The New York Herald Newspaper, February 29, 1876, Page 8

THE COURTS. Continuation of the Tweed Six Million Suit. Further Examination of Gov- ‘ernor Tilden. The Political Relations of His Excel- lency with Boss Tweed. A Decision Highly Important to Police Pensioners. sieges The Shakespearian Conundrum—What's in a Name? Governor Tilden having commenced to give his testimony in the Tweed $6,000,000 suit, on trial before | Judge Westbrook, the conclusion was very general | that he would resume the witness stand on the reas- sembling of the Court yesterday morning. The court room in consequence was deusely crowded. There were | some ladies among the assemblage as heretofore, who istened to the Goyernor’s testimony apparently with a3 much interest as any one present, His Excellency | Fesumed bis piace inthe witness’ chair, bowing frst to the Judge and then he took his seat. Having care- | fully adjusted his gold rimmed eyeglass, be placed on | an extemporized desk in front of hima pile of papers, | after which his examination began. He commenced his | testimony by giving a memorandum of an examina- | tion made at tho Broadway Bank of the amounts and dates of deposit of the New York Printing Company. His oxamination was suspended for the purpose of Proving deposits made by Garvey, Ingersoll & Co. and Tweed inthe Broadway Bank, Mr. Field having ob- | jected that no matter what 4 man’s gencral culture i might be he could not bs mined as an expert in giving testimony as to how a certain paper containing an almost interminable line of figures was made up. the testimony and the pa The Governor n went on to say that the paper was made up from original warrants in books in the Comp- troller's office, from the books of the Broadway Bank and the deposit tickets which were in bis possession, and were intended to show correspondences in dates and amounts between the warrants and certam credits in the bank and debits against these credits to other parties in the bank. After recess Governor Tilden resumed his testimony, and, Judge Westbrook having allowed copies of the | paper made out by His Excellency to be given to the | jury in order that thoy might follow bis testimony, the examination procecded switnmingly. The Governor | went over bis long array of figures, showing the result of his examination of the deposit tickots in the Broad- -way Bank. He was occasionally interrupted by Mr. Field, who was full of objections apd exceptions, but ‘ore all with great apparent complacency. In reply to fir. Carter witness said be went over the deposit Uckets several times during the six or eight days he observed that the proportion between tho crodits to Tweed and the amount of the warrants was twenty-four per cent. At a quarter-past three o'clock Mr. Carter sald he had no further questions to ask the witness, and thereupon Mr. Field commenced his cross-examination. Q. When did your acquaintance with Tweed begin ? A. About twelve years ago. Q From that time did your acquaintance increase? A. Yes, somewhat. Q Your relations with him were not at allclose, A, No, never. Q@ Rather distant? A, They were reserved, Q Tweed was a man of great political influence was he not, A. At one time he was, Q When did that begin? A. sioners’ office. Q. He held vartous offices, did he not?’—School Com- | missioner, Alderman, Supervisor, member of Congress, | Deputy Street Commissioner, Staie Senator and other offices? A. Yi Q, Was he not elected to the State Senate when you ‘was elected member of the Assembly? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he not tn the year 1864 become a man of great political influence? A. He did not become a man of great political influence until 1868 or 1869, Q Was he not a man who attracted to himself a large Fetinue of followers? A. At one time, Q. Which continued til 1871? A. Yes. Q Daring this time had bo not control of Tam- | many Hall? A. I cannot fix dates; he did have con- | trol at one time. | Q@ Were thore not two factions trying to get control of Tammany Hall? A. Yes, in 1S’ Q Was Tweed ever a membor of the Democratic Na- tional Committee? A. I think not, In reference to a lotter of his to Tweed, February 15, 1868, inviting Tweed to the National Democratic Com- mittee, witness said he believed Tweed wanted him to | bring him there; another letter from witness to Tweed | in 1566, inviting bim to be in Philadelpbia a certain i day “without fail” was read, and Mr. Field remarked | that witness must have been pretty intimate with In the Street Commis- Tweed so eariy; to which wituess made no reply. | Counsel read hor letier of witness to Twi jay, | 1865, recommending “our triend, Samuel Allon,” as a “worker” and “reliable man’ for a small appointment in Tweed's office; witness said he was irman of tho Demveratic State Committee ‘from 1864 to 1866; Tweed made some contributions for expenses, but not much. | In fact, until Tweed became a rich man, which was | recently, his bills against the commuttee were larger than his contributions; witness was shown a check of Tweed in bis favor for $5,000 in April, 1863, and ho admitted rec: of it, but denied that he got another similar on the same Year, to the best of his recollection; Twoed was reputed a well-to-do man at that time. * In reply to a question, campaign did not Tweea and Sweeny claim that you three liad cach engaged to contribute $16,000 moro, and that they paid the whole, and that they asked you to pay more ’” the witness answered :—No mothing of the kind; he supposed that during the sstruggios of tho young and old democfacy in 1870 large sums of money were taken somehow from the | city treasury to corrupt the Legislature; no attempt to investigate W is made that summer or winter; tho dis- covery was made by a publication in the Zimes in 1871; ® public meeting was held; the Governor deputed his powers to Mr. U'Conor and Mr, Peckham; Mr. O’Conor had large contre! of the prosecution under the Attor- ney General. Q Did the Legislature and Executive treat nim as having the control? Judge—I think that objectionable, Witness—Very. (Laughter.) Witness said Mr. O0’Conor had not control of the criminal bat of the civil witness Was asked by Mr. O'Covor to assist him ‘guing before Judge Lawrence in opposing motion to reduce bail; there were appropriations made to pay Mr. O'Conor's expenses ; Wituess has testitlod before the Grand Jury. a Q. You also argued before the General Term? A. 1 ji id. Mr. Field—And a very excellent argument you made, (The Governor smiled.) F Mr. Field—But the Court of Appeals knocked it all to Pieces? A. They did. (Laughter.) The Court then adjourned. POLICE PENSIONS. A decision was given yesterday by Judge Brady, of the Supreme Court, of special interest, not alone to the beneficiaries of the Police Pension Fund, but to the multitude of our city guardians living calmly in hope | of some day having their mames added to the list. Tnis decision shows that this pension fund business is rather ebimerical in character since depending on tne caprice ‘of the Police Board as trustees of the fund, and therefore hat it “is not evidently worth worrying much about The case calling out the docision was that of Dr, Fre- | Nigh, formerly a police surgeon, who, aftet some dozen | years or #0 of service, was retired on a pension, and | | sel to the notice of the entry of judgment, | the law of Indiana, | the wife of the lunat “Daring the Hoffman | sonad discretion was not an absolute rigi on shat subject, because the Legislature, not content make it subject co. discretion mentioned, im 1 yr to as , manded as a matter of right. The act also as wo have seen, that the Board might order any pen- sions to cease in its discretion granted under certain of its provisions, and then provided that nothing in that act or any other (thus including all Jegislation on the sulject) should render the granting or payment of any pension obligatory upon the Board. There can be little doubt, therefore, that the Logislature intended that the payment as well ag the grant. ing of all pensions by the trustees should rest in their — discretion, as to members and officers, and there wos reason and justice in placing him upon the same footing. This view is contirmed by the fact that whatever there might have been in prior legislation on that subject to the contrary was also further swept away because the samo act declared that all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with its provisions were repealed. The design in con- ferring this large discretion was doubtless to enable the trustees to provide for more meritorious cases or to prevent tho exhaustion of tho fund by payments which were not essential to the comfort of the pensioners. If the trustees cannot be compelled to pay the pensions—if in tho language of the act payment is not obligatory—it cannot be required to be done by mandamus. The right to paynient is by no means clear tven if there be adoubt about the mght of the trustees te withhold it. ho fund is a charitable one and would seem to be gov- orned by an absolute discretion in all its stages both as to ita disposition by pension and the continuous pay- ments of the pension when granted, For these reasons the motion must be denied, AFTER THE RIGHT MAN. Colonel Dawson, ex-Member of Congross from Geor- gia, who recently won the heavy verdict in the Burke- Gardiner suit, knows how to talk, and does talk with all the impassioned earnestness that characterized Rufus Choate in the height of his brilliant career asa lawyer, if he only has a subject that can properly draw him out, He did not have what would be supposed to be such @ subject in a motion he made yesterday before Judge Lawrence in Supreme Court, Chambers, Tho motion was to discharge froin arrest one of the present unhappy recipients of the bhospitalities of that rather noted hostelry yclept Ludlow Street Jail. “If Mr. Howe please,”’ began Colonel Dawson, speak- ing with that calmncss distinguishing the exordiums most eminent forensic pleaders, “the name of tleman for whom I at present appear is John G. Breen. ho recent service of papers from the Sheriff's oftice demanded the arrest of James J. Green. Upon these papers my client was arrested, and he is now confined in Ludiow Street Jail. [respectfully ask your Honor that he be discharged from arrest under a writ of habeas corpus, already obtained. ”? “What is the return to the writ,” asked Judge Law- rence, “The names are mixed,” answered the reprosenta- tive of the District Attorney’s office. “Perhaps they have got the right man for all that,” suggested Judge Lawrence, “notwithstanding the in- congruity in the names.”? “But, sir,” spoke up Colonel Dawson, stepping back two or three feet from the table in front of him, “should my client, a8 noble a specimen of mannoo as ever breathed tho breath of hfe, suller the terrible | tortures of a dank dungeon because of the criminal acts of some man by the name of Green? Shall, sir? — and the Colonel's form dilated and bis eyes became | more piercing, and he raised bis arm with an increased forensic fervor—"shall, sir, t ask’’-— “LH oxamine into the facts of the case,” remarked Judge Lawronee very quictly, “and if the wrong man has boon arreste he certainly shail be set tree.” “It know Your Honor will do what is right, and I cheerfully acquiesce and leave the case in your hands,” replied Colonel Dawson; but what was fost through Judge Lawrence’s interruption and Colonel Dawson’s* own acquiescence the world will never know. DECISIONS. SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS, By Judge Lawrence. Morgan and another vs. Mortimeret al.; Eno vs, Burchell, Nos, 1, 2aud3; matter of the application of the directors of the New York Coral and Shell Mar- ble Company for a dissolution; Trotter vs. New Coral Shell Marble Company ; matter of Barril; Gaines vs. Heath; Browne vs. Davis et al.—Granted. Visscher vs. Greenbank Alkali Company.—Motion for a bill of particulars granted, without costs, Willimantic Trust Company vs. Warren.—This order seems to be correct, except that the further examina tion of Birch may be had if desired and the blanks in the order should be filled up. Peoplo, &c., vs, Fowler, et al.—As the counsel for the plaintiffs has given notice that he objects to the consideration of the supplementary affidavit served | upon him and presented to the Court I shall order a reargument of this motion, The motion will be placed on Tuesday's culendar if counsel desire for reargu- ment. Puray vs. Goldstein; the case of Nortou vs. National Loan, Fund, &¢., Company.—19 How. P. R., 515, , sustains the objection made by the defendant's coun: The omis- sion to state the clerk’s office m which judgment was entered prevented the notice from operating as a lim- itation of the defendant’s time to appeal. (See 19 How., 515.) If this question had not been passed upon’ in tho case just reterred vo I confess I should have felt great doubts as to the validity of the objec- tion, but as the point was there doliberately exam- ined I must follow that decision, No costs of this mo- won. Hascall vs. Tinois and St, Louis Bridge Company.— | The effect of allowing the amendments sought for | would be to entirely change the nature of the action, and while such an amondment may be within tne | power of the Court the power should not, in my judg: | ment, be exercised, (Code, sec. 173.) Motion is de- nied, with cost Goodenough ys. De Gerot,—I do not think that this motion should be granted. © The roteree seems to me to have acted correctiy in refusing to open the case after he had stated the result at which he had arrived and after dofendant had paid his fees. Besides, upon read- ing the affidavit of Mr. Risley, lam by no tacana clear thut there was any error in the referee’s findings as to 0 costs. @ injunction 1s confirmed and is appointed as committes. 1 Mattor ot Field. | cannot, however, approve of the bond submitted—frst, because its recital of dates are incompleto; and second, | because of the blanks in the bond. The bond was pre- | maturely executed and should be re-executed. | Heilbrun vs. —This seems to be a proper caso | for the appointment ofa receiver, The motion for that | purpose ts granted, with ec Sherwood vs. Glove Insurance Company of Chicago.— } | Motion denied, with costs. Memorandum. | “Britton vs, Bradner and another, —Set down for trial | onthe 10th day of March, 1876. Memorandum, Hl | Eldridge vs. Maclay et al, jotion granted, with | costs. Memorandum. Frost ys. Van Loon.—I am of opinion that Mr, | | Leyue, tho referee first appointed, and who scems to | hate resignod for good and sufficient reasons, ts en- tied to lils fees up to the time when be resigned, and the motion to compel the new referoe to deliver the re- port Is therefore denied. Pries ys. Cohen,—I wish to sce th | the previous motién for a receiver | By Judge Barrett, | Rucker vs. Mead,—I think that a reargument was | well granted and that the motion shoula prevail on payment of the costs which have accrued since the original auswer was interposed and $10 costs of motion, Memorandum. | Matter of Gilman,—Atter further very careful consid- eration of this matter, I think that, viewing it fu its length and breadth, aud considering the position in which the matter now is and the complications which apers on which dented, | might arise from death or further litigation, tho order | | proposod ought to be granted, and that although the | Question of power is not free from doubt, there 18 sufl- | cient color of authority to warrant the granting of the | order in the interests of justice and clear equity. j By Judge Donotue, Maller vs. Mullor.—Granted. Matter of Spohi,—Writ dismissed. Munster vs, Sowards.—I wish to see counsel. Clews vs. Paine.—On the receiver filing bond with two sureties in the sum specified in the order, bond to contain the names of sureties. Motion granted Wiilis vs, Buffalo, New York and Erie Railroad Com- | pany et al.—Opivion, By Judge Brady, Freligh vs. Board of Polico.—Opinion. SUPREME COURT—SPECIAL TERM, By Judge Barrett, Mason & Hamlin Orgau Company vs. Bancroft and | another. —Order granted. By Judgo Donohue. Bagley vs. the Mayor, &c., Gleason vs, Hubbard, ‘Motions for new trials denied, Birdsall vs. Fowler, et al,—Case settled. va. Oakley.—Opinions, ‘Vose vs. Cowdrey.—Order signed. thea tho payment of the pension stopped, and who, on such stoppage of payment, applicd to the Supreme Court for a mandamus against the Police Board dirccting the restoration of bis name to the pension list. We give below the opinion in full. | ‘The relator was a surgeon of police on and prior to the 7th of February, 1873. On the 8th of February of that year he was by resolution dismissed from the force ‘and retired on a pension of $1,000 per year. The Legislature, by act of April 26, 1870, declared that tho Board of Police of tho Police Department of the city of New York should have the power ta their diserotion, whenever in their opinion the interests of the depart. | mont would be benefited thereby, by resolution to be adopted by a unanimous yote and exprossing such | opinion, to dismiss from office in such Police Depart. | sacl apy captain or sergeant, and place the person so dismissed on the pension roll of the life insurance fuad and allow bim a retiring pension of not exceeding | 1 amount one-half the annual ealary or componsation of such office, In 1871, by act of Maren 17 (Laws, p. 262, ‘sec. 6), ‘concerning the Police Life Insurance Fund and the powers and duties of the Police Department of the 'y ot New York,” the legislature re-enacted the section quoted from the iaws of 1570, adding thereto the words | “clerks and surgeons,’ and the pension granted to the relator was given ander and by Virtue of the authorit, ~conferred thereby. The act, however, declared as tol- lows :—"‘Nothing herein or any other act contained ‘shall render the granting or p upon the Board of Ts right upon said Life Insurance F “provision immediately followed one g: ‘of Police discretion at any time to order any pension granted for any cause mentioned in the act to a m poky or any part of it, to cease; and it is evident from Ah!s connection that it was intended to treat all pen- sions alike, making no distinction between officer and member in regard to the continuance of the pen- -sion, aud leaving the sul entirely In the disere- Won of the Board of Police or Board of Trus- Neen The grauting of the peusion rested im Steinbach va, Relief Fire Insurance Company.—Find- ings signed. SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. By Indge Sedgwick. Ovo va. Rynders.—Order for judgment. Thurber vs. Jacobs.—Order appointing George W. Venable receiver, &¢ / Starm vs. Great Western Insurance Company.—$10 | costs for each deposition actually read should be | taxed under the stipulation, the usury tm eacn action is , the same as if the di tions were taken therein, } Karsheedt va, Narheim, et al, Nos, land 2—Refer. } ence ordered. Hi Kursheedt vs, Meyer, ot Reference ordered, Guteh vs. Crowley. signed. tng be cancelling undertak- | umond ot al. va, Dwyer; Farrol vs. Van Suyle etal; | Sauder vs. Hoffmann et al. ; Stokes vs. ckuagel; Moody vs. Andrews; Gutch vs. Crowlé}.—Orders | granted, By Jndge Sanford, Smith vs. Crow et al.—Judgmont granted. By Judge Robdinson, Waters ot al vs. Crawford.—Mowion denied, See | memorandum. Taylor vs. Keller, Jr.—Reterence ordered. Boege et al, 3. Smith et al.—Complaint dismiseed.” Facheur vs. Crandall —Motion denied. Koesting vs, Leak; Butes vs. Pottingill —Motions granted. SUMMARY OF LAW CASES. In the matter of William H. Field, recently adjudged to be a lunatic, Judge Lawrence yesterday confirmed | the report of the referee and appointed the lunatic’s wife committee of his estate. The suit prowelt by Mra Devoe against William Wiel vs. Bonchardt; MoStea vs, siatthews; Sinclair | Property in Harlem, the particulars of which have been given, is still on trial before Judge Van Vorst tn Supreme Court, Special Term, and promises to oceupy several days. In the General Sessions yesterday, before Recorder Racket, George Webster was found guilty of burglary and sent to State Prison for ten years. Georgo Darey, who snatched a pocketbook from a lady’s nand, was sent to the same iastitution for three years and six months, Grotins Corwin got a verdict yesterday for $200 against his next door neighbor, Isaac Hartman, in tho trial of the suit which has been in progress several days before Judge Donohue, The defendant, in adding @ story to his residence, damaged the root of the plaintiff's house, causing it to leak; and honce the suit. Bofore Judge Barrett, in the Court of Oyer and Termi- ber yesterday, was resumed the trial of tin Black, charged with subornation ofperjury, the facts of which have been given in the Hmratp. A long argument was had on a motion to direct an acquittal, which was de- nied. The testimony thus far mainly has reference to bee habits of the various parties mixed up in the litiga- n. In the suit brought by the German Uptown Savings Bank to recover $33,000 collected by thoir attorney, Seringer, and, as claimed, appropriated to his own use, the latter gave bail in $45,000 pending the litigation, Iv is now stated that Seringer has run away, but Sheriff Conner says he knows nothing definite as to his escape, No information could be obtained yesterday at the offico of the firm of James KE. Ward & Co., at No. 113 Wall street, inreference to the alleged defaication of their cashier, Adlor N, Muller, beyond tho fact-that the defalcation would certainly amount to $10,000, Samson Rosenblatt, arrested by Detective O’Connor, of the District Attorney's offiec, in San Francisco, and brought to this city about three weeks ago, on a charge of obtaining $200,000 worth of goods by false pre- tences from the American Clock Company and other firms, was yesterday admitted to bail in $25,000, Hf bondsmen were Asher Rosenblatt, his father, of No. 413 West Fifty-Seventh street, and Meyer A. Rosen- i his brother. suits brought by Duncan, Sherman & Co, against 3 riff Brennan to recover $17,000, the value of 300 barrels of whiskey, alloged to have’ been wrongfully seized by him, and fur $0,000 damages on ‘account of such seizure, was continued yesterday before Judge J. F, Daly int the Court of Common Pleas. The claim 1s based upon warehouse receipts for the whiskey given, as stated, as security for money louned. TOMBS POLICE COURT. Before Judge Bixby, PASSING A FORGED CHECK. Alfred H. Smith, of Brooklyn, was yesterday ar- Talgned at the above court on a chargo of passing a forged check for $300 on the Nassau Bank. The eheck purported to be signed by George W. Smith & Co., No. 95 Nassan street, law book publishers, with whom the accused had formerly been employed asa clerk, The caso was set down for examination to-day and the pris- oner locked up. EXCISE VIOLATIONS, John Meyers, of No, 202 Soutn strect; John Walsb, of No. 150 Madison street; John W. Fulton, of No. 75 Catharine stre Joseph Phillips, of No, 97 Madison street; William Conrad, of No. 15 Kast Broadway, and John O'Donnell, of No. 77 Delancey street, were held in $100 bail each for breach of the Excise law. WASHINGTON PLACE POLICE COURT, Before Judgo Kilbreth, VIOLATION OF THE EXCISE LAW. The following parties were arrested on Sunday night for violation of the Sunday liquor law, and yesterday wore required to give $100 bail each to answor:—Pat- rick Sere, No, 236 West Houston street; Charles McGuire, No. 27 Ninth avenue; Jacob Peth, No, 536 Hudson street, Henry Powers, corner Greenwich and Morton streets; John Gereken, No. 42 Eighth avenue; Patrick MeGovern, No. 129 Greenwich aven' Theo. Schrover, No, 178 Christopher street; Patrick¢Higgins, No. 4 Horatio street, and John H. Seib, No, 160 Ninth avenue, [ STEALING PIGEONS, William Davis and Michael Simon, two boys, residing in Tenth avenue, were arraigned yesterday on com- plait of Joseph S. Stuart, of No, 559 Tenth avenuo, | who chargod them with stealing thirty-two pigeons valued at $32, The affidavit stated that the pigeons were in a cote in the yard at the rear of ing be missed them, and on going into the next yard saw two pigeons fly away from the direction in which tho two prisoners Were standing. Yesterday morning he found that fourteen pigeons were returned, yard with their feathers plucked so thut they could not ly. He algo found a lot of loose feathors in the yard, The prisoners were heid in $800 each to answer. CRUELTY TO A HORSH. On complaint of Officer Garrity, of the Filteenth precinct, Edward Quirk, of No. 425 West Sixteenth Street, was held in $300 to apswer for driving a horse with araw sore on its shoulder, on which the collar rubbed, THE LOTTERY Laws. Detective Slovin, of the Fifteenth precinct, yester- day arrested Charles Downing, of No. 47 South Fifth avenue, for violating the Gambling law. He succeeded in obtaining a bundle of lottery slips, aud had complete evidence against the prisoner. He was held in $500 to answer. ESSEX MARKET POLICE COURT. Before Judgo Kasmire. GALLAGHER, THE BURGLAR, Thomas Gallagher, the masked burglar, was held in $3,000 bail to answer a charge of having broken into Jules Larrimer’s house, No, 227 East Twelfth street, and stolen a coat worth $20, The prisoner is the man who had an encounter with Margaret Logan, tho ser- vant girl, and who knocked her down when she struck the mask from his face, ATTEMPTED ROBBERY, As Frank Weeker, of No. 30 Second avenue, was walking through Houston street on Sunday night he Was assaulted by a thief, who knocked him down and attempted to rob him of a watch and chain worth $100, Wecker grappled with the thief, and by his cries at- tracted Oflicer Sepper to the spot, The officer, after a desperate strugglo, succeeded 1m arresting the footpad, who at the station house gave hits namo as John Welsh, of No, 103 Elizabeth street, Yesterday Judge Kasmire held him in $3,000 bail to answer, THAT AGED SWINDLER, Androw Otto, of No, 160 East Fourth street, ap- peared as complainant against Angus Zaab, alias Dr, Susse, the aged swindler, whose exploits have already been reported in the Hratp, Mr. Otto made affidavit that in August last Zaab had swindled him out of | nearly $1,000; that Zaab was then living with bim at | No. 815 East Eighth street, and by representing that | he was a physician in Bellevue Hospital, short of | | money, got the $1,000 from him. The afidavit fur- ther showed that Otto bad given up his money on the most flimsy pretext. Zaab, alias Dr, Susse, ust Swoe, was hold In $3,000 bail to answer, Mrs, Dora Graff, who gave bim $220 on his promise | to marry her, and August Miller, whom he | out of nearly $500, will appear against Zaab and enter complaints against him. RECKLESS DRIVING. | John Crimmins, driver of car No. 57, of the avenue | B lino, was hold for examination for causing injuries to | William Shuler, of No. 274 Third street. Crimmins | drove his car into one of the street and East Broadway, and Shuler, who was on the front platform of the avenue C car, was thrown off and sustained a fracture of the leit log. He was taken to Bellevue Hospital. FIFTY-SEVENTH STREET COURT. Before Judge Murray. AN BNEMY OF socrety, John Van Loewen, who refused to give the number of his residence in Atlantic street, Brooklyn, was | arraigned on a very scrious charge of assault on a child named Michael Carroll, who resides with his parents at | No, 118 West Fifty eighth street, New York, yesterday. | The child, while playing with other children about ES ub aturday evening, was onticed awa! a vacant lot beside the Central y what the man’s intention was, His being aroused, the little one screamed with terror and asked to be allowed to get back to lis home, The man took bim by the throat and choked him so as to pre- vent his repeating the erics. Officer Klein of the Central Park police, fortunately beard them and hastened to his rescue, When released the boy's faco was black, and for several hours after the marks of his assailant’s — were visible on his neck. Loewon was Judge Murray held him for trial on a charge of assault and battery. A SERVANT'S DISHONESTY, Robert W. Bloom, No. 8 Livingston piace, preferred a charge of larceny against bis errand boy, Cyrus Hall, dusk on | cate | | who had stolen from him three overcoats, valued at $80 Two of sho garments recovered irom a pawn ‘The accused was held L ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT, Yesterday John Straub, of Thirty-fourth street and i First avenue, was accused by Frederick Orley, who | does business in Thirty-fourth street, near the East River, of the embezzlement of $9. Other moneys, the complainant alleged, had also been converted t own use by the accused. Straub was held for trial, ABANDONMENT. Robert Lawrence, a butcher, was arraigned yesterday ebarged with abandoning Lona Lawrence, who claimed to be his wife, although admitting that she bad not been married to him oither by a magistrate or a regularly or- dained minister of tho \Gospel, Thoy had mutually | agreed to waivo tho regular ceremony in such cases brovided by the State and the Church, Several chil- j den are (hs Fésuié of (ie witi, Dut now, whon the | DOOF Woman Most needs his assistance, the mandisowns = Boyd, hating reference to some $130,000 worth of No, 559 Tenth avenue, and that on Sunday even- | and he tound the other eighteen pigeons in the next | ue C line at Rutgers | her and them and refuses to claims that both her and his families have alway: upon them as man and wifo, he having always intro- oe as such, and wituesses were present to prove is fact, forthem, She | was tndorsea looked chestel « oy ha Counsel for Mra Kane stated that the case was pro- viously postponed for the same reason, and he was informed that deferdant bad told some of his nee The accused denies the charge of abandonment, was | that he intended to remain away for four years. willing to be tried on a charge of bastardy, and asked | asked that the Court sot the case down for trial peremp- through his counsel for an examination to prove that | torilyin May that it be roferred to a reteree at “the complainant had no claim upon him asa busband. | once. The Court said that IN WANT OF A FIBB. ‘This Court has run out of coal, and the want of fires Caused great ineonventence to the officials there yes- terday. Itis hoped Commissioner Campbell will sup- ply the want immediately. COURT OCALENDARS—THIS DAY, Sorreux Covrr—Cuamerrs—Held by Judge Law- rence.—Nos. 24, Tl, 97, 99, 100, 116, 124, 135, 138, 146, 154, 178, 179, 188, 205, 257, 265, 302, 304, 306, 811, 314, 316, 318,' 320, 'S21, 324, 325, 320, Scurrume Court—Srxciuat Teea—Held by Judge Van Vorst,—No. 268, Scrreme Covrr—Circurr—Part %—January Term continued—IHeld in General Term room by Judge West- brook. —No. 2064, Surrxue Courr—Cincurn—Part 2—Held by Jud Dondhue.—Nos. 1918, 4097, 1028, 178, 225, 4524, 11 51 048, 1062, 876, 1084, 1136, 253}, 1218, 1 172, 1230, 873 7 $i, 106054, 1082 ss, 1240, 12: 1824, 736, 1318, 1268, 1268, 12 1284, 1994," 344, 1200, 1116, 1302) 1: 1812, 1316, 1318, 1320, Part 3—Held by Judge Larremore.—Nos, 1181, 1161, 2206, 2507, 1421, 53, 1250, 1089, 673, 1105, 1803, 654s, 1139, 1213, 2089, 769." All other courts have journed for the term. Commoy Piwas—-Trrat Texm—Part 1—Same calendar a6 published yesterday. MON PLBAS—IQuity Term—Held by Judgo Robin- son. —No. 10. , Common PLRAS—TriaL Teru—Part 2—Held ud Judge Van Bruut.—Nos. 1355, 1294, 1454, 1377, 1519, 2137, 1283, 1416, 1308, 1473, 102, 2173, 1474, 715; 1452, 1453, 219, 1471, 1445, 1441, 2284, 1076, ‘1684, 1646, 1709, 1710, 171i, 1716, 1717, 1722, 1725. 'vart ’—Held by Judge Van' Hoesen, —Nos, 1534, 1797, 1495, 1605, 1785, 1798, 2124, 1601, 1611, 161144,’ 1612," 1734, '1735, 1736," 1525, 1195, 1630, '1694, 1769, 1799, 1731. Covrt GENERAL Sxssions—Held by Recorder Hackett.—The People vs, Matthew Larkin, felonious assault and boron? Same vs, Thomas Matthews, felonious assault and battery ; Samo ve. Christian Walde, arson; Same vs. Francisco Decama, robbery; © V8. Michael McLoughiin, robbery; Same vs. Thomas Allon and Joseph Carr, robbery; Same vs. James Coming- fort, forgery; Same vs. Francis Houghtalin and William ©, Reeves, grand larceny; Same vs, Anthony Fay, grand larceny; Same vs. y Kelly, grand larceny; Same vs. David Curtin and Kdward Cassidy, grand larceny ; Same va. Charles Schaefer, grand larceny. Oven ann Trewier—Hold by Judge Barrett.—The People vs. Austin Black and John Dusenbury, attempt to induce perjury, BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE, it would make no Cpe order in the case for May, but that the trial would be called that month and advised counsel to stipulate ‘and have a commission to take defendant's testimony in Eur This will be done, Rey. Chaplain Kane, who is a Baptist minister, is well known i the United States Navy, having served during the war at New Orleans in the Gulf squadron, under Farragut, and at Fort Fisher as an acting ensign. He was commissionod chaplain in 1866, and ela his last official post on Mare Island, California, FOX’'S PATRIOTIC BEQUEST. Motion was made yesterday before Justice Gilbert, in the Supreme Court, Kings county, to remove the guardian of the children of Charles Fox, deceased, the ghana being Benjamin N, Disbrow. The property left was an estate valued at $100,000, which was be- urathed to “aid in liquidating the national debt.'’ je will was contested in the Surrogmte’s Court, New York, by Amr, Joseph and Georgo, a niece and two nephows of Mr. Fox, residing at No. 43 Ryerson street, Brooklyn, The decision of that Court, which was in their favor, was taken to the Court of Appeals and there sustained. The United States does not relinquish its claim, It was set forth yesterday, in the motion to remove Mr. Disbrow, that his son was one of the dondsmen, and the vondsmen bad leased the real os- tate for less than its value; that $15,000 had gone for pazment of counsel. The case was arguod at some mags. and the Court took the papers, reserving the jecision, NICKEL COUNTERFEITERS. As soon as the civil calendar had been called yester- day afternoon in the United States Circuit Court tn Brooklyn, bofore Judge Benedict, the counsol for the brothers John and Thomas Loughery, who were con- victed of counterfeiting five-cent nickel coin in tho month of December, came forward and stated that it was his intention to make argument for arrest of judg- ment inthe case of his clients. Judge Benedict set o the argument for Wedneeday, March 1, at twelve UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. Wasurxctox, Feb. 28, 1876. The Supreme Court to-day rendered decisions in the following cases :— No. 584. Union Pacific Railroad Company vs. Hall and Morse—Error to the Circuit Court for the District of Iowa.—In this cause the Court hold that Hall and Morse, residents of Council Blutts, as citizens, bore suf- tletont interest to give them standing in Court to de- mand the performance of its obligauons by the com- A YOUNG DRESS PATTERN MAKER'S SUIT FOR DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF BLIGHTED AFFEC- TIONS—VERDICT OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS IN HER FAVOR. d An interesting breach of promise case underwent ex- amination yesterday before the Sherifl’s jury in the Special Term room of the Supreme Court. Miss Ger- trade F, Crawford, the fair plaintiff, is about ninoteen years of age and exceedingly fascinating in appearance and manner, having dark lustrous eyes, blooming cheeks, and a small, delicate figure. The suit being in the nature of an action for damoges which wore placed at $10,000, for broach of prom: ise of marriage, was brought against Southwick Hibbert, a young man three years her senior and alsor as the world goes, rathor good looking and fashionably dressed. The mother that ts and the mother-in-law that might have been, was present and apparently more largely interested in the proceedings than cither of the Mtigant parties. As a matter ‘of course there was a large throng in attendance, who listened to the testimony with that fixed attention characteristic of occasions of this special nature. The first witness called was the mother of the plain- tiff, Mrs, Honrictta Crawford. She took herseat in the witness chair with a firmness that evidently meant business, threw back her veil from her face, gave hor head a half defiant toss, demonstrating in pantomime ber readiness to meot the fusilade of coming interroga- tories, She stated that she was a widow lady, residing at No, 246 East Soventy-fourth street; that her husbahd diod seven years ago; that Gertrude was her only daughter, to whom sho was devotedly attached and i whose defence sho would, if necessary, spend the last drop of blood in her body. Sho went on further to say that she knew the defendant; that he came to sce her on tho 3d of November, 1874, and asked her consont for her daugh- ter to marry nin; that she, after some reluctance, gave her consent, and that her consent was oul; |.given on the assurance that he would take goo caro of her; im order that might not be any subsequent misunderstanding she told bim plainly that her daughter was poor and had to work for her living, to which he replied that it was not a question of riches or poverty with him, but simply to marry the girl he loved; she added that after this time he came to their house nearly overy day, and often stayed all night, his home being In Brooklyn; that oc- casionally he brought his friends with him, who dmed | | re, and always spoke of her daughter as his | afflanced; and supposing that they were to be married | in the ensuing June sho oxpended about $300 on a wed- | ding outfit for her daughter. Tho rest of her testi- | mony, which was given with such telegraphic rapidity that it was utterly impossible to note more | than a fraction of it, describing the growing coolness be- tween the atflanced couple, and the final announce- ment by the defendant that he would not marry her daughter, giving as a reason that bis father opposed the match and threatened to disown and disinherit him if he insisted on getting married, Following the mother’s testimony was that of the plaintiff, who gave her evidence ina clear, but quiet and subdued manner, In addition to corroborating the material statements of her mother, regarding the engagement of herself and tho defendant, she stated that she became acquainted with the latter in May, 1874, at which time she was working at Mme. Demorest’s establishment on Broadway; the defendant, sho éaid, tried on several oceasions to form her acquaintance as they met one another on Broadway, but she refused his attentions; tinally the defendant sent her an invi- | tation to a picnic, with bis name and address accom- panytng it; she returned this invitation, and afterward, } on their again meeting accidentally in the store, he in- troduced himself, and after a pleasant chat, in | which, however, be did nearly all the conversa- tion, he asked her if she was fond of flowers, and si said yes, whereupon he sent her a | bouquet; soon after this ho accompanied her part of her way home, and these walks ripened into an increased intimacy and a final engagement to De ried, He told her previous to their engagement that he was ablo to provide her with a comfortable home; that On tho Ist of January, 1875, his father was going to give him a valuable mortgage, which, with the means he hertyeet enjoyed, would enable him to pro- vide her with all the comforts. she could wish. On ac- count of her eagagement and to oblige him she gave ‘up her situation, tho defendant, then took the | Southwick Hibber stand. He admitted the engagement to marry, but de- | nied that he had made any statements to the plaintiff | in regard to his prospective pecuniary condition. His | counsel added to this denial that he bad no money then | | nor now, and was simply a clog to his tather, He gave ; bis reasons for breaking off their marriage engagement—the threat of his father to disinherit him if fe married the plainti® He added that he had no { money of his own, and that his name was on his | ; father’s business sign for the simple purpose to induce | people coming there to pay more attention to him than | they would otherwise, Southwick E, Hibbert, the next witness, was the | father of the plaintif”. He stated that ho was a real oatate agent; that nis son possessed very little busi- | ness talent, and, without bis aid, could not support himseif; that he threatened to disown him tf he mar- ried, knowing full well that he could not support a wife, and that all the interest bis son had in the busi- | | ness was what ho paid him for bis support, amounting | He stated | | to about $12 per week, Tho last witness was Albert E, Foster. that the defeudant told him and the plaintiffs brother that his fatbor had given him a mortgage worth $15,000, and that he knew of his spending large sums of money im suppers, sleigh rides and other expensive amuse- ments, Being asked his business he said ho was a quor merchant, and on being asked further where bis | place of business was, he said under the Tribune, | “That will do,” said the defondant’s lawyers, “Wo don’t want any more testimony from you.” The jury after being out about twenty minutes , brought in a verdict for $2,000 for the piatntifl. A CHAPLAIN’S DIVORCE SUIT. REV JAMES J. KANE'S MATRIMONIAL INFRLIC- ITIES, Yosterday forenoon, in the regular order of the calendar of tho Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings county, Judge Gilbert presiding, the case of Nellie C. Kane against James J. Kane, boing an action for divorce, was called for trial. The suit was commenced by Mra Kano, who is a davghter of Naval Constructor Pook. The complaint alloged that the defendant, who is a chaplain in tho United States Navy, had abandoned hor | and their two children, and had neglected to sap- portthom. It was furthor alleged that he had treated her cruelly. The plaintiff, who is the second wife of the chaplain, {3 several ycars his junior, They were married. about six ycars ago, and for about four lived on amicable terms. Then his health, which was atly impaired by reason of hia servico and exposure jaring the rebvollion, broke down, and he suffered from bemorrbage of the lungs. The Navy Department 08, ace bim a leave of : 10 j Wont (6 Rurdpé, whets no t sev. eral months, and on his urn last ring he was served with the rs in the euit whieh commenced against him by his wife, His answer was & geveral denial of tho allegations and the caso for tha time went over, the mother retaining the children. In the summer be again went abroad, and has since been under medical care. Yest was callod counsel for defendant asked that trial be pany, and that it is the duty of the latter; under the acts of Congress, to operate its wholo road as one con- nected continuous line, and that the bridge over the Missouri River between Omaha and Council Bluffs is a part of the road to be used in connection with and as a part of their entire line. It is said that if Congress did not intend to require the construction of the road irom the imaginary line in the middle of the river chan: which would be an impos- sibility, and which is the ‘legal boundary of Iowa, the intention must have been that the initial point suould be either on the 1owa or on the Nebraska shore, and if the Nebraska shore was intended, why was it not designated? It ts Ley cart i to give a satisfactory answer to the question by the Court, or to the question why the Iowa boundary was designated if tho eastern, on the Iowa shore of the river, was not intended to be che terminus of the road The authority of the com- pany to build the road to the Iowa snore was within itscif power to build a bridge over the Missouri River, No express grant to bridge the river was needed, as whatever bridges were needed on the anthorizod line were as fully authortzed as tho line itself; all authority that was given to the company was asa railroad company and not asa bridge company. The bridge was to ena- ble the road to connect with other roads and it was to be built for no other's use. They were not ailowed to charge rates of toll over it which they did not charge upon other portions of their line. The acts chartering the company manifest no intention to distinguish be- tween the bridge over the Missouri River and other bridges on the line of tho road if it is not a part of their road. Neither is any bridge between the Missouri and the western boundary of Nevada, for the power to build britges was given in the same words. Affirmed. Mr. Justice Strong delivered the opimion. Mr. Justice Bradley dissenting, is ot the opinion that the Missouri River is generally understood to be the Wostern boundary of Towa, and that the fair constraction of the charter of the Union Pacific Company 1s that their road was to oxtend from that river westwardly, No, 157. Haldeman et al. vs, the United States—Error to the Cireuit Court for Kentucky.—This was a suit on the oficial bond of Haldeman as Surveyor of Customs at Louisville. The defence was thata former action for tho same causo had been discontinued on tho pay- meut of the costs by the defendants, It is held that such a judgment of dismissal because the cause was not prosecuted, is equivalent to nothing further than the record of a non-suit, and constitutes no bar to a subsequent action. To bar a future action there mi be the adjudication or release of some right. There must be at least one trial of aright be- tweon parties before there can be an ond of the con- troversy. Affirmed. Mr. Justice Davis delivered tho opinion. No, 154 The Repubhcan River Bridge Company vs. the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company—Error to tho Supreme Court of Kansas.—In this case it is decided that where a right Is set up under an act of Congress inaState court, any matter, of law found in the record decided by the highest court of the State bear- ing on the right to set up under the act of Congress may be reviewed here on the merits, Tne Court docides that the joint resolution of July 26, 1865, grants to the railroad company certain lands of the Fort Riley Military réservation for the purpose of a depot opposite Riley City, which Fight was contested by the bridge company. Affirmed. r. Justice Miller delivered the opinion. No, 146, Raymond vs. Thomas—Error to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.—In this it ts held that the war of tho rebellion terminated in South Carolina op the 2d of April, 1866, aod that the military officers re- maining in command there between that date and the return of the State to the Union had no authority, un- der the acts of March and July, 1867, to annul a decree of a court of equity of the State, Hence such an order, made by General Canby, was an arbitrary stretch of authority, and was properly disregarded by the Court below, Aflirmed. Mr. Justice Swayne delivered the opinion. No, i41. Shepley et al —Error to the Supreme Court of Missourl.—This was an affirmanco of a decree under the practice of Missouri, determining the title of a fractional section of land in that State upon questions arising from the respective patents of the parties. Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion, No. 139, Morrison et al. vs. Jackson—Error to tho Circuit Court for the Eastern district of Missouri —This was the afllrmance of Morrison’s title to certain land near St. Louis against the plaintiffs in error, who claimed ler the same original title, Mr. Justice Clifford delivered the opinion, » No. Same vs. Benton—Error to the same Court.—Same questions. Affirmed. Justice Clifford delivered the opinion, The Court will to-morrow take up the Illinois tax im- junction cases, No. 159, The Mutual Life Insurance Company vs. Q S. Jeffries, administrator, &c,, in error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Miseouri,—Mr. Chief Justice Waite announced the de- cision of tho Court reversing the judgment of the said | Circuit Court in this cause with costs on the authority of Jeffries, administrator, vs, The Economizal In- surance Company (22 Wall, 47), and Tho tna In- surance Company vs. France decided at this term. No, 158, ¢ propeller John Taylor, &c., appellants, vs, The New Jersey Railroad and Construction Com. any.—Appeal from the Circuit Court ot the United States for the Southern District of New York, Mr, Chief Justice Waite announced the decision of the | Court hoes go Th decree of the said Circuit Court in this causo, with costa, Case 161, The Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, plaintiff in error, va. Louisa Coverstop, in error, to the Circuit Court of the United States for the | Distelct of Kansas. —Mr. Chief Justice Waite announced the decision of the Court, said Circuit Court in this ca Case 576. David F. Barn irming the judgment of the with costs. ‘ , appellant, vs, The Steam- boat D. R, Martin, &c—Tho motion to dismiss this cause was submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Thomas Young in support of the same and by Mr. J, M. Guitean tn o} ‘ition thereto, 5 Case 508, ter B. we plaintiff in error, vs. Samuel B and John mory, executors, &c. No. 509. Peter B. Amory, plaintiff in error, vs. S. B. and John Amory, executors, &c.—The motion to dismiss these causes was submitted on printed ei ment by Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter, in support of same, and by Mr. George F. Edmunds, in opposition hereto. u No. 684 Tho State of Louisiana, ox rel., John f. Macaule; bed 1n error vs. Charles Clinton, Audl- tor, &e. © motion to dismiss this causo was sub- mitted on printed arguments by Mr. J. Q A. Fellows and Messrs, Durant and Horner in support of the same, and by Mr. J. A, Kennard and Messrs. Chipman ani Hosmer in opposition thereto, ant vs. The John No, 148. Henrietta Hoffman, Hancock Mutual Life Insurance oar a ir. J. A. Garfield, 1. Terrell ment of this cause was continued by of counsel for the appellant, and by Mr. H. for the appelice. Adjourned until to-morrow. COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. James Thompson, who shot threo persons at Lloyd's Neck a few wooks has beon,sent to the Hempstead Jail to await the netion of ¢ho Grand Jury. THE MALPRACTICE CASE. Yesterday forenoon the police of the Third precinet, Brooklyn, arrested at No, 45 Bleecker street, New York, Dr. Benjamin W. Hawker, alias West, who kept an office there. His servant, M West, alias Mary Downing, and John Hawker, his brother, were also taken int on custody by the police ththe haatpeactice whieh inulale caused of Miss Christina Brecht, the young of bei ti, enth diod at N, N. J., on last 3 jee wark, N, on was employed ‘a8 a ‘Jomoatié Bethe rial“ Captain William Anderson, of No. eS Si | Brooklyn, where German, Stahr, boardek.” Itis alleged wally came the 13th inst. 1 enh cad A mean eed matin le ye 1 when she went to Nowark | Suspended against hig cliont whilo he is so ill. In | ot her was on the 15th inst,, | mal ing the Thotion produced a certificate, signed | to tho residenco of Mrs Moos, where sho died. Tho | by an eminent physician of England, setting forth tbe | Coroner of Newark has the case uador investigation. ; Shfoobied condition of defenda his totgl inability | The ste gyre we ed before Justice Delmar, | to travel, Mit across ocean at thay season | and were comintbied to to await the action of the { would inaperil bis Ife, The certideate shown tne Court | Newark authorities 1 83 | Ireats—Demand active nnd ‘prices hi RUBENSTEIN. — Yesterday morning the Brooklym Superimtendent Police received another anonymous letter with refers ence to the efforts whicn the friends of Pesach N. Ru- benstein are said to be making to effect bis release from the jail and impending death on the gallows, The letter referred to reeds aa ows :— i New ¥. nday, Feb, 23, 1876. Surmnxrexnxst or Baoonsre Poriee ne ee Sin—The friends of Rubeustein aro to pribe the y to do it with, the right ‘hey will see him han JUSTIC! Tho paper was shown to the Sheriff, but tho latter does not attach touch importance to it, having reliance im the faithful watch aud guardianship which his sub- ordinates are constantly bestowing upon Rubenstein. On Saturday a pair of pants was sent the prisoner by his relatives, but he was not itted to get them. Rev. Fred Bell and Rey. Mr, Johnson, of the Washing- ton street Mothodist Episcopal church, visited Ruben- stein and Andreas Fuchs at the jail yesterday, HELP FOR RUBENSTEIN, New York, Feb, 24, 1876, To tux Epiror or THe Hrratp:— In response to the appeal of Rubenstein's father for pecuniary aid enclosed find the small amount of $2, that Itender, not as protection for felons, butas a lover in this American country of EQUAL RIGHTS. THE CONKLING AND POLICE. Patrolman Burke, of the Fifteenth precinct, was tried yesterday on a charge of grossly insulting Colo- nel Frederick A. Conkling, who testified that on tho night of,tho 8th inst., a fire broke out at No. 99 East Tenth street, in-the/ house adjoining his residence. Wishing to allay the fears of the ladies of his house- hold, he went autside to learn the extent of tho fire. He was met at the door by officer Burke, who pushed him violently away and rofased to listen to him. Coun- sellor Smith corroborated the testimony of Colonel Conkling, having been au eye-witness of the occur- rence. Ho appealed to the officer at the time and urgently reqnested to be allowed to investigate the ex- tent of the fre, but the policeman was so rough in his treatment that he also was obliged to give it up. In his defonce Burke claimed thatthe witnesses usod abusive language to him, and that he was not rough in his treatment of thom, ~ BURGLARY ON BROADWAY. Captain Caffrey, of the Fifth precinct, reported at the Central Police OMice yesterday that a burglary had been committed on the store of James Fee, importer of linen goods, on the second floor of No. 336 Broadway. ‘The burglars carried away 500 picces of Japaneso sti, valued at $5 per piece, and a lot of linen tablecloths and pocket handkerchiets, {n all valued at $3,500. Tho entrance was effected by forcing open the front hall ae and a door loading from the stairs to the second jor, COLONEL DOMESTIC MARKETS, ange GAETHTON, Feb, 28, 197, 4 ce. ; low middling, j good MS c10 bales, Eeporteto the Sales, 1,622, Stock, 59,561, ww OntKAns, Feb, 28, 1876. Cotton ordinary, Continent, quict; middlin; 10e. ' Net receipts, 751 ; constwise, 689. Cotton gaat middling, ordinary, 9c. Net receipts. Exports—To Groat Britain, 8,514; Continent, 41. Sales, 8,400, Stock, 827,296, Mom Cotton quiet; middling, 12%¢c.; low middliny 114e. ; good ordinary, 934e. a 10¢._ ‘Net receipts, Exporis—To Great Britain, 4,181; to, France, to the Gontinent, 1,503; coastwise,” 155. Sales, 1.000." Stoek, Savannan, Feb, 28, 1078, id Cotton nominal; middling. 12'9c. ; ling, 107%. 5 Not receipts, ome od ordinary, 944 Soastwise, 1,796. y middiing, 1,200, Cotton quiet; Geeetty 11%¢.; good ordinary, 10% bales.’ Exports—To Great Sales, 600. Stock, 40,148, Flour ema 8 i ichigi Stock, 63,498, Mrwents, Feb. 28, 1676. 20, Receipts, 3,355 bales; ship- Stock, 6,642, Cnannastox, Feb. 28, 1876. ao Beetle tet omy f . Britain, 605; coustwise, 922. Cotton quict ; ments, 2,031, Oswxeo, Feb. 28, 1876. 1,400 bbls. Wheat steady; sales ot extra white ay $155; No. 2 Milwauki held at $1 40, No. 1 white Michi, it $1 45, white Canada'at $1 5759. Corn st 0.2 Bay af ted. Barley quiet; No. 2 re $1.08; Corn meal—$26 for bolted and $25’ for unbol Millfeed nuohanged: sherts, $27 # $18; shipeta™y $19.4 yt Burvaro, Feb. St ; middli: $20; middlings, 876, Stock in store and afloat—Wh 80,378 do.; oats, 80,011 d rye, 18,771 a ts Four, 9, Mi ; oats, 44,00.) do; barley, 2,500 do. ; rye, 400 do. Flour, 9,000 bbls. ; w! 62,500 bushels; corn, 37, 19. § . 44,000 do. ; bariey, 2,500 do. i 460 do, ' Flour quiet unchanged. Wheat inactive and nominal. Corn dull; of 10 cars new, on track, on private terms. Oats ne; Rye inactive. Barley duil; sales of 1,500 bui Canada choice at Pork quiet at $22 00 for hoary mess. Lard quiet at 133g, a 140. ighwines nominally $1 ‘oL“po, Feb. Wi 1 Flour steady, with a moderate demand, with a moderate demand, No, 1 white Mich 5; amber Michigan, #1 30K No ay, i No.2 tod do., 87 0. ? do. Dayton and Michigan, 44 e.; “do. Dayton and Michigan, 42%¢c.; damaged, Onts, fair domand, steady; No. 2, spot and March, 6e, Clover May, 38%¢c.; white, 40c.; Michigan, ic. 80 $5 15; hogs, $9 80. Receipts—Plour. 105 bls; wheat, 31,000 bus! corn, 36,000 d Ship: oats, 4,000 di 2,000 bushel: ments—Flour, 300 bbis.; whe: oats, 4,000 do. Cacao, Feb, 28, 1976, Flour dull; Western shipping extras, $4 a #4 50; good to fancy family, $4 73 a $5 50; fair to fancy ate ai tm a $6 25; medium to choice winter extras, $475 a $7 25, at—Demand active and prices have advanced; market ‘unsettled ; 2 Chieago ring, $1 OS® spot; Mareh ; $i April; $1 04 May: m Mo. "bom Malone Corn geet but steady :* No. 2 mixed, 42c., spot rt 23¢c. March; 42%c. April at May. irrogu- lar, but Inthe main lower; No: 2, Sle, ‘Bie. Bld March; Sige do. April; 4c. do. Ma iey dull and lower at Slo, a 52. spot,; Sie. March; 5 ril aud May. Rye cull and lower at he, Dresse: hoe ‘Sali at a 0°60. “Pork. aetive and higher “at 82 ‘a 331 40 Spot, 37h larch, $21 62} f 65 April, Lard active po SA oN $12 iy larch, $13 April, BEN 15 May. Balk vanced; shoul- Mi ea ders, Sige. ; short rib middies, 1130. ; short clear iniddles, 12c," Whiskey, Receipts—Mlo 000 DIB: wheat, 42,000 bushels; corn, 117,000 do. ; oats, 54,000 do. j barley, 18,000 do.; rye, 00" hipments—Flour, 11,000 bbls. ; wheat, 43, . 5,000 do. 5 17,000 do. ; bariey, 14,000 do. ; rye, 2,000 Yo,” At the afters ‘arc! DI ¢ May. Corn higher as March, 43¢, April. Oats bi Se ‘at 32c, April, 343{c, May. Pork and lard ubout Se, higher. NEW YORK CATTLE MARKETS, the Lenten season ; pi E closed weak; range of prices, Ye. Bowt. a 1sZewt. strong. From 55 I allowed net. The quality of the herds, as above atioted, was choice, no really poor wine Wistieth’ stroct yacds Fe O., Mestinan’ sold at 90, per Ib. weight Gly ews. nols steers at Oise: per Ib., Wolght 7 ews. geant, ‘Kf. perl. with" 50s. om por ators at Kc. a OMe. per Ib, Tiiinois steers at 10Ge. @ 10) per ib., weight 7 cwt. por weight owt. 5 th, ‘$2 Milinois steers at 1 . AS cut i $0 titsoke ogre ee Iderper . sieht unig H hwnd wel Mnaag; ‘astmah 70 “Tlinols 16 Illinois steers at weight Si owt. ; 128 weight OX cwt., strong: it 10ke. a 10%Ke. iT TMinoks Hore tw. Baasoreon a1 Tl Ib.. ba ee for J. B. Speck: Indian held on ors at it Obs owt. : Perea eieoees held oo ‘eal for Bidatt Betows fe If 59 Illinois for sol oy id ford, Baker 99 : er S vo seriee it Th ith 3 Mey: |. stron ; 66 Ilinols stee: Tits. he lg te pois Steel sold for sel Iitmois steers at I i 7M owt. Ulery & Cary. stoors at Oye. a 10c, # 11}<e. per lb., tha i». 5 Miike nee Dlinots steers at Swe ok Tet axes 4 Iiiols steerer ie. per Be wi ott , Wel ; steers At Ie. 10K. por hivesttene ee + A dy TAN seit Oly ewt. AND Kent shee ~ wet it tk wel Hlinots een, werznt LUGO Tbe, ar ole it {180 Lilinois , Welsht 15,590 Ibs., per oe 185 Obie snee it 16,000 Ibs., at 6 Rs Sor te. "f63 Oiue ne Toss at 7igé. per Vo. Sold hi thet eb al av ham sold for the past “week 4,230 st average per head. Ps ve ut lssourl sheep, weight 90 Ibs. per head, rs 8 85D perewt, J. Kirby sold 152 Minots sheep, 1 {CONTINUED ON NINTH PAGE