The New York Herald Newspaper, February 11, 1876, Page 8

8 ; cM ‘ THE COURTS. [Exiizemas ‘Further Examination in the Great Pacific Mail Suit. Nestimony of Ex-Seeretary Johnson aud A. B. Stockwell’s Broker. A HEAVY RAILROAD SUIT. Important Decision in Bankruptcy Proceedings. (PENALTY OF OVERCROWDING CITY CAR ‘The proceedings in the suit of the Pacific Mat! Steam- ‘whip Company against William S King and Jobn G. | ‘Schumaker were continued yesterday before Commis- Bioner Kdwin M. Wight, at his office in the Drexel Building. Mr. Henry O. Bennett appeared for plain- ‘tiffs and John N. Goodwin for the defendants, | NEW YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1876.—WITH SUPPLEMENT. Checks wore not entered in another book called the account adjourned till eleven e further hearing was bere o’slock this morning. MILWAUKEE AND ST. PAUL RAIL- ROAD BONDS. A dectsion was given by Judge Van Brunt, of the Court of Common Pleas, yesterday, in the suit brought by Russell Sage against Washington R. Vermilys, David A. Trowbridge, Latham & Fisk, Donald McKay, Luther C, Clark, George V. Clark, John D. Maxwell, David Crawford, Harry E. Dodge, George Deanison, Francis Skiddy, Sheppard Gandy and Levi Parsons. The complainant sets forth that in December, 1872, Dennison, Skiddy, Gandy and Parsons borrowed from him sixty- five one thousand-dollar bonds and seventeen five thou- sand-dollar bonds of the Milwaukee and St, Paul Rail- way Company, bearing date July 1, 1867, payable July 1, 1868; that the bonds wero issued as security on a mortgage on another division of the road; that the bor- rowers ved to retarn the bonds to platutiff the fol- lowing April, wita the matared coupons and two and one-half per cent commission for their use; that it was agreed $150,000 Missourl, Kansas au Texas Railroad Company bonds should be deposited ag security, and in case of default of the agreement that plaintiff could sue for any unpaid balance; that the Mul- waukee bonds were delivered by order of the last mon- tioned detendants to David Crawford, one of the firm of Clark, Dodge & Co., who knew of the agreement, to re- turn them, but that defendants failed to return them. Clark, Dodge & Co., Vermilye & Co., and Dennison, Skiddy, Gandy and Parsons are charged with retaining the bonds tn fraud of the plaintiff, and are charged with transferring the bonds, having coupons attached, to Vermilye & Oo., the latter giving po con- sideration thereior and being aware of the contract to TESTIMONY OF THE BX-SECRETARY. The first witness called was Mr. Theodore T. Jobn- | Won, ex-secretary of the Pacific Mail Steamship Com- | pany, and at one time acting treasurer. Ho testified | that ho matte a personal examination of the books of the | company for the latter part of the year 1871 and the whole of 1872, and found that a number of payments | had boen made to Harriot & Noyes, brokers, in the wtorm of checks drawn by the order of A. B, Stockwell, Wresident of the company, or F. W. G. Bollows, Vice President; Harriot & Noyos was one of the numerous firms of brokers with which A. B, Stockwell did busi- | mess; Mr. S. J. Harriot generally called for these | vehecks; Mr. Harriot was frequently in the | office when these checks were made out; hey ranged from $50,000 to $250,000, and at times Where were checks for oven iarger sums; I recollect giving a number pt those checks independent of the | examination of the records; I do not know that there ‘Was a pool formed which was operated through Har- wiot & Noyes, nor did Ihear avy conversation con eerning a pool; Harriot & Noyes did not perform any | Bervices for the company; tne entry made on the stub | of the check book for these checks was Harrlot & | Noyes’ loan; I never mado any inquiry why these | whecks were given to Harriot & Noyos; the initials A. B. S., or tne name A. B. Stockwolt, wore affixed to the | margin of the check book for some loans; affixed to | wehecks of Harriot & Noyes it signified money leancd ‘Wo Stockwell’s brokers for use In speculation; I don’t Pomomber hearing of any ono else interested in these ‘Bpeculations; when Mr. Harriot came into the office hho saw cither A. B. Stockwell or F, W. G. Bellows, or ‘both. Mr. Bennett—Was there any inquiry made about ‘these checks, or was the subject suggested at any of | ‘she meetings of the Board of Directors? Mr. Johuson—Not spootaily as regards any one firm. | Mr. Bennett—Who had access to the book at the ‘ime these checks were given to Harriot & Noyes? | Mr. Jonnson—Charles I, Abercrombio, Henry Smith, | A.B. Stockwell and Mr. Bellows frequently ‘looked | ever’ tho check book; Mr. Alexander Masterton, one | ‘of the directors, also looked over it trequently; all the Mdirectors had a right to look over every book of the | ‘company and thoy exercised it trom time to time. Mr, Johnson, in answer to further questions, stated ‘that the attention of the directors was not called especi- ‘ally to the checks given to Harriot & Noyes wore than | to those given to other brokers, though the larger por- ‘on of these checks were drawn in favor of Harriot Noyes; the subject was never discussod ofticially, Progen it was informally; it wes understood that thé | rectors were intere tn A large amount of Pa- ‘elfc Mail stock carried Harriot & Noyes; the fre- | ‘quent issuance of these checks made me thiuk so, and | Bp the treasurer had no authority to issue these hecks, nor wero they issued unjoss after a conference | Satwesn, % Stockwell, Mr. . Bellowes, Mr, | jasterton and other ifectors, jt caused ot 1 in the office to think a0 duris I occupied the position of treasure pro tem. I did not oecupy the treasurer's desk; most ‘of the checks were drawn by Mr. Charles Lyman, who Made out tho checks and brought them to me for my signature; I remember being present at the meeting of the Board of Directors, in November, 1974, when I was t- ‘quested to leave the room; there were charges made at That meeting against certain directors of having acted | fn bad faith in a settlement with Mr. Stockwell; I was | Tequested to forget what was said on that occasion, and ‘Il obeyed the request. | STOOKWRLL'S HROKER EXAMINED, Mr, Samuol Y. Harriot was then called, He tes- ified as follows:—I was a stockjobber in 1871; I longed to the firm of Harriot & Noyes; the firm ‘Will exists; our frm had large pecuniary transactions | cwith Mr. Stockwoll in 1871 and 1872; our interviews ‘generally took place either in our office of the Paoide | ‘ail office; I remomber recoiving checks of a large ‘amount issued by the Pacific Mail Company in 1872, | Dut leould not speak definitely as to the number or the amount represented by these checks unless I re- | ferrod to my books; I could not tell whether the | checks woro credited to ono or more accounts, Mr. Bennett—Oan you tell whether there was a pool formed in your office by Mr. Stockwell and | Others, directors of tho Pacific Mail Company ? Mr. Harriot—I have na objection to say that there ‘were pools in our office, but these ehecks wore not gredited to any pool account, The checks received nd our firm furnished oral. Mr. Bennett—Can you tell what other direetor had | fn account in your offic at the time? Mr. Harriot—1 eannot tell without ks. Mr. Bennett—Do you not know that there were | Otber directors had accounts with you, | Mr. Harriott—This is not a fair question, We bad | ‘many acounts in our office, and Ido not wish to tell | er our customers’ private busincss with as. account referring to my | r, Bennett—! am entitled to know the names of all those persons interested in the funds of the Paeific Mail Company, which wore disbursed at that time, and Who did business with Harriot & Noyes. Mr. Harriot—I will answer tho question when 1 | t my books, and not before, unless [am compelled; | PF oon't know of any pools particularly; I know there ‘were accounts in my office in which others than Mr. Btockwoii were interested; most of the gnoney that | game from tho Pacific Mail Company was monoy we Dorrowed on collateral. Mr. Bennott—What woro the names of these other | @rectors who had accounts with you? Mr. Harriot—I said I remembered some of the namos ut. do not wish to answer further without reterence | my books. Mr. Bennett. answer or no! i Mr. Harriot—Not unléss I am compelied. | Comutissioner Wight—Have yeu any othor questions, Mr. Bonnott? 1 do not wish this trifling. Will you Mr, Boanott—It is time for you (the Commissioner) Pplaiutif, who, or ) TV Gragged’ some forty tect, the whecls of tbe car rusning | The de- | fo speak now " Commissioner Wight—I am propared to take up any ine. Mr. Harriot—I do not wish to Koop anything secret. Tam willing to tell all I know, but my customers have gertain rights which I wish to protect. Mr. Hennett—Were any of these gentlemen whom You decline to name directors ? Mr. Harriot—I don’t know whether they were or | not. Mr. Harriot continued—Mr. Fred. Billings was one of the porsous; he had a joint account with Mr. Stock- | weil; I dou’t recollect about Mr. Masterton; I do not | think either Mr. Bagster, Mr. Park or Sir, Bellows | were interested. Mr. Harriot then promised to ap- this morning with his books and answer, as far as | Be his power, any questions cowasel might wish to | im. | Mr. Johnson was then recalled, Mr. Bennett produced | fhe check book of the Pacific Mail Company of 1872 pat eskes the witness to road out the date and amount of he checks given to Harriot & Noyes by the Pacitic Mati Company duriag the fret four monthe of that year. | They aro as tollows:—Mareh 9, 1872, $315,000; March $190,000; March 15, $2,400; March 16, $21,000, | 100, "$200,000, $20,000, $50,000, gus, T24 38, ; April 11, "$6,000, $20,000; 85,600, 4 April 15, 000, $96,000, 600," $142,580 48; April 17, | ar 000; April 19, $162,587 50, $176,800; May ah ; May 15, $201,412 30; May 21, $228, 735 33, it. Bennett—Those checks which you have detailed, dn whose handwriting ia the margin * | Mr. Jonson—In Mr. Char! Abercrombie’s, Hen. | Fy Smith's aud Charles Lyman’s, r, Bennett—Who were codirectors with Mr, Stock, well at this time? Mr, Jolinson—Me, H. Hi. Bagster, Mr. Honry Clows, F James D, Smith, Mr. 0. PO, Billings, Mr. Charios |. Osborn, Mr. Le Grand Lockwood, Mr, E. C. Taylor nd Mr. Alex. Masterton. Mr. Bennett—Was Mr, Masterton President of the Manufacturers and Merchants’ Bank at this. time? Mr. Johnson—I think he was and that he [s still. Mr. Beunett—Was Mr. Stockwell Prosident of the Panama Railroad at this time? | Re nee believe he was, ¢ Mr. Bonnett produced an agreement, Detover 1, 1872, between the Panama Railroad Com- dated ‘Upat tho ; the twon! of a1 return the bonds to plaintiff, Plaintiff asks for ac- counting, commission and liberty to seil the col- laterals, &o, Tho answer of Clark, Dodge & Co., who are made the principal defendants, is that Dennison, Skiddy, Gandy and Paragns wore the Executive Committee ofthe Land Grant and Railway Trust Company, which was | then building the Missouri, Kansas and Toxas road: that Crawford, @ member of the firm of Clark, Dodge & Co., was treasurer of the Land Grant and Railway Trust Company, and, as he says he arranged that, a8 | the bonds of that new railroad company were selling slowly, ho went to Russell Sago & Co. and got a loan of its bonds of tho Milwaukee Company, which being a completed road, was casier to raise money on; that the Executive Committeo arranged there shotld bo such Joan, and that 190 of the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Company's bonds should be deposited as col- laterals and their own personal notes _ for $150,000, Sage further says that this borrow- ing ‘was to be met by two and a half per cent commission, and that there was an agreement to return these bonds, to which Clark, jodge & Co, were not partners, They pledged these bonas with Clark, Dodge & Co, for general advances by that house to the Land Grant Company, and tegert it | Lani | came around, he (Crawford) on bebalf of the Grant Company, went around to Sage & Co, to allow e arrangement to stand open, and that Mr, Sage con- sented, Clark, Dodge & Co. say they wero entitled to plodge over these bonds; had parted with them long Ago; that the Land Grant Company were the only par- ties they knew in the transaction, and that said parties owed them $393,000, On the examination before and trial of Crawford and Dodge, they declined to produce their books to show to whom these bonds were gold or for whom they collected the coupons, and Jadgo Van Brunt directed that if all this part of the answer should be stricken out they need not answer these questions; otherwise they were allowed. Clark, Dodge & Co. say the only relation of Vermitye & Co. to the matter 18 that when the coupons were sent to them for colicction it was thought better they sboald collect thom, but that Vertullye & Co. have nover held the bonds, BANKRUPTCY DECISION. In the matter of John W. Holgate, a bankrupt, the following decision has been rendered by Judge Blatch- ford, in tho District Court of the United States, in the Southern distriet of New York:— In this case, a creditor, after the discharge of tho bankrupt, applied to the Court, under section 5,120 of tho Revised Statutes, to annul the discharge, Proofs were taken and the Court dismissed tho application, The bankrupt now asks that the creditor may be charged with the costs of the application. The creditor contends that there is no btatute under which costs an be awarded by the Court agaist a creditor on the ismtssal of such an application; and that the Court has no power in such a case to award costs against a croditor. The proceeding provided tor by section %,120 13, In form, a contestation in a separate and indepen- dent equitable bra to which there are adversary par. tics, Tho application of the creditor is required to be in writing And to ge} forth and Specify enumerated maisore, ‘he bankrupt is required to an- wer the application. There is to bea hearing. The Qourt isto take proofs, and ic make a finding on the igsnes, and is thon to give judgmeft oiler !m favor of the creditor o# in fuver of the bankrapt. Here afe ail the elements of a formalsuit, There is no section of any statute, and no general order in bankruptoy. which specifically declares that on rendering such judgment particalariy the Court either shallor may award costs to eitber | of the two partics against the other. The same ro- mark ig true in reference to a judgment or decree granting or refueing a discharge But itis well settlod that tie rightof the prevailing party to recover costs generalty in all cases at law and in equity, by acts of Congress, either expressly or by necessary implication (ist Blatebfo: Circuit Court Report ot; the State of Penns The Wheeling an Belmont Bridge Company, 18 How., 460.) The power | of a court o! tho United States to render a docroe or judgment inacase of equitable cognizance, includes | the power possessed and exerctsed by all’ courts of equity, to uso 18 discretion to award or refase costs, as ite judgment of tho right ef tho case, in that par: ticular, may roquire. This doctrine was recognized as appliedbie to proceedings for a discharge under the Bankraptey act of 1841, (in re Guild, Ist Woodford & Morris, 203) and in reference | to proceedings under the present Bankruptey act, it is said by Judge Lowell, in In ta Gorge, (1 Lowell, $04,) that it is ‘clear that the district court, sitting in bank- | from the Pacific Mais Compat re charged to loan | ruptey, bas the discretion; like other courts of equi- | table Jurisdiction, to give or withhold costs, in whole rin part, as it may deem just, in all proceedings not specially regulated by statute.” There is no statutory rovision, Which either expressly or by implication forbids the awarding of costs in a cage like the present, T think this is acase in which it is proper to award costs to the bankrupt against the creditor. Mr. T. Saunders appeared for the creditor and Mr. J. W. Lawton for the bankrupt, |THE FRONT PLATFORM VERDICT. In tho Court of Common Pleas before Judgo Van Bront and jury, inthe suitbrought by Henry Friede against the Third Avenue Railroad Company for dam- ages for Injuries a verdict was given yesterday. The plaintif proved by himself and soveral witnesses that he got on the Third avenue car No, 135, at the corner | Dt tho Bowery and Ninth street, and then told the driver that be wished to get out on the corner of | Bowery aud Broomo strect, The car was very full, | every Seat being occupied and a number standing up, 80 that he was obliged to stand on the front platform. As the car reached the designated point, a lady sitting near the front door told the driver to sto; the car which was done, and alter the lady ha alighted and while tho plainti? was with one foot on the pavement and the other foot on the steps of the | car. tho driver loosened the brakes and upset tbe linging to the rail of the car, wag over his log, which necessitated amputation. fonce was that the plaintif contetbuted by his negli- | gence, in standing on the front platform and ip faking 8 Jong timo In getting off the car at the coracr of Bow- ery and roome street, to the injuries, and that, therefore, they were not li ble. The forcible ‘summing up of tho ca for the lainti! by Judge Dittenhoet must have ma trong impression upon the jury, ag they gave the heavy verdict of $10,000 against’ the jiroad company. Messrs. Runklo and Englebart Wore associated with Judge Dittenhoefer in the 10> tion of tho case, the opposing coansel bein; Vanderpool, nm and Cummings, An extra allow- ance of $200 understood thi dict was the rec! indifference ef humen comfort shown by our city railway companies in overcrowding 2 the courts of the United States, 1s given | Retl; va, Zabpiski, Phelan-vs, art vs. et al., Ly hed Irving, &e., vs. Wood; French vs, Al ; Fischer vd. Lent, Moller vs. Tate, Doyle vs. Mayor, &o. Randford raeWhite—Dond of guardian ed. ford vs. —l of ap Biddleman vs. Keatridge.—Motion deuled without costs, Memorandum. Rothschild va Forty-second Stroet Ratlroad Com- pany.—The amendment asked for will be granted upon payment of costs of the action up to the present time and $10 costs of motion. Covert vs, Hernenberger,—I shall allow platotiff to serve bis complaint upon payment of costs of motion to detendant; order may be settled on one day’s notice, Foshay vs. La ‘—Terin {ov of October caunot be allowed, Memorandum, Seibt vs, Bauzer et al.—Surety’s name written over an erasure, Burdon ys, Farmers Milk Company.—I want the order in this case. Hollacker vs. O’Brien.—As it spoons that one of the sureties in this caso of doubtfal respénsibility, I think that the judgment should stand as security. De- fauit opened on that condition. Hughes vs. Paraf—Motion dented, without costs. Momorandum. First National Bank of Cincinnati vs, Renick and another.—The only order which I can make in this case is an order vacating attachment, Martine vs. Lowenstefa.—Motion for a stay granted. No costs of motion. Tmest vs. Woodburn Silver Mining Company of Sertacsee allowance of $100 granted to the plainti. Grant vs. Cooper,—I do not thipk that isa casein which a reference should be ordered, it should be tried at the Special Term, and if the decision thoro should be m favor of the plaintiff a referee can then be appointed to take and state the accounts between the parties under the cireumstances disclosed by the plaintiff's affidavits. No costs will bo allowed on this motion, Weimes vs Weimes, —Allowed. Gullick vs, Waters,~Motion to change place of trial to Orange county denied, with $10 costa Burden ve. Farmera’ Milk Company.—The order of Justice Barrett requires two sureties. A bond with throe suretics who do not justify in the sum of $15,000 ig not in compliance with the order. Lewis vs. Gill.—l1 will grant an order to show cause, @umwmell va, Dalley. a ryry required, Kronethal va. Joelsohn.—1 do not appoint im referees in supplementary proceedings. Phillips vs. ae denied, with $10 costs to the purchaser. Memorandum. Uulman vs. Haas.—Motion dented without costs. Matter of opening Eleventh avenue,—Referred to | oe Williem Mitchell to take proof, &o, Memotan- um Kamer vs. Zwickert.—Ex parte order must be re- yoked and the motion to file security for costs granted. Memorandum. Metropolitan Savings Bank vs. Fitzsimmons,—Mo- tlon denied with $10 costs to Geeroy. Memorandum. SUPREME COURT— SPECIAL TERM, By iinage Lawrence. Barnett vs. Barnott.—in this case I wish to have a Teargument. SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. By Judge Speir. Reily vs. Hiler et al.—Motion dented without costs, By Judge Sanford. ‘Tyng vs. Marsh et al—Motion granted. Brown va Sohwarn ot al.—Order settled, Devine va. Devine.—Reiereo’s report confirmed and | Judgment orderea. COMMON PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM. Ry Judge Van Bruow | Morris vs. Morris; Jacobs vs. Jacobs; Richard ys, Letbert.—Memorandum of decision, Le Bronsh vs. Lynch; Derlin vs. Costello et al,—Mo- tion denied, with $10 costs. » Sago va, Vermilye ot al, ; Clark vs. Corcoran.—See memorandum, Thorp ot al. vs. Portington et al —Opinion, Abbott vs. Abbott.—Referee’s report confirmed and divorce granted to plaintifl. By Judge Robinson. Crowell vs. Crowell.—Divorce granted to plainttim. SUMMARY OF LAW OASES, In the Hennessey brandy case, which was dismissod | by Jadge Robinson, of the Court of Common Pleas, | some time ago on the ground that the plaintiffs did not | come into court with clean hands, a motion for anew | trial was yesterday denied by Judge Robinson, In the sult brought on one of two $5,000 notes given by Charles A. Dana as payment of his assessmont | Oh stock in the Chicago Republican, at the time he was its editor, Judge Larremore holding Supreme Court, Cireuit, before whom the case was triod, directed yes- Hat AS verdict for $7,537 Fa tor the plaintiff, being the full atnonuit claiméd, With interest, | Philip A, Madan has brought a suit against Dodd & | Co.'s Nxpress to recover the value of a lost trunk and | ite contents, He gave the trunk in charge of a mes- | etnger of the company to be sent from Westhampton to | this city, taking the usual receipt, limiting liability for | | fox$ To $200. Phe trunk having tarned up missing be | sues for $514 the aliegeg velue of its contents, The | case was tried yesterday befor’ sudge Curls, dt thé | Superior Coart. The defence {s that the company on | the receipt accepted is not lable beyond $100 4 sealed verdict will be given this morning. ‘Asuit was brought by A. 8. Thorp and another against Robert C. Thorp ahd another in which an order of arrest was grantod against the defendants. The de- fendants, who were creditors of the pla‘ntis, failed, but compromised with theirereditors for fifty per cent, Plamtiffs said they woald break up tbe compromise | untess the defendants paid them fifteen per cent extra, which the defendants agreed to do, One-half of the sum was paid, but the balance not being forthcoming | suit was brought, Juago Van Brunt,*in granting a mo- tion to yaeate the order of arrest, says 1t would be an | abuso of the process of the Court to uphold tho order, and would permit the plaintiffs to squeeze out of the de: | fendants that which they gre not legally bound to pay, | Two days have been occupied before Judge Van | Hoesen, of the Court of Common Pleas, tn a suit to re- | cover commissions for the sale of a house on the north- west corner of Thirty-sixth street and Park avenue to Commodore Garrison. The property was sold for | $110,000, and Mr. V. K. Stevenson claimed the usual fee of one per cent commission, Mr. Stevenson said he would got a check for $5,000 to bind the bar- | gain and deduct from the same his commission, to | Which Me. Mallbank objected, stating that he world | pay nothing until the matter was closed. Here the matter dropped, and subsequently another broker com- pleted the sato, obtaining from the Commodoro a check for $2,200 and deducting his commission. The suit was resisted on tho ground of the payment of tho commis- sion to this second broker. It was not thought, how- ever, a good defence, and a verdict was rendered for the full amount claimed, with interest. | United States Deputy Marehal wing of Cali- fornia, arrtved here yesterday morning, having in charge J. Nicholson Elbert, under a warrant tssued | by the Circuit Court of the United States, charging the prisoner with having forged the indorsement upon ‘and uttering a rogtetered bond of the United States for | $5,000, It is alleged that the offence was committed in July, 1874. He then loft the city. Bled against him last month and a bench warrant issued for him and forwarded to Marshal Finnegass, who bad been keeping on his track. The prisoner was | committed to Ludiow Street Jail to await trial at tho | next term of the criminal branch of the Court, t COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. Before Recorder Hackett. | There wasa large number of cases disposed of by Tecorder Hackett yesterday. Few of them posseesed | features of interest tothe public, The foliowing are some of the PLEAS AND SENTENCES RECORDED. | On the 2d of this month James Kelley, an oysterman, living at Hudson and Vandam streets, was walking in | company with John Devaney, of No. 10 Charles street, The latter was under the influence of liquor, and while in that condition was knocked down by his companion, ' who then robbed him of $15 while pretending to assist him to rise, raigned before Recorder Hackett he pleaded guilty to robbery in the dirst degree aod was sent to Siate Prison for ten years. | ‘Thonias Ahcarn, a bill poster, wandoring around with a bucket of paste and a backload of bills of the Olympic Theatre, on October 10, passed the bill beard of the Theatre Comique, at the corner of Thirty-tirst street their cars, thus necessitating passengers to ride on the | gud Third avenuc. Thomas relieved himself of the front platiorm, . REVENUE SUITS. In the Circuit Court of she United States the follow. ing suits have been brought before Judge Wallaco:— Haas vs. Collector Arthur, to recover an alleged overpayment of duties on linen damasks, on importa- per cent ad valorem, paid under protest. In the case of Murray ys, Collector Arthur the point ure by the Secretary of tho Treasury, on condition fords be exported, the Colieétor could asseas othe additional duty imposed in cases In the matter o? Homer, (olladay & Co., of Philadel- phia, va. Collector Arthar, T teecTe? av excess of duties paid on importations of emoToidered Hinens apd polonaises, the excess soughy 10 De °° covered Was five per cent, ad valorem. By direct ot the Court the jary rendered a verdict in favor of the Intidls f9r the full amount claimed, $355 10, holll hat is were imported and Hable to thitpsdve ii of forty per cent, as non embroidered, under the acts of Copgress of 1861 und 1862. Another suit is thay of Rhetms ve. Collector Arthur, 2, y aud Pacific Mail Company concerning the sale of | Central American steamship line, Geued A B Brockwoil.” dr. Johnson identified the signature. Mr. Bonnett (seltioquizing)—~So Mr. Stockwell, Presi- reat oF compromalse with Mr heok wan renee wi . H 7 tiga speed Companys President of if. Bonnett—Did Mr. Stockwell bh @ccount with the Pacific Mail Company? oe ar. fohason-Tes, sit; be did, , Bennett then brought forward the ral of th Pacific Mail Company, which was supe te ur. John. nk Kee — it it be oor & record of the | ctions of the company during the period covered Dy the checks spoken of and in whose ‘ andwriting it Mr. Johnson answored that it was in the handwrit Ang of Leonard B. Walker, assistant accountant of the pany, under the supervision of Mr. F. W. G. Bel- | S. He also said that the data for the journal were od Seven all bie agencies aud irom every direc- | to recorer an alioged excess of duties paid mapaert tions of aftidicial flowers. on the ground. that eran was bd rey bag ceghog part, og: therefore the duty as ten per cent in excess of the re he tarif, Cage still on, ee DECISIONS. SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS, By Jadge Lawrence. Solomon va Volkening, Noa 1 and 2; Natisnal Butchers and Drovers’ Bank va. Lalor, Catlin vs. Dud- ley, Cutler va. Butler, Ablrens vs. Bennett, Deano vs. | Weir, The bags &c, ox rel. Yelverton vs. Board of Revision, &c., and Board of Assossors; The People ex Same, Tuo People ex rel. Yono va. pie ex rel. Cosgrove v8. Same, The Peo- ex rol. Davis ws, Same, Adams vs. Wright, Jordan # Foster « id Bandani je va, Lenk. Granted. bbe vs. Munzeshermer, Hodges vé, Banks, Thomas Ya Joyeo, McDonuey ya, the dares. Bea Maier of ions 10.1373, The plainti® seeks to recover eighteen | of Inw was ag to whether, upon a remission of forfeit | weight of ong wy by proceeding to pasto it over the | — of the Comigte. Qn we int ots ry J. | Paulding, of Nos. 14 and 16 Aun Stree! hs Was Wer keg for this act, and, admitting his guilt this morning, he ‘was sent to the Penitentiary for ten days, Mayhew Megleeg, of No, 24 Gbrystic street, who, on | the 5th inst , stabbed Thomas Maslin, of No. 492 Tenth | | avenue, twice in the face with aknife, pleaded guilty to an Ageault with intent to do bodily harm, State Prison three years. street, who sto! Schloswivger, me he toda pea m4 the oa inst, was consigned to the atiary for gix months. Witham Frolerick, bert Ab! Hau nn hb on each aged twonty-one i, We jent to State Prison for four years upon tg 9 A that they stole | from Henry Freres, of No. 908 East Sixteenth street, a fo Biblo and a Syd : ji ‘wre Charles Raymond, who stole a Charles Scbefer, of No. 305 Hudson street, was sent to ay a Rand, who wal Pky under #n: ov stance’ Premises of William J 00 Waiker street, piended. third degree and was Prison. FIFTY-SEVENTH STREET COURT. Before Judge Duffy. A TBIEI'S APPRENTICE. Henry H, Tyi0B & butcher of Croton Market, Forty. second streetand Fourth avenue, accused a boy named os ofthe larceny of fourteen dead quail. Tho boy's was that he bad boon induced to commit the them by 4 Man who was known to bim, but whoso name he eaid n° Was Hot permitted to give | the Court, He was held for trial A DaBina TTF. Goorge Darcy, who said he wag». 8t0ne cutter resid- ing at No. 402 Rast Twenty-third etry, WS held for trial on a complaint charging him with a _/ "798 street robbery. Lizaie Nolan, of No. $2 Chorry atte. oth? Cowplainant, said that’ while watking toroveh Twenty-third street the prisone: Ln ane Dor gaoner approached her {Fo icious eir- ton, No. ailty to burglary in the w flree years in State An indictment was | Kelley was arrested, and on being ar- | James Coffee, aged twenty-three, of No. 10 Hamilton | le two coats, worth $10, from Herman | ee shots Poa erg Re 5 vay Rare Be denied the obarg® ; : AN EMBEZZLING MINOR. Frank Blackman, aged sixtoon, wes arrgigngl by Omicer McMahon, Nineteonth sub-precinet, on # charge of embezzlement preforred by the Union News Company. He was intrusted with the sale of $20 worth of papers and books on the New Haven and Al- bany Batigned, but only returned $10 of the money, The Court me denied the charge, but he had to be discharged because be was a minor. A warrant was applied for on a simi- lar charge against another employé of the same com- pany. ATTEMPTED OUTRAGE. Emma J. Clegg, agod cloven years, residing with her aunt at No, 556 Third avenue, went into the cellar yes- terday afternoon to got some wood and coal. Jobn Coyle, of No, 82 Madison street, who had concealed himself therein, threw her upon the ground. Her screams induced hiin to desist, and before be could es- cape Officer Clinchy, of the Twenty-first precinct, ar- reated him. Ho was held for trial in default of $1,000 bail. Coyle denied the charge, but admitted being in the cellar for another purpose, the motive of which Le refused to discloee. OQURT CALENDARS-—-THIS DAY. Scrreme Court—Cuamuers—Held by Judge Law- rence.—Nos. 66, 100, 103, 106, 113, 118, 123, 188, 166, 286, 267, 268,-20, 303, 328, 7 z Svrauuz Count—Srrcian Terw—Held by Jadge Law and Fact—Nos. 214, Van Vorst.—Domurror—No. 27. 30, 251, 96, 121, 104, 210, 216, 244, 304, 225, 1 B11, 145, 212, "Boo," 197, 162, 34, 55, 235, 239, 268, 206, 107, 307, 199, S64. Surrsmx ’ Cocrt—Circvre—Part 2—January Term continued, held in Goneral Term: room by Judge West- brook, adjourned antil Monday. Part2—Held by Judge Donohue—Short canses.—Nos. 1602, 1612, 1968, 21224, 1708, 1652, 15043, 1908, 182034, 950, 184, 1772, 2174, 2276, 2046, 2108, 1814, 2032, 3404, "3406, "1028, 2078, 2342, 2340, 2839, 1858, 1756, 2490, 2404, 244), 1686, 2180, 1058, 2522; 2488, 2408, 2530, 1200, 3600. Part 3—Held by Jadge Larremoro—Short cause&.—Nos 2347, 973, 1340, 2449, 1777, 1752, 174144, 2271, 960, 2283, 1655," 1645, ea 2055, 1830) 1661, 2497, 2431, 2259, 2419, 2509, 2189, 76, 2477. Scrzwwor CovrT—Tia. Tera—Part 1—Hold Judge Monell.—Nos, 895, 917, 921, 923, 927, 1,479, 935, 935, 937, 939, 941, 945, 940, 95 Part '2—Held by Judge Curtis —Nos,'1218, 53d, 1152, 416, 008, 454, 8564, 772, 618, 584, 1,236, 888, 920, 718, 976. Svrmwior Covrt—Seaoin Txra—Held by Judgo Sedgwick.—Nos, 1, 37, Scrsrion Counrt—Grsenat Teru—Held by Judges Speir and Sanford.—Nos, 19, 46, 41, 48, 49, 50, 51, 36. ‘Commox Pixas—Ryuiry’ Trrw—Held’ by Judge Robinson. —Demurrer—Nos, 26, 27. Common PLEAS—TRIAL TaRu—Part 1—Held by ae J. F, Daly,—Nos, 1075, 1034, 2184, 254, 689, 2049, 777, 055 ‘980, 177, 1003, 1617, 1620, 1621, 1620, ‘Lost, 1632, 1683, 1884, 1635, ' Part’ 2—Held by Judge Van Brunt—Nos, 1375, 1619, 1506, 1646, 1469, 1701, 1636, 043, 1044, 1645, ost, Laas, 1630, 1640, 16k, 104, 1648, 1649, 1650, 1651, 1653, 1633, Part -8—Reld_ by Judgo Van’ Hoosen,—Nos. 1487, 1520, 1604, 1501, 1008, 1654, 1655, 1656, 1657, 1658, 2183, 1659, 1060, 1601, 1682, 1683, 1604) 1665, 1686, 1668. Courr—Taian Texu—Part 1—Hold vy Jwige Goepp.—Nos. 6557, 6064, $319, 5123, 5102, 6488, 1704, 6283, 0526, 3531, 3833, 3895, 9837, 3888, 3841, 1445. Part 2.—Held by Jad “Alker,—Nos, 3820, 6243, 6244, 6245, 3842, B844 TRA, 3346, 3349, 3853, 3355, 3956, 3859, Part 8—Held ‘by Jadgo McAdam.—Nos. | 4025, 660%, 6007, 6709, 0743, 3024, 8010, 3892, 0653, 6003, 0227; 6567, 6679, 6630, 6631, 6890, 6754, 0737, Court oF GExERaL Sxsstona.—Held by Recorder Hackett.—The Peoplo vs. Morris Moriarty, robbery; Samo vs. Patrick Feeloy, felonious assault and battery; Samo va. John Mayer, rape; Same vs. Richard H. Scott, grand larceny; Bamé va, Lizzie Cutler, grand larceny; mo vs, George W. Dawson and Dick Latforty, grand larceny; Same vs. William Martin, grand larceny; Same vs. Johu M. Graham and Thomas Caudrew, bur: glary; Same vs. Henry Fields, forgery; Same vs. Michael O’Farre!l and Annte’ O’Farrail, receiving stolen goods; Same vs. Michael Roache, false pretence ; Same vs. Patrick O’Brien, falso pretence; Samo vs. James Cullum falso pretence; Same vs. James Quirk, petit larceny; Same vs. James Ryan, yrand larceny, RUBENSTEIN, EFFORTS OF THE DEFENCE TO PROVE AN ALIBI—TESTIMONY AS TO THR WHEREABOUTS OF THE PRISONER ON THE FATAL NIGHT. Few toteresting featares were developed in the Rubenstein trial yesterday, which was continued in the Kings County.Court of Oyer and Yerminer. prisoner, who is almost entirely shrunk up in a black Ovetcoat, sooms as listless as ever, and, with the ex- ception of tho time occupied by the short recess, scarcely shifts his position. He appears to be un. moved by tho testimony, and gpiitrally regards all tho witnesses with a meaningless expression, The fre- quent little brashes between opposing counsel, or the laughter occasionally created by-many of those -called upon to testify whose knowledge of English is rather limited, do not affect him, No perceptible change wae visiblo in hia appearance yestorday, though shortly after the recess he became weak, and, being on the point of fainting, was taken to the open window, whore the fresh air quickly revived him, His coun- eel, Messrs. Beach and Moft, wore promptly on hand, and after the case was called the trial was proceeded with. W. Magnus, druggist, of, No, 67, Eldridge streot, was the first witness oxamined, and*testified to having pre- pared a proscription for Mrs, Sammitt's sick child. Tho next witness was Mr. Bechistalk,a Hebrew slaughterer, who testified that he knew Jacob Abst aud that he remembered the 12th of December last The witness was about to proceed with bis testimony when the District Attorney asked him why he testified with his hat on, and he replied that it was partof his ro- ligiows belief, and that when he went into a church or } a lawyer’s office he kept his hat on, Mr. Beach objected to this examination gn the ground that it wasa matter of individual belief and constience, Several Hebrew witnosses had been sworn with thelr heads uncovered, and the question should be thoroughly understood, so that they might be re- called, if necessary, to De sworn in a manner that was binding on their consciénces, Judge Moore thought that the witnesses could not be vs ogre in that way. District Attoruey intimated that ho might raiso that question hereafter. The witness, in reply to Mr. Beach, said that if he had been sworn uncovered he would also have told tho trath, TESTIMONY OF DORA RUBENSTEIN. Dora Rubenstein, daughter of Asher Rubenstein, of No, 84 Bayard stfeet, testified that she worked asa talloress oh Sanday, December 12, she worked until cight P, M., and when she came home she saw the prisouer, who is her cousin; also Mr. Sammitt and wile, Louis Ruben- stein and wife; Pesach Rubenstein sat close to thom. Lous Felkinstein corroborated the testimony of the previous witness to the offect that she left his house at o'clock on the evening in question. ra Bovolinski, tatloress, of No, 60 Mulberry strect, fied that she had known tho prisoner for three and a half; she had heard of his arrest for the inurder of Sara Alexander, and added that “ho did no do it;” he came to ber house on the night of the 12th for a gold chain he bought two years ago. Rebeoca Moseliski, of No. 83 Bayard street, testified | kitchen to get to bis rooms; she and her husband wore at home when the prisoner went to bed om Sunday, De- cember 12. THE PRISONER'S CONDITION. Joseph Weiner, physician, testified to haying at- tended the prisoner in April aod May, when he wi very low with Bright's disease; the disease in an | vanced stage was incurable; if only one kidney was at. fected life could be prolonged; the prisoner, he con: | sWered, was in the incurable stage, dad was also saffer- | ing from lung disease. Officer Edward Hanlin, of the Sixth precinct police station, testified that a part of his ‘‘beat’’ was in Bay- ard street, where a great deal of poultry was killed. Officer William Mackey also testified to the killing cf | Pde ent Bed that vicinity ; he saw blood ou the pavement | on both sides of Rabensto:n’s house, Lena Frankelstoin testified to havi: Sara Alexander for Mr. Finkenstein, !n Division street, | ft E obaet BM ck; sqw Sarg one Ae talking with a ad Who &poks English; this was Chree months before her death; they were walking along Catharine street, between pine and ten o'clock; she did not see the man’s face, , Aonio Finkenstoin testified that she was at the wed- } ding of Miss Meyer, on Decembor 12, in Hester street, and saw the Silvermann girls there; she danced with Annie Silvermann; sho left the Silvermann girls be- hind, and in reply to the question whether she con- versed with them said, “Yeu cannot speak much when you dance,” and Mr. Beach promptly pat in, “My-ex- perience is otherwise,” which elicited much laughter. Eugene Ring, paying teller of the Bowery National Bavk, corroborated the witness Coben, who teatided | that he got a check from “mess erage FN in favor of wont cee Roh e" "h par Seuvewmwer, umes wreLou eS vy Kfior the recess Mivnie Levy was ‘calicd to the Wit and ip reply to Mr. Mott testitied that sho 117 Mott stree\; remembered bearing of Rubenstein’s arrest; on the day precoding she went to Columbia Hall with others to a wedding; remained there until ten o'clock, in company with a Silver- | mann; was prosent when the rabbi performed tho marriage ceremony, after which the daneing com- mended. To the District Attorney—It was half-past four o'clock when we leit the house to go to the marrii 8. F. Coben was next examined, Resides in Ludiow street; rementvered hearing of the arrest of Ruben- worked with low sireet on the day previous; several members of the — family were there; they left about nine o'eloc! Jacob Kantrowltch stated that he had never taken an oath. Ho resides at No, 30 Kast Broadway; heard of rrest on Tuesday after the murder; on recoding be was at a party at C house on Ludlow street; several of the Rubenstein family wore there. To tho District Attorney—I attend the same syna- gue as the Rabensteins; the reason I dectined to EeSivorn is because it is forbidden by my faith to swear, Mr. Beach—4s there anything in your religious faith whien forbids you swearing on the Bible on a proper % | occasion? A. You cannot swoar when there Is not any of it. bas Rothold testified (hat am the Sunday hafore was pursued be A 0 doubt of tho —— guilt, although he | The | r Mr. Feikinstetm at No, 35 East Le ea | of December to look for her husband to got payment | tbat sho knew the priseper; he had to pass through her | ' everything averred, implied, insinuated or argaed in stein for the murder; witness attonded a party in Lud- | frho fired two } the marder he was at No. {8 Ludlow street; daw the | | | | | r | toward the bankrupts in the reiation of relatives, | ‘ae OB cay te Jane testified that sho was at tho weddi accompanied by Miss Fincklestein. "inte pn idl) recalled and stated that she was mistaken as to the ttme she went to the wedding, which sbe wag at about a quarter to five a = Parnolt, of No. 47 East Broadway, tostified | that he attonded the wodding at Columbia Hall, on | Sunday, Decembor 12; he arrived there about filtecn | wlautes before the ceromony, which wok place near five o'clock. Alter come further teatimony the case was adjourned until ten o'clock this morning. THE SIMMONS MURDER. At the opening of the Kings County Court of Oyer and Torminer District Attorney Britton stated that it was intended to Andreas Fuchs to-day for the | arraign marder of Simmons, He intimated that he would be | ready to proceed with the case next . COURT OE APPBALS. Atpany, N, ¥., Feb, 10, 1876, To this court to-lay the following business was trans- acted :— No. 192 Sherman vs. The Hudeon Biver Railroad Copeeey Atanas resumed and concluded. No, 198. Albert A. Kondall et al, appellants, vs. Row- land Brill, respondent —Argued by E, Sickles, of counsel for appellants, and O. D, M, Baker for respond- en’ No. 62. Henry C. Howard et al, respondents, vs. George K. Mo: pellant,—Argued’ by Scott Lord, of counsel for jants, and by Wiviam Rumsey, for re- spondent. No, 167. Sophia ©. Hull, appellant, vs, McGrogor J. Nutcheson, respondent.—Argaed by George F. Com- stock, of counsel for appellant, and by W. W. McFar- land for respondent. Proclamation made and Court adjourned. CALENDAR, Day calendar, Court of Appeals, for Friday, Febru- ary 11.—Nos 101, 169, 196, 199, 1993, 200, 202) 203. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. Wasuxatox, Feb 9, 1876. In the United States Supreme Court to-day the fol- lowing case was heard:—No. 191, Shepley otal. vs. Cowan et al,—Error to the Supreme Court of Mis- | souri.—This was a suit in equity commenced by one | MecPhorson and continaed by the plainti‘fs in error, bis executors, to divest the title of the defendants, who claim the lands in dispnte undor a patent | from the United States, under pre-emption | by ono Chartrand, made in 1835, and continued | by hig sons in 1848 up to 1868, whon the patent Issued to them as heirs) The McPherson claim is based on a location made by officers of the United States in favor of the State of Siesouri, and a patent of tho State made “under an act of Congress of Septomber, 1341, Tho Court below held that the State location | was void, because the lands wero specially reserved by act of Congress, and the Land Vopartment had so tnetructed its officers at St Louis that it ‘‘was | reserved from sate or entry of any kind to satisfy tho | claim of the village of Carondelet, under the Act of | June, 1812, and that of 1824.” The bill was dismissed, | and jt 1s here urged that the decision is erroneous, bi cause it was not established on the trial that the villago of Carondelet ever filed any claim to commous such as to make it the subject of reservation. The defendants in errot maintain the correctnoss of | the judgment below, but submit that a3 both parties to the suit claim under independent legal titles, wholly adverse to each other, there 16 no equitable Jarisdiction 1 the case, Glover & Sheploy and P. Philltps for plainti™’s in error. Montgomery Blair and B. A, Hill for dofemd- ants. DUNCAN, SHERMAN & CO. ANSWER T0 THE PETITION OF JANE FERRERO-— THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY. We give below the answer of Duncan, Sherman & Co. to the petition of Jane Ferrero, filed a few days since in the United States District Court, the points of which wore pablished at tho time in the Hxxatp:— Umitep Starss District Courr.—In tho. matter of | ‘Wiluam Butler Duncan, Watts Sherman and Francis H. Grain.—The answer of Williain B. Duncan, Watts Shor- man and Francis H. Grain to the petition of Jano Ferrero, These respondents say that no injunction or other order ag beep obtained by them from this Court or elsewhere restraining or in any way interfering with the prosecution of any action brought by the said po- Utioner as against Andrew F. Elitott. As these re- spondents undorstand tho complaint of tho said Jane Ferrero in the Supremo Court of the State of New York her action is one in substance to recover the | amount of bills of exchange drawn by the firm of Hot- tinguer & Co., of Paris. Every allegation of actual fraud or of fraudujent intent made in her said com- | plaint is absolutely untrue, any statements as are alleged in sald complaint, imput- Aig fremaoo-thean respondents, then sueh.statements. of Hottinguer & Co, were unwarranted aud untrae, and these respondents are intormed by said Hottinguer & Co. that thoy havo made no charges of fraad or bad faith against the firm of Duncan, Sherman & Co. or any mempbor thereof. As to the allogations in said complaint that sald Dan- can and Sherman purported to be owners of valuable real ostato in the citfwof New York and elsewhore and kept the same in their own names on the public rec- | ords, and held themselves out to the worki as the own- ers of said property, and upon the faith of such ap- patont ownership in part were enabled to deceive the plaintiff as in said complaint described, these defond- ants refer to their answer to the petition in this Court of the Fourth National Bank and others, and they adopt the denials aud averments in their sald answer contained, and apply the same to the averments of the said Jane Ferrero contained in her petition and com- plaint, acopy of the!r said answer being hereto an- nexed. And they say that they have no reason to be- Heve that said Jano Ferrero ever Ge and upon infor. mation and belief they deny that she did ovor, examine the record title to said property or know anything about the same, They say that it is not trae, aud they deny that the firm of Duncan, Sherman & Co. falsely or fraudulently or otberwise pretended to possess mopoys at the place in said complaint mentioned, or that | said firm or these respondents pretended to place the laintiff in possession of moneys in the city of Paris by the means in said complaint mentionod, other. | wise than by drawing and delivering in the ordinary | course of business drafts ot bills of exchango on Hot. | tinguer & Co,, which was and is, as alleged in eaid com. | plaint, a wed Known, respectabie and fvealthy firm; and they say that tho drafts or bills of exchange in the complaint of said Jano Ferrero mentioned were drawn | im pursuance of authority from said Hottinguer & Co., sadn ‘the expectation and belicf that said Hottinguer & Co. would ‘and pay the same. And the said William B. Duncan says it is not true that be has not assigned ali hts property for the benefit of bis creditors, and it is-not true that he has held batk or secreted a vory large or any Interest m certain or apy cotton claims against the United States, ora very | considerablo or avy interest in property under the de- | vise of Cyrus Butler. | And these respoadents say that at the tino when the | drafts or bills of exchange mentioned in tho #aid com- | i | eres were drawn, althoogh it is true that the frm of uncan, Sherinmon & Co. were not actually credi- tors of the sald Hottinguer & Co. for money de- | boptea with the said Hottinguer & Co., yet they jheved and now believe that they had authority from the said Hottinguer & Co. to draw and negotiate said drafts or bills of exchange, and the same were drawn in the expectation and belief that they would be hopored by Hottinguor & Co, on presontation; that the said complaint of tho said Jane Ferrero t the oon- | trary is not true, and these respondents deny the same; and it ts not trae that the money which these respon- dents received from the said Jane Ferrero on bor vol- untary application for the purchase of said drafts or bills of excbange was at the time of tho making of her sajd complaint, or is now, in use by these respondents or thew assignee. And they say tt ts not true that the gaid Jane Ferrero bas sustained any damage by reason augyer be patdshe ls y, in retereage ae raph thercof in which it is alleged that the = effort whatever tu formed by their coansel sel would appear therein on bebalf of those defendanta, the farther prusocution of said action were commenced tion and belief, and said William Butler Duncan of bis not trae that the family ef the said William of any deceit or fraud practised upon her by the said | firm of Duncan, Sherman & Co,, or either of them. parag rift | if oity eoynt, ‘ork was endeavoring rd sored the whet ts ol oo whey Dever mate any seer, tosh thee ert et tt we that this action | and upon sach appearance, which these respondeuts | wero advised was in fact and in law equivalent oa by them. | These respondents furthor say—the said William | own koowledge—tbat the averthent that the sald William B, Duncan intends soon to to Scotland | B. tad, or any of (hem ged j to jan or bes | 4 ike time Fade Yass H os Sworn te, « preceded him to Scotland. In | } 1 An er ition of the said Jane rerrt, hes 1 these respondents, pus of the way of the in ‘was about to be coinmenced, and that thetr said coun- | commencement of An action, proceedings to restrain | Watts Sherman and Francts H. Grain upon informa. | ts without foundation and without trath; and itis | or teal cae «ee lane Ferroro in reference to tao Silay ; her said petition co: ison and fraudulent character of in these proceedings, those respow Tofer to thelr answer to the petition in this Court of the Fourth Na- tjonal Bank and others, of which as aforesaid a copy ts | hereto annoxed, and thoy adopt the denials and officma- — tions in their said wer contained and apply the same to tho allogations in said Jane Ferroro’s petition; and they say that it is not true that the largest ora farge portion, number or amount of the creditors who have signed.the petition for an adjudication in bank- raptey are relatives or attorneys of the bankrupts; although these respondents admit that many of the said creditors, whilo doing justice to themselves and | promoting their own interests in signing the said peti- ton, have acted what these respondents dasa friendly part toward thcse respondonts in saving not only these respondents, but thelr, creditors also, from pom eye annoyance and attompts to gain preforences and attempts to deiraud the creditors of these bank- rupts of rights secured to them by the laws of the And it is not true that those of the signers to the pe- tition for adjudication of bankruptcy who did not stand won of bankro| friends or attorneys bave been procured by the bank- Tupts to sign a petition inst thom, except that in pose msiauces (bese dents hava pxnressad their J If Hottinguer & Co, made | P° | any creditor at any ‘stag | of said firm to the crodit of Thoodore Moss | much of the balance standin B. would procure money from his father with to recomimenoe basiness, So far as these respond- ents know or believe no such inducement has been hold out. This respondent, William B, D: any definite recollection upon the subject, but img with reference to convictions and impressiony ex: isting in his own mind, says that he no doubt that e has alleged to creditors that their prospect of being ultimately paid, after the property assigned to William D, Shipman should have been applied in satisfaction of the ‘debts of Duncan, Sherman & Co,, would bo greatly improved if this respondent were dis- charged from the obligation to pay his debts, and at Iiber- ty to go to work for tho benotit of his creditors; and this respondent says that, in communicating that sentiment: i fhr as he has communicated it, he. , believes ho has simply stated a rule that has been fonnd to be universally true in mercantile and business life, and he reiterates the sentiment, if ho has ever stated it before, that, taking into account his present situation and that of bts partners and the noeneieee value of the fund ex'sting for the aren of his debts, he sin- cerely believes that all bis creditors stand a better chance of being ultimately pa‘d ia full, or a lange pro- ortion of their claims, if he is discharged from his Rebts ‘according to law, than they will have if he is, in pular phrase, kept under the barrow and subject all bie life to process of arrest and exocution, or either, for debts which he cannot pay. ‘And these respondents say tbat they have never held out or intimated, and, so far as they know or believe, eld out by their authority or with 5 ross or implied, that such or any of the creditors as should sign the. petition against the bankrupts would be. favorably regarded by tho bankrupts after they obtained thoic discharge or would receive payments In addition to what they derived from the bankrapts’ estate. 4 In respect to the allegation of the said Jane Ferrero that it appears by companjson of the schedule sworn to by the bankrupts under the assigninept made by them pursuant to the laws of the State of New York, and the list of the claims of the petitioning croditors in this proceeding, that .the amounts therein ‘have, been in many instances reduced since the assignment, notwith- atti that the assignee has not deciared any dividends, these respondents say as follows:—That there aro appartnt discrepancies In some instances between the claims of creditors as stated tn the schodule annexod to the voluntary assignment and the claims of the same creditors.as stated in the schedale in bank» ruptey, and such Glscrepances ariso from this fact. The firm of Dancan, Sherman & Co. and Its prede cessors have been engaged in business for about twen- ty-tive yoars, and they had done daring all that poriod a large foroign and domostic banking and credit and commission business in transactions ovor aerele tho whole civiltzed world; thoy issued. letters of credit to points as distant as Japon and Now Zealand and all points intervening. heir business was. very ex- tended and complicated, and was in the full thie of its extondod diversity and multiplicity of operations when it was suddenly arrested by the fact coming to the knowledge of these respondents that their capital was yory largely impairod, and that they could no longer conduct their business, and by the failure of efforts made by them to obtain additional means for condact- ing their busimess, which, however, thoy had great hopes of accomplishing up to the last moment, Many of the balances which stood upon their books were subject to adjustment and subject to be by contingencies and events which oither had not happened .or which had not been ascertained to have happened, and the process of ad- jostment has gone on since thoy made their assignment vo Jadgo Shipman aud since thoy made thelr inventory of August, 1875, and the apparent change in balances appearing from comparison of the inveatory under the voluntary assignment with the names signed to the voluntary petition has arisen from corrections of errors and gijustments, or the reduction of continggucies to certatnties, and pot from actually new transactions oc- curring sinco the assignment, exoépt that in some in- stances socuritics have been realized upon; but thoso reepondents have not got the credit of realizations to as large an oxtent as they expected to at the timo of making thoir involuntary assignment, by reason of which apparent balances appear to have been created, which, in fact, existed at tho time of the voluntary assignment; no balance in favor of aay creditors has been eitbor inercaged or diminished since the making of the voluntary asvignment by tho payment of any money to such creditor, ¢xcept in a fow instances where creditors way have realized on sccarities held by them at the time of thp assignment. But these respondents say that {t is not true and they deny that this bankraptey proceeding 1s under taken to defeat any of the purposes indi by the Bankrupt laws as legitimate ends of involun- tary pelition, but tt is not true and they pany that this bankruptey proceedyng bas been designod solely for the benefit or emolument of the debtors thom- selves, or for any illegal, deceptive or fraudulent pur- yge Whatever; although they say itis true and they admit that they intend to use sete earns pro- ceeding, if they lawfully can, ant ey hope can, for the] or a from their obtaming debts, under the advice and with the conyiction and belief that it is neithor illegal, deceptive nor fraud- ulent to apply for a discharge of” their debts under the law of the land. Tnese respondents further say that it is not true and they deny that they or apy person in their behalf bave or has procured the consent of any of the credit. ors for their discharge, or mfuenced the action of 2 of the proceeding by any pecuniary consideration or obligation. And they say vbat it ts pot true and they deny that thereby or other- wise, so faras thoy Know, tley aro disabled from obtaining or are disentitted to a discharge from thelr debts. ‘And they further say that it is not truo, and they deny that the participation of the alien creditors in these proceedings has or could have no other object than the teowartihe of the discharge of the debtors or tho ultimate advantage of the foreign creditor by such class of potitioning creditors receiving some roward tor uniting !n said petition; and, on the contrary, they say that the said participation of said alien creditors, a these respondents understand, was for the object of enabling such alion creditors to get- the benoft for themsalves of the ®unkruptcy law, and to secare to them their equal proportion of the property of the bankrupts, and to protect the property of the bank- rupts irom being misapplied and misappropriated by such suits as that of the said Jane Ferrero and tho Fourth National Bank and others. ‘ying respondent, William B. Duncan, saith that there is ono paragraph of the petition -of the said Jane thal whieh el one sege beg ae is the nr raph next immediately precedin prayer of ki Botttion. a W, BUTLER DUNCAN. W. WATTS SHERMAN, ANCIS H. GRAIN, In answer to tho chargo of hostility on the part of Hottinguer & Co., Mr. Duncan stated that in Septem- ber, 1875, he wrote to Hottinguor & Co. thue:—“We re- gret you should have expressed yourselves to the hold- ers of our drafts as you are reported to have done.” Subsequently Duncan, Sherman & Co, received from Hottinguer & Co, a letter from which the following is an extract:—‘‘We cannot understand that part of your lettof’ referring to what we are reported to have said to | the holders of your drafts, and we can only tre led to you have been misinformed. We have never full express to every one our most sincere sympathy for you, and we have the deepest regret that you could suppose we coyjd bare any othor sentimeats than those which our long standing relations must dictate.’ A further answer of Duncan, Sherman & Co. to peti- | tlon of Jane Forrero 1s contained in Mr. Duncan’s answer, and shows substantially that when Duncan, Sherman & Co. failoa there was a balance on ged of % lack’s Theatre, of $10,959 06, of which $6,614 70 con- sisted of the’ proooods of a'charitab!e thoatrical per- formance given yen aga by members of the thoat- rica! profession for the benefit of the destitute widow and children of the lac Dan Bryant. Mr. Alexander Duncan took from Theodore Moss an asaignment of so ro) ted the said charity fund, of which the widow weal ‘co Rdven of Dan Bryant were in great need; and Mr. Alexander Duncan paid to Mr. Moss $6,614 79, and received from My, Moss an assignment of tho latter's claim for the $6,614 79% THE REFEREE BUSINESS, To tae Eorror ov tix Herano:— You are doing a good work in oxposing the abuses of the referee business. “The old system: by which mas- ters in chancery had charge, for the most part, of such matters as are now given to referees, was far bot- ‘er than the present method. The musters were se- lected with great care, and in that respect diffored essentially from the selections now made, which are ia moat instances, as correctly stated by ‘Fair Play” in to-aay’s Hxxatp, men who have no other qualification than that of being the particular friends of the justices and judges. “Fair Play” speaks without reflection, however, when he brings In the name of Judge Davis os one of those who lend themselyés to this practice. A casual | giance at the “assignment of courts and juages” will ow that Davis, Daniels and Brady seldom or never hold Chambofs, and, fherefore, do not bave the opper- tunity, even bad they tho desire, to appoint refurees* excepting occasionally. ’ Judge Daniols is not assigned at ali to Chambers, an@ Davis and Brady are stipposed to divide the single month of December, bat, in point of fact, leave even a portion of that month to other judges, ‘This being said in poronthosis, I pass to the considé eration of the system of reference itself: 2 First—What good reason can bo shown in the rule, for example, of dealing with pte A In the first place, thero is a reference to compute the amoant due. This,is given to an attorney, who for half an hour's work receives $4, $9, or $10’ or more, His report must be confirmed. Ail’ this causes much di . Then, ifthe first report is confirmed, the ju ment of sale issues with another reference to an tornoy to soll the property. For this the referee re- cowves $30, $59, or $100 or more. Now, there seems to be no good reason why those two references should:not (CONTINUED ON NINTH PAGE| i S