT. Before Judge Otterbourg. DARING BURGLARY. John Welsman, of No. 21 Malberry street, on Wednes- day last entered the premises of Louisa Matteler, No. 205 Kast Ninth street, and stole therefrom $65 worth of jewelry. She caught him in the act, and as ue ran down stairs he menaced her with a “jimmy.” Sho | ratsed an alarm ana Weismann was arrested on the street. He was held in $2,000 to answer. STFALING LEAD. Henry Arter was committed to answer for stealing load from Thomas Martin, of No. 42 Norfolk street The prisoner gave the lead to another boy, James Cleaver, who, on attempting to pawn tt, was arrested on suspicion. He told tho officer where he obtaimed it, and, on Arber's arrest, Cleaver was discharged. A SCENE IN COURT. Indge Otterbourg yesteraay had m quarrel with Sergeant Smith, of the court squad, relative to the swerving of warrants. Heretofore the Ser- geant bas served warrrnts without any regu- Jarity, or in an irregular manner. Jndge Ottor- bourg objected to this, and insisted that the war- rants should be served in regular rotation, and then, having just granted a warrant, he ordered that it be The Sergeant returned the warrant to the Chief Clerk, stat- ing that it could not be served at present, and not until he saw fit that it should be werved. Judge Otterbonrg summoned the Sergeant and the officer before him and asked if they could read. They said they could, wherenpon ho turned = to Officer Nevins, and ‘asked him, ‘Don’t that eay to any | poltecman in the city, ‘I command you to execute it forthwith ?? and if you are not ready to serve this war. rant you can go away and not return to this court until you learn to ovey the order of the Court.” Ser. geant Smith became highly indignant at this, claiming that he alone was the proper person to have warrants served. Judge Otterbourg retorted by ordering him to follow the footsteps of his subordinate, saying that the Court was the proper authority to have control of all business done there, and that the Sergeant need not come back until the question was settled, FIFTY-SEVENTH STREET COURT, Before Jadge Duty. A HORSE THIEF, George 0, Laurence, a Philadelpbian, was hold for | stealing a horse and wagon, valued at $1 Solon Winterbottom, of No. 202 Mercer street, COURT CALENDARS—THIS DAY, Surname Covar—Coaupene—Held by Judge Brady,— Nos, 268, 314, 316, oe ee from inference, from all the various aspects of the case, is to my mind irresistible, Whether the operation of the deed of trnst can be construed imto a revocation of the testamentary paper or not is a question which do- serves more serious examination than I have tho time to bestow, But it is certain that, if that deed shonld be sustained in the tribunal in which the decis- ton rests, the paper which is presented to me as one of a testamentary character cannot dispose of any of the property ‘of the decedent, as he had entirely divested imself of it by this deed of trust. Ihave considered it in my opinion only important as affecting a question of undue influence and as raising the presumption that, if 1t were procured under such circumstances, the same undue influence may have attended the preparation and execution of the paper before me. A decree will there- fore be entered rejocting the instrument in question as not entitled to admission to probate.” A DISHONEST CARPET DEALER. On the 2d day of September last Gustavus Abbott, a carpet aealer, of No. 1,200 Washington street, Boston, called upon the frm of C. H. & F. D. Blake, carpet manufacturers, No. 70 Worth street, in this city, and stated that he was doing a good business in carpets in Boston, with a capital of $35,000. On his representa- tions the Messrs. Blake forwarded to his address $276 75 worth of goods, to be paid for in minety days. Long before the bill became due Mr. Abbott went into bankruptcy, anda meeting of creditors held om the 16th of November, after an examination of his vooks declared that Abbott had been doing business for monthe, with the intention of defrauding his creditors, It was discovered that he had obtained goods from sev- eral firms and sold them for less than cost price. These facts were laid before the Grand Jury and that body found an indictment against Abbott for obtaining goods by false pretences. He was arrested and brought to the office of the District Attorney yesterday by Detectives Field and O'Connor, Assistant District Attorney Lyon held the swindling Bostonian to answer in $2,000. BOWEN’'S LIBEL SUIT. Application was made in the Brooklyn City Court yesterday by the connsel for tho defence in the suit brought by Henry C. Bowen against the propriotors of | the Brooklyn Eagle for an order to appoint a referce to take the testimony ot Theodore Tilton, who will visit Brooklyn on Saturday and romain there for a few days. Tho aMdavit on which the application is based as made by Mr. Thomas Kinsella, editor-in-chief of the Eagle. Tilton is material and necessary for defendants on the trial of the action, and that without bis testimony they cannot safely go to trial, Jobn T. Barnard be appointed such referee. OFFICIALS TO BE INDICTED. The Grand Jury of the Kings County Court of Sessions will present a batch of indictments to-day. It is #atd that the jury will Ond a true bill against a member of the Boara of City Works for misdemeanor in levying a tax of sixty-five conte per lamp upon the gas com: panies, It is also said that among tho ex-oflicials who will be placed upon the defensive will be an ex-Street Commissioner and an ex-Alderman, ~ INDEED? “WHY, New Youk, Dec, 29, 1875. To Tue Eprron or toe Heratp:— Can you inform me by what right the owners of a | row of tenements on Grand Boulevard, between Sixty- | seventh und Sixty-cighth strocty, west wide of Boule- vard, place the stoops leading (rom their tenements di- | rectly over the single flagged walk, compelling every | these very CH one to wade ankle deep through mud in passin obstroctions? I have the honor to be yours, obediently, J.T LYN It sets forth that the testimony of Theodore | Judge McCue ordered that | THE QUESTION OF CRIME. MR. TOWNSEND'S ANSWER TO DISTRICT ATTOR- NEY PHELPS—-WHAT MR, PHELPS THINKS. The following correspondence is a continuation of | that which was published im yesterday's Herat. Bexsamiy K, Pawurs, Esq., District Attorney of New York :— Sir—In reply to @ polite invitation extended to you by me, as counsel for the Committee on Crime, to ap- pear before them, you have deemed it expedient, while dec.ining it, to set forth in a correspondence with the chairman what you choose to designate your reasons for so doing, and im that connection to atiack me over | the shoulders of the committee, 1 do not propose that | you sball do so with impunity. Before directing my | | attention to the subject of the grievances you have | against me I ntay be permitted to say that | was se- cted as counsel by the unanimous voice of the com- ee, under the belief, I presume, that 1 would be | faithful in the discharge of my duties and not be biassed by political considerations. At all events I accopted the appointment under such impressivn, and have en- | deavored to perform the duties to the best of my un- derstanding. No scrious disagreement hus at any tine occurred botween any member of the commitice and myself, and you are the first person who has presented Views as tothe manner in which my duties Lave been performed. You have been nether delicate or truthful | in making your statement, and while in my remarks to you I shail speak plainly 't trust I shall do so truth- inily. You charge me with a deliberate intention of destroying public confidence in you at the eve of an election, and to accomplish that’ end that I have su, pressed’ some evidence and colored other, and that through my lamentable ignorance in matters about which the merest tyro in criminal practice is pro- ficient, the proceedings of the commitiee have been anything but profitable, and to fortify these grave charges” you offer iilustrations. Before reviewing your cita- tions let me assure you that no one was more surprised than I at the condition which an examination of your department disciosed, Without ever having been upon intimate terms with youl had imagined our relation toward each other was {rendly, I had considered you ‘an honest, indolent, fairly capable man, with an’ in- chnation to do right, but with no great strength im resisting influences, and 1 was prepared to nnd, if there were deiects in the administration of your otlleo, rather those which might be attributed to “negligence than anything worse. Not having had much criminal practice of late years I did pot mevt you often, but Withal was inclined to hike you. Inibued with those feelings toward youl bad no motive to seek your downlall, [was not an aspirant for any oflive, and hence no selfish considerations moved me to such pur- pose as you impute tome. My list impression that you were not sincere Was aronsed on the 4th of September, when you appeared before the commitiee, and, instead of ollering yourself us a witness, addressed the committee as to the manner iu which you tbought the investiguttou should be conducted, and attempted to impress the committee with the idea (evidently as an excuse for your short- comings, Which were then becoming appardat,) that the facilities for the prosecution of crimes before juries were now precisely the saine as they existed in 1848, Ifthe report in the newspapers was correct you gavo about tho same testimony before the Senate Committee ip yourexamination beiore them. I felt convinced that you knew better than to make such assertion, and I immediately asked that. you be sworn; then you admitted thatin 1848 a District Attorney was entitled to but one assistant, while now you have four, and be- sides that, during your term you had been empowered With the consont of the judges to hold two terms of tho Court of General Sessions whenever required, which was not the case in 1848. You testilied that during your term you had held but four or five’ such extra terms, and gave as a reason fer not ho:ding them monthly that the necessities of the case had hardly required that labor to be imposed upon the General Sessions. Was not such statement by you an abundant reason for the commities to infer that if they wished to find the rea- son why there were hundreds of indictments not tritd and complaints not attended to in your office they must Jook for other cause than want of facilities? During your address to the committee you, inconsiderately perhaps, remarked, “If I can give the committee any | information I should be most happy to du so; if there is anything that requires ‘explanation’ J shall be happy to make it when it is requested.’ after your exami- nation | felt that you were enraged at me, and I was convinced that we should never see your face again be- fore the committee, however urgenily they might re- quest; time after time, when mattors of peculiar odor emanating from your department had becn or were to be developed, your presence was requested in writing, but’ you tailed to remember your promise, and it will hardly be credited tnat your ‘reasons for not appearing yesterday as set orth mn your letter to Mr. Campbell correctly forth your inotives fordeclining, We are all hu- man and desire to avoid, if possible, disagreeable situ- ations, and had I as much to ‘explain’? as you would have been called upon to do I might possibly have acted as you did, with the exception that 1 would not have made the mistake of writing such letters, In de- fining my impressions of your character I should have addod that J supposed you were endowed with a certain amount of shrewdness, But I find I was inerror. Be- fore alfuding to some of the subjects upon which you might possibly have been interrogated had you honored the committee with your presence let me briefly review some of the illustrations upon which you base your charges against me. First—You say the time of the committee has been mainly occupied in listening to the complaints of co: victs, aggrieved complainants and discharged clerks, and has been used as a court ol review to revise the proceedings of courts, on the singular fashion of hear. ing only one side. In answer to that1 will say that I have not cen aware that a convict has testiied beiore the committee in reference to your department. Are you? “If so, won’t you please give his or her hame and state if one hax so testified, whether he or she was not corroborated? 1 know of no dis- unless you refer to Mr. Allen, it; and, if you do refer to him I chal- lenge you to give the true reasons why be leit your oflice. 1 do know that many, many aggrieved com- plainants havo testified against the manner in which your office has been administered, and with good causo too; and had their cases been presented on one side only—which is not true—there would have been two good reasons for it; first, because one side only had been attended to by you (witness the cases of Mrs. Roddy and the killing of McCarthy), and second, be- cause we could not induce you to appear with the other side. Second—You next accuse me of wasting the time of the committee nearly a whole day on Blackwell's Island in consequence of my lamentable ignorance in not knowing that the Court bad discretionary power to commit children under sixteen years of age, Well, at all events, you will allow that as roon as I discovered my mistake [ admitted it, But how it, with the missive intellect you seem to think you baye in use every day, you say you would require more than twenty-(our hours’ time in which to get together your nuggets of wisdom to jay before the committee? “1 do not desire to blow my own horn, but just now I may be excused if I call to your mind that upoa occasions when 1 have been opposed to you in court I bave been the successful party. Third—You say in effect that 1 endeavored to make it appear that 1,100 indictments were missing from the Clerk's office, and that agrave wrong bad been com- mitted, when 'l was perfectly aware that they were in your oilice, in accordance with the unbroken practice Ot years. My reply to that is that whether the practice has been broken or unbroken the proper place for all indictments notin actual use, tinless possibly against persons not arrested, is in the Clerk’s oflice, and tor their safe custody he is’ responsible. The word “pigeon- holing” indictments probably bad its birth in the practice you refer to, and it is more honored in the breach than in the observance. But | have er. When our clork had reported 1,100 indictments as missing from the Clerk's office [ had him make alist of them and send it to your olfice, with a request that you would indicate whether they were in your possession or not. I did not see hit deliver them to you, but have no doubt that he did so, as [ find in our copybook the following letter:— “Supt. 14, 187% “Hon, Buxsaums K. Pears, District Attorney :— “Sin—The within is # list of indictinents found in 1873, 1874 and 1875 by grand juries in this county and not on file among the records of the Clerk's oflico of Oyer and Terminer and General Sessions, Will you please cause inquiry in your office whether those in- dictments are kept there or not and have the fact d opposite to the respective indictments on the Y An oversight caused the service upon you ofa subpoena for this day's inceting of the Assenibly Committee on Crime, The intention was to extend to you & Written invitation similar to the verbal one given, Uat your presence at the meeting would be as algo any explanation the committee i with by you on the cases tp be presented i connection with the investigation, Yours respectfully “THEODORE, AUB, “Associate counsel by direction of J. D. Townsend, Counsel for Committee.” Alter waiting more than a month for your action in the mutter, and no response being made except by a ro- turn of a jew indictments against lottery dealers on the mar! within bi 12th of October, in response to asnbporna, | felt it my duty to make the absence of the indic tsapart of | the record, nnd to-day, with the exception of your | statement to Mr, Campboll in your letter about me, tho | committee has no knowledge that any of those missing indictments are in your possesston. | Fourth—You charge me with an effort to couviet | you of improper practices on the eve of election. I think Mr. Hess will bear me out when [say thatl was in favor of passing over the completion of the ex- | aminat offyour oflice until after election, tor fear | that such a Charge might be urged against the com mittee, The matter was the subject of some debate, | and it was concluded that if we did so and you shonld | be re-elected the committer would be blamed tor not letting the public know the true condition of your de- | partment, and I mast be pardoned 1 Lam of the opin. | jon thatit the community had read all that has been | produced against your department before the commit- tue your chance jor re-election would bave been small indéed. Fifth—You next take me to task for re to appear and “ ity accused of crime. whenever requested, but at thi time the thought of its being interpreted into your being charged with crime did not occur to you; bat | whether there were good reasons for the comniittes de- siring you to appear and “explain spear im the | matters to which f will soon call your Sizth—You charge ime with wilfully suppressing a | written statement of Detective Sampson during the | tion belore the ¢ now better, n WAS examined In re to that © eting preceding the occasion | when you made your famous address to the committer, and on that very morning before you arose to speak | | informed you that | had not seen the statement of Sampson at the former meeting, and that I had had | him sabpenaed to explain it, and that he was then in the room; and on that same day and in your presence | she world as one of the most gifted editor: | unkind thonghts woich I did examine him on that point. But as an excuse for not A peal you seem willing to resort to almost any thin, ‘Seventh and last—You charge me with engaging with “one Wilkes” in playing a farce betore the comuattee, ‘This “one Wilkes,’’ to whom you go courteously refer, 1 beheve, is Mr. George Wilkes, well known throughout copnected with journalism 1 this city. Unfortunately for him he was compelled to seek redress at your office, and though his right to your aid was unquestioned by not oniy some of the best lawyers in the city, but some of the most distinguished officials in the State, it was denied him. Not being of a nature tamely to submit, he showed up, in his journal, some of the transactions of your office and brought upon himself your vei geahee, which showed itself principally im the manner You allude to him, and in preventing him from obtain- ing through your office what you do notdeny to the meanest, Until about a week before Mr. Wilkes ap- peared before the committee I did not know him even by sight, but the story he narrated of the treatment he had received at your hands and the insults he bad borne through you warmed him to me immediately aud I did what I could to induce him to lay his whole case belore the committee, I know of nothing which prevented him from giving bis testimony on that day, except the delicacy (which you don’t seem to appreciate) he felt in submitting to the committee the charges which he had preferred against you to the Governor before action had been taken by him; there was no farce in- tended to be played on that occasion, I assure you. I am not 60 constantly funny as you aro reported to be. 1 had seen his charges, and it was upon those I sub- ‘naed him to appear, and when I asked lum fora copy ers not that I should read them, but that I might mako them purt of the record. 1 believe | bave now answered in detail all the charges eng pean against me. 1 make no charges against you, ut | will now proceed to illustrate the matters which cnme before the committee in connection with your de- partment, and Jet those who read judge of you ay they please, ‘The opinion of what the District Attorney of this city might have of @ person in some minds may have great weight, but I have long since ceased to honor @ man in consequence gf his position, and | treat every man as nearly a8 1 can Jn accordance ‘with what I con- ceive Lo be his deserts, By the testimony, before the committee, of Mr. Wheeler H. Peckham, who I believe the community at large recognize as having been, so long as permitted, the main worker against the ring thieves, it appears that the entire charge of the criminal proceedings against them was at an carly period intrusted to him. Through his conduct and advice to the Grand Jury a large number of indictments for felony were tound against Tweed and others of his associates. Mr. Peck. hain say! ‘1 have no doubt that we wore ready totry ‘those men at any time ufier the matter was first investi- gated. There has never been a time that we were not ready to try them after the bills were found."? And, again, he ssys:—‘If I had had entire charge of them they would all have been tried; butthen I say that, supposing I should have had no other duties, that would have prevented my doing it.’? Now these men were, in theirline, the most extensive thieves known im the history of the country, aud by their operations they have left the city ina condition which it will require years of economy to recover from. What have you done toward making them examples for posterity? Out of twenty-two indictments for felony and seven for misdemeanor against Tweed, you (no, f beg your pardon, it was Messrs, Tremain and Yeckham) convieted him once for misdemeanor, and if to releve him as far as possible trom any appreben- sion that he might have that you intended him further injury, you assented to his bail upon the felony indict- ments being tixed at sums which a person charged with petit larceny would have decmed light. Aad now that he has concluded to part company with you and quietly bid you adieu your dignity appears assailed when a committee appointed by the Legislature to investigate the causes of crime requests you to year before them and “expiain.”’ But not only in the case of Tweed has the city been put to great expense, as well as ridicule, by ei inefiicreney and neglect. With the exception of ingersoll and Genet, the latter of whom escay be- fore reaching the Tombs, no other of the Ring men have been even tried. All of Mr. Peckham’s efforts in having indictment upon indictment piled up against them have proved of no avail, ana those poople snap their fingers at you as if you were of no concern to them whatever, But had the Committee on Crime no right under their authority, finding matters in your depart- ment to be thus, to myestigate whether it was in. efficiency or corruption which produced it? Mr. Henry C. Allen, an Assistant District Attorney under you, who was abused in your offlce becauso ho could not be used there, testified before tne commities uhat he was stayed in bis efforts to secure the arrest of Norton, another Ring conspirator, who had forfeited his bail, and for whom he haa obtained a bench war- rant, by notice from one of your assistants ‘‘that he would get his fingers burned if he didn’t keep them out of that pot; and Mr. Allen gays he reported this conyersation to you, as be remembered, and that you “didn't say much.’? Again, Mr. Allen testified that prior to this intimation of your assistant it came to his knowledgo (and I now inform you that it was from yon he says he received the information) that certain polit- jeal iriends of yours had promised Norton protection from punishment if he would use his best endeavors to elect a certain gentleman in bis district to the State Senate, Whether you assented to the arrangement I cannot say, except the suggestive facts that Norton did work for a political opponent who was # candidate for the Senate, and that he has not since been tried. Mr. Allen testitied that im. tho fall of 1873, a few days before election, some 160 or 170 indictments were found against lottery dealers in one day, and the records in the Clerk's otiice show tbat October 29, 1873, was tho day upon which it was eflected; he says that these in- dictments were found through the instrumentality of one of your assistants, with the expressed intention of “putting screws to them before election,” and that he would 'e had 600 or 700 indicted if he (Mr. Allen) bi not puta stop to in What “screws” mean | leave you to say. Certain it is, that of only 176 found during your last term of office, up to Jaly, 1875, only sixteen in all wore tried. A pretty showing, to be sure, in regard to a crime which all witnesses have testitied to as being the meanest and most productive of crime of any species of gambling! And had the Committee on Crime no right to assault your dignity by politely ro- questing you to explain what intluence, if any, lottery dealers had in influencing the action of your olfice? Again, in the summer of 1873, the business com- muuity was astounded by the detection of a scheme of torgery which, according to your own opinion, excelled in “ingenuity, audacity and successful result the great forgeries on ihe Bank of England,” Mr. Allen, through the assistance of Pmkerton’s detectives, worked up the case; the most famous forgers in the country were en- guged init, many of whom were indicted the same year. Gleason, Roberts, Johnson, Yates, Raymond, Blaisdell and Brown were arrested, Against Gleason and Roberts alone 120 indictments were jound. Mr. Alien says ‘‘he had a pretty clear case of it against them. Now what result was obtained? He says that avout a week prior to the trial of Gleason and Roberts (on the first and only one on which they were tried) you took the papers out of his hands, and without consult- ing him as to what evidence he had succeeded in gotting against them put them on trial withont his assistance, and the jury disagreed. Roberts and Gleason have since been in Lualow Street Jail, detained for lack of bail in civil cases. Johnson, Yates, Blaisdell and Brown have been separately discharged, and Ray- mond was sent to Ithaca as a witness, since which time he bas been parading the city. Now, was it no part of the duty of the Committeo on Crime, oven if it ruifled your dignity, to inquire why these Inen, or some of them, had uot been tried and punished, and why, under the circumstances, you found it hecessary (for the first time, 1 believe, in ‘the history of a District Attorney), to raise thousands of dollars by subscription in Wall street to enable you to perform the duties which the city largely pays you for? ‘These are but illustrations of the matters testitied to before the committee, not by ex-conv and dis- charged clerks, as you would haye the community be- lieve, but by persons whose testimony was in all cases confirmed. Had the committee listened to all the charges against your department which came to its no- tive 1¢ would have had no time toattend to anything else, and I was forced to reject many which, had I not con” cluded that an abundant cause for the increase of crime bad been established thore, I should have felt forced, as its counsel, to produce, "As it is, hundreds ot printed pages now bear witness to the dishearten- ing details. ‘Among the few cases, however, to which you have personally given attention since you were in office (and 1 do not reter now to the cases upon appeal, for the ar- guing of which you claim extra compensation) you have not been ‘entirely unsuccessiul The threo negroes, Who contessed thelr guilt and were hastily brought to trial just before election, will probably re- main for some time the monument of your ability, It is unfortunate, however, that their cases should bave been bronght on Scannell, lL have written this letter with no feclings of bitter. You have brought it opon yourself and IC only to blame if the truth ts severe, 4 little capital jor yoursell at the close of the committee's sessions, and to shelter yourself from the enter the minds of those who read the testimony taken before the committee, you thought an attack on me might serve your pur- pose; buf it did not pay, did it? Yours, & JOHN D, TOWNSEND, New York, Dee, 30, 1875. Decemnen 20, 1875, Hon. T. C, Campnent, Chairman DEAR SIn—1 have to acknowledge the receipt of your note of last cvening—which would Le regarded by mo as the close of our correspondence, save tuat I desire to correct What seems to be a inixapprehension, to some | extent, on your part of my position with regard to your committec, You have alluded to personal feeling be. tween your counsel and myself as influencing me. That is not the case. I could not possibly regard this mat: teras anything personal witit regard to your counsel, T have alluded to him and his conduct only because in hig position as counsel the guidance and man tof your investigation have been intrusted to r have I declined to come before you because personal resentment for any course’ taken with rogard to myself. £ think 1 ought not to regret an, thing that you have done, so far as it has aflected m: sell ur my position inthe public esteem, [have sit ply dechned bec: sow of the meihods of investi- gation pursued from the outset, it has seemed to mo ained were rather per- foual than general, and the change or reform sought through your labors rather i the officers of the law than in the law itself, Your own letter to me goes far, in y Judgment, to confirm my impression. You adver- tise for complaints im the outsek You examined, you say privately, a large number of cases submitted to you, and of those selected by you “all were deemed to present the clements of a strong primed facie vase, and were therefore made matters of record.’ 1 your own showing, as soon as you ha case you spread upon the record wi any One instance, any steps whatever to facts on both sides, You lett that * xplained,”? My dew of a ngcful investigation wo one that developed the truth. Yours has been one that made « prima facie case, This accounts for our tnabihty 17 take the rame view of your proceedings. Yours re- snectfullv. BENJAMIN K, PHELPS. in such close proximity to that of | BOARD OF ALDERMEN. = i es WINDING UP ACCUMULATED BUSINESS—PASSAGB OF IMPORTANT ORDINANCES—THE PERMIT BUREAU REORGANIZED—A NEW DOG LAW—~ KING KALAKAUA'S RECEPTION EXPENSES—NG NOMINATION FOR COMMISSIONER oF PUBLIG WORKS. The last regular meeting of the present Board of Aldermen was held at the City Hall yesterday after- noon, Mr. Samuel A. Lewis in the chair. There was a largo attendance in the lobby anda full quota of Al dermen in anticipation of Mayor Wickham sending in a name for confirmation for the position of Com missioner of Public Works in place of General Fita John Porter, whose term of office has expired. But the spectators were doomed to disappointment, as na communication was received from. His Honor the Mayor on the important subject, A REGISTRAR OV PERMITS CREATED. The following ordinance, which will prove of in- terest to our business community, was then called up and passed :— Skotiox 1.—All power and authority heretofore possessed or exercised by the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, er the Mayor, or the Strect Commissioner, or the Oommis- sioner of Public Works, in granting permits for showcases or stands for the sale of newspapers, iruit, books or other mer- chandise, article or thing whatsoever, encumbering the . streets or sidewalks, or for putting out signs, or for the erecs tion of stairways or hoistways over the sidewalks. is hereby be vest Bureau of Permit the head of which shall culled "Registrar of rein Registrar of Permits, id the rks and subordi essary to aid him in the discharge of dutis appointed by and shall Ue removable at. the. pl of the Mayor, and, subject to the appropriation for rean, shall, ree spect rely receive snch compensation hall, from to time, be ixed and estabilshed by the Mayor. Every applic cation for such permits shall be approved by an alderman at largo of the district in which the premises may be located, and shull be accompanied by the consent of the person oF persons ocenpying the premises in front‘of which it is pro- posed to locate under such permission, biz Nothing in this ordinance any case requiring the Registrar o rmits in the absence of objections. bo satinfied that it is de be granted. jaid Re; r of Permits is heroby invested with Il be construed . intr full authority and power to enforce the removal of ull prive jleges, stands, signs, stairways or hoistways which may have bean erected without « permit under the provisions of this Su ines: viloge under this ordinance or eae shall pay the sum ‘snd grantees of ull other privileges toward the expense of ex- this ordinance, to be accounted for to the is hereby understood and expressod that for the e ei ty. recelving and delivering of guods no fee shall be charged, ‘and the Corporation Attorney shall not hereafter institute wuits for alleied obstructions occasioned by the recei: t oF « delivery of merchandise in the ordinary course ot business; Dut no person shall deposit any article or articles upon any stroct or sidewalk in the city in such manner as to ob- struct the ‘use thereof by the public. The aggregate sum for any one permit containing ali or any portion of the Privileges expressed in this section shall not exceed sum of $3, and all may be granted for that feo; but in case is permission to be given to place any sign upon top, or from in front, above the second floor of any build that shall project into the street or over the sidewalk, front any such buildiug, in any street or avenue in the city of New ork. 3x6, 6.—ANl privileges granted under the provisions of thie ordinance shall continue in force for one year, uniess re voked by suid Kegistrar of Permits, dating from the Ist day ‘ay, 1878, or uutil the Ist day’ of May succeeding the issue of the permit; and no permit shall continue in torea beyond the fat day of May succeeding the issue thereof, ‘SKC. 7.—All privileges which may be granted between the adoption of this ordinance and the Ist ‘day of May, 1876, thalt continue in force nntil May 1, 1877. ‘Suc. 8.—Said Registrar of Permits shall'cause to be pro vided a record bouk of all permits granted under this ordi nance, in which shall be entered the names and location ail persons, and the privileges granted in said permits an such book shall be open to the {nspection of the public at al reasonable times during business hours. ‘All privileges and permits heretofore granted b fe covered. by the provisions of this ordi force until the expiration of the full jod 0 were granted. ‘SHC, 10.—The Kegistrar of Perinits sall render to the Com=- moh Council, on the Ist day of Muy and the Ist day of No- Yember in each year, semi-annual reports containing the unt of money Fecsived and collected or permits ud the rivilexe ranted under such permits, wad also the expensos incurred in the office of said Registrar. ‘SEC. 1.—The ordinance to regulate permits for street stands, showcases, signs, stairways, hoistways and deliveries, approved February 24, 1806; the ‘resolution xlving dise tionary power to the Mayor Tegards changiti the Iteet feo for signs, approved March 8, 1866; the resolution req ing reports irom the Mayor to. the Common, Council, ape proved April 4. 1866; the ordinance entitled “An ordinance to amend an ordinance to regulate permits for street stands, thowcaues, signs, stairways, hoistways, and deliveries)” ap- voved February 24, 1868 whieh became adopted July 27, Para, and the vidinance amending said last mentioned ordi- nance, approved October 4, 1875, and all other ordinauces ‘and parts of ordinances conflicting with this ordinance are hereby repealed. ‘SxC. 13.—This ordinance shat! take offect immodiately, ‘A resolution was passed authorixing the Comptroller to pay the foliowing bills incurred in the funeral of Vice President Wilson W. T. A. Hart, undertaker John Keim, battery B, for horses. G'S. Grafulla, Seventh regiment bai Philip Loesch, Eleventh Regiment bi Total. Also the followin; M. J. O'Brien, Sixty-ninth regiment band. D. L. Downing, Ninth regiment band... Total The Commissioner of Public Works was authorized to lay twelve inch Croton water pipes at the transvers¢ roads across Central Park at Eighty-fifth street, com necting with the high service water pipes on the boule yards, in order to supply all that portion included bor tween Third and Filth avenues, Highty-second and Ninety-fourth strects, and between Sixty-fourth and Seventy-third streets, Third and Fifth avenues, with ax adequate and necessary quantity and force of Croton water. KING KALAKAUA’S RECEPTION. Considerable discussion arose as 10 the payment of bills of the proprietors of the Windsor Hotel for the entertainment of King Kalakaua. A majority report of the committee to which the matter was referred 6,058 90, while the minority report spectties the sum of $4,039 3). bills were again sent back to the committee for further consideration. Sabsequently the committee reported back in favor of paying $5,618 91, and this was also laid over. ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, The majority and minority reports relative to provid- ing additional accommodatiens for the Court of General Sessions were also calied ap. Failing to receive thé requisite number of votes they were laid over. AGAINST DOGS. ‘An ordinance was adopted making {t unlawful for any. person to keep upon his or her premises any dog or otuer animal “whose barking, howling or other offen- sive nolge in any outhouse, yard or in the street may be annoying, disagreeable or injurious to any persons residing in the vicinity, under a penalty of $4 for every such offence, to be imposed by any police magistrate.’ THE CORPORATION ATTORNEY'S ROOMS. Reports of committees for and against the proposition to lease the premises No. 117 Nassau street for use of the Corporation Attorney were also called up and laid over jor future consideration Other unimportant resolutions were passed, after which the Board adjourned until three o'clock this afternoon. MUNICIPAL NOTES. Mayor Wickham had nothing to say yesterday as te his probable nominee for Commisstoner of Publi¢ Works He would not giyo the slightest inkling as te when he intended to sendin a name to the Board of Aldermen; but he is compelled to do so within tex ~ days after the expiration of General Porter's term, Tho latest names mentioned are Mr. Allan Campbell and Mr. Henry A. Gumbleton. ‘At a cancns of the republican members of the new Board of Aldermen held yesterday Alderman Morrif was nominated jor President, John R, Lawrence fot Clerk and Francis Keckeissen for Sergeant-ant-Arms, On the petition of W. A. Butler, recetver of the Man- ufacturers and Builders’ Bank, an order has bees granted and was yesterday filed in the County Clerkq Ofice directing him to pay Herman Uhl, receiver of erman Uptown Savings Bank, the sum of $10,000, alt of this amount was deposited by the German Bank with the Manufacturers and Builders’ at the time of the close of the former. ‘The new Bourd of Aldermen will organize at twely o’clock on Monday next. The last meeting of the ol Board will probably be held to-day. Mr. W. 8. Wolf appeared at the Mayor's office yestes day as the Iogal representative of the Board of ‘Assis Aldermen ond fifteen Aldermen at large, voted nat the last election in several of the dist nd that his clients should be sworn in @m 3 iv. Mayor Wickham thought we had a sufficient number o: Aldermanic representatives now, and refused to accede to the request of Mr. Wolf. BROOKLYN ALDERMEN. The last session of the Brooklyn Board of Aldremen was held yesterday afternoon, Alderman Bergen in the | chair, The lobby was crowded, It was presumed that Mayor Hunter would send in the name of somo “regular democrat” for confirmation as President of the Board of City Works. Had this been done the do mocracy, Which is to become the minority in the new Board, would secure political patronage, Alder man Howell moved to take a re for one hour. ‘The motion was carried, The democrats then held a caucus in the Corporation Counsel's room, at which | ex-Register Hugh McLaughlin and other promiment | democrats were present, A committee of throe wat | appointed to wait upon the Mayor and endeavor to agree pon some name for the vacant position, The Mayor refused to send in any other | names than ‘those he had alroady submitted—t, ¢, Janos Murphy and Wiliam Marshal, The Commot Cow met again at four o'clock, and, ON motion oF jurned sine die, ‘Thus between rity and their Mayor, Mr. John W. n party are given the nomination Alderman Clancy, the democratic maj Hunter, the republi | of President of the owrd of City Works and Park Com: | Inissionor, . Republicans are jubilant and democrats in- | dignant because of the deadlock which has cost them | 80 dearly, oily 4 REMOVAL OF POOR CHILDREN. i — - | The remainder of the inmates of tho Poor Mouse on | Randall's Island between the azes of three and sixtoon years will be removed to-day to Mes. DuBois’ Child's Nursory, at Staten Island,