The New York Herald Newspaper, June 14, 1876, Page 8

8 THE COURTS The Fight of Horse Car Lines Against Elevated Railroads. A Frightful Prospect for Easily Frightening Horses. Life in the Country Not Altogether Bucolic and Blissful. diianlciaaae The Government Suit in Regard to the Imported Spanish Pictures. Another day was consumed yesterday before Judge Sedgwick, holding Special Term for the Superior Court, taking additional testimony iu the trial of the sixth Avenue Railroad Company's injunction suit against the Gilbert Elevated Railroad Company. As on tho previous days there was a large crowd In attendance, and both sides being represented by the same largo array of counsel. Edward D. White, a member of the Railroad Com- mittee of the Li lature in 1872, was recalled. He produced the minutes of his committee relating to the procecdings on the Gilbert Road bill, but being ob jected to the same was withdrawn, Mr. Theron RK. Batler, Presttient of the Sixth avenue Toad, was next recalled. He said that it would cost just as much to carry 15,000,000 people as to carry 16,000,000, and that the actnal cost of carrying each passenger was lour and five-eighth cents. Mr. Choate offered to show that if the Elevated road took away from the piaintiff 1,000,000 passengers it would destroy their franchise, ali the profits being Made on that number. Mr, Butter then went onto state that the capital stock of the Sixth avenue road was $750,000, and they paid a yearly dividend of ten per cent, and sometimes had a surpius, Mesers. Edward Irving, George Law, Rudolph Lead- beater, George Terry, Heman A, Wiison, John Rutor and Lewis Bradford were tho remaining witnesses ex- amined. Mr. Irving described the working of the model of the Sixth avenue and the Gilbert Elevated railroads, aiready described in the Heratp. Mr. Law gave his ‘experience as President of the Eighth and Ninth avenue railroads, and stated it as his firm behet that horses could pot be made to draw with safety to themscives and passengers the cars of the Sixth Av nue Railroad if an elevated road was operated over it in the manner proposed, “Why do you think the borses cannot be made to draw the cars?” inquired the cross-examining counsel. “Because they wonld be frightened by the noise,” answered Mr, Law, “Are not fresh country horses frightened by the other noises of the city ?” “Yes, sir.’? “Don’t they get over it after a a while?” 8, sir. “Bon't you think the hoxges would soon get over the et caused by the chgiics and cars passing over their an ‘How longa time would it take them to get over aveb a tright?”? “‘lhey will get over it when they are worn out and go! for nothing and not before,” (Laughter, in whieh, owever, the cross-examining counsel did not join.) Mr, Terry testified that the running of the Sixth ave- nue cars would bo wholly impracticable with an ele- vated road running over its tracks. The remaining testimony was principally corroborative of testimony Already given, The examrnation of witnesses in the suit brought by the Ninth Avenue Railroad Company was also resumed esterday before Judge Van Hoesen, holding special ‘erm of the Court of Common Pieag The additional witnesses examined here were Dr, Nathuniel C. Hus- ted, James 0, City Surveyor; Rev, George D. Shove, Berriji F. Wing; James Atlick, treasurer ot the Ninth Avenue Railroad, and a number of car con- actors and drivers. In the main the testimony was simply a repetition of that given by prior witnesses, and, Of course, the witnesses being those for the plain tifl, was intended to confirm the complaint that the Elevated road was a nuisance. EPISODE OF COUNTRY LIFE, John B. Holmes, already familiar to the criminal as Well as civil courts and politics of this city years ago, was again before the court yesterday as defendant in a civil suit brought in the Marine Court, The suitis Drought by an aged woman named Haonah Gilman to recover $180 for work and labor of herself id hus- band. The labor was claimed by plaintiff and her bu band to have been rendered on the farm of the de- fendant in Now Jersey, she taking care of the cows, fowl, &c., and he of the horses, The answer of de- fendant was that he had never engaged the husband, but had engaged the plaintif for a short time, unul he found her incapable of doing work; that he then ceased his engagement with the wife, but allowed both, for vid acquaintance sake, to live’ at bis pico for ‘nine montus. He also set up as a counter claim $250 for the doard of both parties. The old couple, on the part ot plaintiff, told a very plain story about their employ- ment and w promise of $10. month each, and that all they got on account was $1 on the occasion of the wile’s departure, On the part of the defence defendant elf placed on the stand as a witness, = Mosers, vey aud H. C. Dennison, who appeared a8 tor the plaiatiff, objected to Holmes’ testliying on the ground that be bad been convicted of forgery. Holmes then produced his pardon from Governor Sey- mour and was permitted to testity, and sustained sub- Hantiaily the allegations of his answer. Another wite aess on ihe sane side Was Mary Sullivan, agod twenty- five, who saul seven years ago she went tothe de- lendant as nursery governess, aud was now living with him in the capacity of housekeeper, She sustained the ry of deftendani as to plaintift’s being kept on charity, “Have youever been married?” the witness waa then askou. “Your question, siz, js impertinent and insulting,” ickly answered, Sodrt instructed her that she neea not answer tion if it tended to degrade or criminate hei thon declined to answer th tions bearing on her relations to de grounds, She also most indignantly depied that she ever struck tho old man with an iron pot or threw hot water on the old lady, or that she over gotdrunk. The old couple, as a finisher, protested that she not only bit the old man with an iron pot bat also with a brass kettle; and, asto their capacity to work, he said he was now doing good service for the city, and sho, shak- ing her old soul box with vebemence, declared that the has recently both washed, scrubbed and cooked for ‘Mr, Hogan. Decision was reserved by Me. Edward Brown, the rofere THE SPANISH PICTURE SUIT. The trial of tho suit brought by the United States Against a collection of oil and water color pictures, tlaumed to have been invoiced at an under valuation, was commenced yesterday before Judge Biatebford in tbe United States District Court, The pictures in question, some 400 in number, were imported here by K Guerrero, and since then came into the possession of their present owner, Francis Tomes. Tho collection embraces works of some of the best painters of the Fpanish school, and will be remembered as having been for a time on exhibition at Leavitt's Art Gallery. Prior to their being brought to this country they were for fome time on exbibition at Co'.ao, Peru. They wo bronght here for sale, and, as ti Custom Mon-e suow, Were invoiced at $1,700, retarming but a amount of duties After having had them on exbibi- Vion jiore, and, as the demand for such pictures was not meouraging and Mr. Guerrero having a desire to return lo, Spain, be dispored of them to the present owner, Mr. Tomes, for $6,000. Thie coming to the knowledge of the Custom House authorities the pres- ent sult was commenced to recover the amount of duties previously Withheld under the alleged under- valuation, ‘The defence is wat Mr, Tomes made bis purchase of the pictures in good faith, and that it is bow too late for the government to put in its claim, On the other hand the authorities allege that Tomos was cognizant of the iraud in the first istance, and is liable tuereior. KENTUCKY LOTTERIES. Mr. Marcus Creero Stanley bas brought a suit againes Benjamin Wood for his (Stanley’s) interest im $61,000 profits in the Kentucky lotteries. A motion was made before Jadge Donohue, in the Supreme Coart, Cham- bers, to compel Mr, Stanley to render more specific and particular the ajlezation in bis complaint as to the amount of money he seeks to recover and the names of ‘tho lottetios jn question and the States in whien they were conducted. It was contended by Mosera, Town- fend aud Weed, on bebalf of Mr. Sisnley, that Mr, Wood, being superintendent of the lotteries, and the books and papers as well as the money being in his possession, he knew all about the facts of the case and -a0 aduitional speciticauions were, therefore, Deccssary. Tudge Dohobue bas denied the motion, whieh decision will probably compel Mr, Wood to defend the suit upon the compiaint as already made, In the suitof the Pacific Mail Steamship Company against Richard B. Irwin, to recover the sam of $750,000 delivered to the defendant and said by him to fave beon used by him for the purposes of the coi pany, an attempt was made yesterday by the referee, Mr. &. B. Brownell, of No. 58 Wall streot, to obtain the sestimony of Russell Sage, Mr. Smith aud ove other «ember of tho old Board of Directors. Mr. Rafas Hate was present, His counsel, Mr, Vanderpoci, was absent, Mr. Hf. & Bennett, the counsel of the com- pany at the former references vas present with the testimony taken proviously. The company Was repre- sented by Mr. Andrew Boardman, a brother of Samuel ardinan, who was recently elected a member of the Board of Directors, Mr. lrwin was present, with M. Scott and ex-Judge Fullerton, as couuusel. Mr. Boardman said that, coming fresh upon the ca and seeing the vast amount of evidence to be read and taken, he must ask for au adjournment of ten days. Judge Fullerton asked that if the adjournment was given, counsel for the company would pledge himself to go on from day to day unt the case was Guished. He said that as the reference had been gorng on for two mofths, and nothing done, and ae Mr. Irwin 18 being keptaway from his home ‘in Francisco by the de Jays to the detriment of his siness, the counsel ior the defendant must press the case. The reteree adjourned the case until Thursday next, June 22, at four P. M. SUMMARY OF LAW CASES. Giovanni Cori, charged with passing a counterfeit $20 note, was yesterday discharged by Commissioner Betts» there being no evidence to show a criminal imtent. Tho trial of the suit of Read va, Jay Gould was yester- day begun before Judge Robinson m the Coart of Com- mon Pleas, The suit 1s brought to recover $143,500 on a gold transaction on Black Friday. The trial will prob- ably occupy two or three days, The second trial of the suit brought against the city to recover $10,000, theamount of Mark Lannigan’s bills for awnings, was commenced yesterday before Judge Van Brunt in the Court of Cominon Picas The defence is thut the city’s indebtedness ix only $900, In the case of Bridget O'Brien against the city—who saved to recover damages tor the death of her husband by falling mto a xewer— tried before Judge santord in tie Superior Court, the jury yesterday rendered a ver- dict for $1,000 for the plainull. The taking of testimony as to the charge of neglect of duty preierred against the receiver of the Bleecker Street Railroad was resumed yesterday before Mr. leanc Dayton, the referee, Various witnesses were calied, but their testimony was mainly a repetition of that day. . Daly, in the Court of Common there was commenced yesterday the triat of the suit brought by Michael Callaban against Edward M. Wright et al.,Vo recover $650 for variation on sample of forty-six bales of cotton sold defendant. The de- fence 1 that the plaintiff examined and uccepted the cotton, Judge Barrett yesterday rendered a decision reusing to dissolve the injunction granted in the suit of Mary Mailer against her hasband James E. Miller and ‘s. The plaintiff obtained a divorce from her hus- band and it was decreed that she was entitled to perannum alimopy, Her husbaud’s father died, leaving him the 1 atrust, aud the hesband refusing to pay the alimony, the wife obtamed an injunction to prevent him from recetving the incom Juvigo Blatebtord tas rendered a dee'sion in the case of Joseph N. Haneox and others, owners of the schooner J. B. Bleecker, whieh suffered {rom a collision with the barge Venture, in tow of the propeller Coment Rock, whiie the schooner was lying in the kills off Port Jobn- son, on Octobor 5, 187%. The propeller and barge were Hibelied, and and Judge Blatehtord has ordered a decree for the hbellant, with costs against the propeller, with a reference to ascertaln dimagns, and has dismissed, with costs, the Itbel against the Tn @ suit nm which John Garvey was one of tho par- tes a writ of attachment was issued from the sarine Court against the properiy of John Garvey in this city, ho being a resident of Staten Island. “The General Term of that Court confirmed an order refusing to sot aside the attachment. Application was thereupon made to Judge Barrett, of the Supreme Court, for a writ of certiorari against the Judges of the Supreme Court for review of the case, In his decision, given yesterday, Judge Barrett held that tbo case was one that should properly bo adjudicated by the Supreme Court, General Term, and gave an order to that effect, ‘Yhe'New York Loan and Trust Company loaned to Paimer & Co, $13,500, taking the Jatier’s note, payable on demand, and the return of securities pledged for the payment, The Loan and Trust Company, failing to get the money back, sold the securities, and they brought suit tor $5,596 deticiency, the case being tried y before Judge Van Vorst, holding Supreme Cireut. The detence 18 that the sale was im- properly made, a8 there was no forfeiture of tho xe- curities, because the note was never presented nor the securities tendered. The jury were directed to find tor the plaintif in the sum of $5,390 08, subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court, General Term. DECISIONS. SUPREME COURT-—CHAMBEES, By Judgo Barrett. The Second National Buildiwg and Mutual Loan As- sociation vs, Marks et al., Nos 1, 2 and 3—Orders granted amending the judgment Cromwell va. Caulfleid.—Motion for inju receiver denied, with $10 costs, to abide the event Miller vs. Miller.—Injunction continued until bear- ing, $10 costs to plaintif, Opinion. ann vs. Willoughby.—Report confirmed. The re- ceiver is entitled to $100; the receiver's counsel $150 and his disbursements, $25 58; and as the accounting was on the plamntils petition his counsel should have $25. Order may be settied ou two days’ notice. Potten vs, Lanouette.—There are no motion papers submitted in this nor does there appear to be any ailidavit in opposition to any motion, nor do I find any briefs or anything exph ry of the case, ‘Schenck vs, Green, aud The New York Dispensary vi Green.—A general retaxation without instructions ordered upon payment to the relator within five days, $10 costs of opposing this motion, Garvey vs. he Five Justices of the Marine Court,— Tho writ of certiorari in this case was made returnable at the General Term. The Special Term therefore bas nothing to do with it. Rule 63 has reference to writs returnable simp!y to the Supreme Court, not to such as are on their face made returnable at tho General Term, Besides this 18 one of those cases referred to in the writ should be heard at General Term. ' The proceeding here will simply be permitted to drop without action one way or the other, Newton vs, ‘Lhe Continental Bank.—There is no evi- dence that the motion is made in bad faith. Bassett’s affidavits merely state that Brower (who handed in the disclaimer in February, 1875,) represented himself as coming from the defendants Mr. Bard’s affidavit is Not disproved to the effect that the defendant's first knowledge of the trusteeship was on the motion to dis- continue, The motion should therefore be granted, ‘aa there is no difficulty in the amendment and supple: ment being in the same pleading, gt are they incon. sistant vader the circumstances disclored, Motion granted on payment of $10 costs, with leave to plaintiit within twenty days'to serve an ‘amended complaint, if s0 ndvised, order to be settled on two days’ notice, Machado ys. Reading, &c.—1l. The power was not in a Jegal senso coupied with an interest, and the right of revocation existed. The agent was not justified le- gaily or morally in exacting the ubearned commissions, and the payment was involuntary because made under the compulsion of a refusal to turn over the sublease, which jeopardized the sale of the original lease. 2 No coats, There was no refusal to refer. The estate con- sented to the reference asked for, It was the claim- ant’s own fault if the consent was.inadequate, The es- tate was justified in opposug any order except such as literally followed the consent, and Tdo not quite seo the authority for the ordering of the present reference ‘That was waived, however, by proceeding. Exceptiot overruled and report confirmed without costs or allow- ance. Ip the matter of the application for the voluntary dissolution of the Smith & Parmeiee Gold Company.— 1. After a careful examination of the statute 1 am’sa isfied that the reference is not to be treated as the or- dinary trial of an issue, but that the Court may instruct the referco as to the scope of the inquiry. 2 Iam also satistied that the proofs offered in support of the objec- tions filed are not, nor are the objections themselves such a8 contemplated by the stat. ute, and t the referee should be instructed to limit the inguiry to proof as to whether the actual stock, property andeffvcts of the corpora- tion have been so far reduced by the losses or other. wise that it will not be able to pay all just demands to which it may be liable, or to affora a reasonable s curity to those who may deal with such corporhtion, and also to proot as to the special matters set forth in the original petition upon which the majofity of the trustees deem it beneficial to the interests of the stockholders that such corporation should be dis- solved, and also as w any other matters (other than such as excluded) hearing on the question as to ea such corporation should or should not be dis- solved. Langerfeld va. Langerfeld.—Tnere are one or two matters which require explanation. First—Who is the child im the photograph and why is the face concealed ? The plaimifl saya there were no children of the mar- ringe. Second—Did plainti® know Kaftes, and how came he to write him to his house; and did piainwil then know nothing of the way the defendant had been travelling? Third—What are the letters to which de- fendant in ber letters to plainti® refers? Were thoy confessigns of guilt? Fourth—And under what cir- cumstances was delendant travelling, and how came sho to be abroad without plaintiff ? In the Matter of Manz, &c.—The petitioner pur- chased jong alter the confirmation of the asséssment id subject thereto. The party aggrieved waa the per- fon liable to pay the assessment at t Armation. Th 8 was so held in re Philips, | Ia Bennett's case, 12 Abb., 128, it was heid that the pe- tiuioner must fail, because it did oot appear that ho owned the premises affected by the assossment at the time it was confirmed. Application dented, Buckmaster ve, Moyer.—First, the newly diseovered ev- idence is cumulative. It goes to negative the ownership, which was the matter litigated upon tho trial Second, {t might have been produced with rea-onable diligence upon t.¢ trial, Mr. 8, T. Meyer, according to bis own sbowing, knew the substantial part of it, and had actu- ally goue in contract with the aMant Britton (aud Berry and Heiser also) as the owner of the note. Britton says Heiser introduced him to Meyer as the holder of the note. Wh: Britton, Ber ‘tts seem. jon and Vt, S the vo-calied néw matter, and [ think tbat the plainti® has made out an overwhelming case buth on the facts and the law fora denial of the motion for anew trial In the matter of the accounting of Hunter & Brower, r? But the opposing altida’ to meet and answer trustees, &¢ —There a0 more delicate duty impo: upon the Court than this of fixing in certain proceed- ings the allowance of counsel. 1 have endeavored to arrive at a medium in this matter which is substantially Just to all parties, considering the fresu feature of Mr. Hunter's affidavit. It seems to me that my original Judgment was pretty nearly correct, and that it was U case of a simple accounting, without dispute of the re- ceipts and disbursements since the accounting of 1867, Ltrust, therofore, that in dividing the difference be- tween previous allowances and awarding the petitiou- ers’ counsel $3.50 (and his disbursements) and Mr. Stevenson $200, this unpleasant and to me embarrass. ing controversy may be brought to a close, ‘o the matter of Cornell; im the matter of Schuyler; in the matter of the Manbattan Club: in the matter of in the matter of Menzies and in the matter of —Asgorsments vacated. nions. 1 the mattor of Haywood and in the matter of Has- in, &c—I am satisiied from an exami! of the cages that the opinion filed by mo herein was based | = SHEET. upon a misapprehension, and that there it tobea rearguinent Li is accordingly 80 orde ‘The peti- oners may also take further me if they 80 elect. 1 ter of opening Madison avenue,—Upon the whole I see no reason for subjecting the applicant to the expense of a further reference, and he may take a direct order (or the amendment asked. I regret th: thie matter. which on examiuation proves to be #0 sim- sould have been delayed owing to its being put away with more compheatad assessment cases, in the matter of Willtams.—The ordinance bee mer excepted cases like the petitioner's, where the flagging Was already done. It was a fraud upon the petitioner to take up this flagging and unnecessarily and without authority to replace it with other material at her ex- ase and with or without authority; it was certainty a gtoss outrage tn 4 clandestine manner to tear up an ex- ceilent and well lard flagging and to replace it with in- ferior material, laid in an unskil.uland anworkmanlike manner, Such is the petitioner’s proof, and the con- tractor’s affidavit by no means meets 1, The assess- ment must be vacated. Ry Judge Donohue. | Leezvusky vs, Lvary.-The groun for relief sre very +lighs, but tt the defendant will deposit the amount of the judgment and all costs ineludiig Sher- is fees up to this Ume within ten days, and paying $10 costs of motion, she can have an order allowing her to try the ¢ use, Aniie E. Dunham vs. Williom E. of divorce graut d to the plaintil, Van Doisen vs, Van Doisen, Jr,—Reference ordered. Morvin vs. Prentice.—Motion denied. Memoranduin. Str_uss vs, Strauss,—Motion aenied. Von Elbert vs. Fitzpatrick.—-Motion granted, The Security Bank Yawger vs, Koch Walsh vs. Roone Compafiy; Ranney va. Kis Townsend vs, Farley ‘sik; In the matter of the ‘Iiuminated Tile Company; Kopp vs, Jones; Heiler vs, smith; Davis vs. Green, and Hagan vs. Ha- gan,—Granted. SUPREME COURT—SPECIAL TERM. By Judge Van Vorst. Le Baron vs. Long Island Bank.—Findings settled and sigued, MARINE COURT—CHAMDBERS. By Judge McAdam. Herrman vs, Moora; Taylor va Shaw; Hone Lighthill-—Opinions tiled. Wilson vs. Losser,—Sheriffs taxed at $37 50, Voss vs, Schrauth.—Motion to vacate proceedings, &o, denied. Steinberg vs. Finelite; McKteere vs, Little; Cannata ys. Boylan.—Motions disposed of as per endorsement on papers, 2 hite vs, Brown.—Commission ordered. Duclos-vs. Duclos.—Judgment opened. F vs. F; Motion granted; no costs, Giiman vs, Ho Referred to E. Brown, Dunham,—Decreo Wood vs The Union Gar Light Klin va, Kein; vs. e8, Carstairs vs. 0’ Reilly, — Defendants defanit, Peters vs. Kennedy; Van Wentine vs Goldsmith; Merrick vs. Morrell; Whelder vs. Curtis,—Motions granted. ‘ Hayward vs, Nolan,—Motion granted, Hall vs, Delancy.—Bond opproved, GENERAL SESSIONS—PART IL Before Judge Gildersloeve, GOING INTO THE HORS BUSINESS, Dudley Guber, colore1, was arraigned at tho bar charged with grand larceny, On tho 18th of May last tho prisoner went to the stables of Mr. Julian Herbert, in Twenty-fourth street, and told him he had a partoer who wanted to buy a saddle horse, Mr Herbert known the prisoner for some months, and, believing his representation, aliowed him to take tho horse for the purpose mentioned. He «also got a horse from Mr. Aipbonse Bonnet, a partner of Mr. Herbert, It was alleged on the part of the prosecution that the pris- oner Was not authorized to sell the horses, but only to show them to the parties who were supposed to want them. Mr. Herbert valued his horse at $225 and Mr, Bonnet his at $200, The prisoner sold the horses to Mr. Louis J. Bernstein, of Thirty-fitth street, for $250, The prisoner tendered $27 to Mr. Herbert as part payment for his horse, but he did not accept it, telling the prisoner to bring all the money on the fol- lowing Monday. He did not put in an appearance, and he was arrested on the following day. The prisoner ex- plained that he had lost the money, but would have puid bad he not been arrested, The jury found him guilty, and he was remandod for sentence, PLEAS AND SENTENCES, George Carpenter pleaded guilty to burglary m the third degree, and was sentenced to two years’ imprison- ment in the State Prison. Michael Walsh pleaded guilty to the same offence, ond was sentenced to two years and six months in the State Prisou, FIFTY-SEVENTH STREET COURT. Before Judge Kilbreth, THE ASSAULT ON OFFICER FRITCHEN. After a weck’s confinement to his bed Officer Fritchen, of the Twenty-second precinct, who had deen assaulted on Eleventh avenue by a gang of dis- orderly persons whom he had undertaken to disperse, was able to appear in court yesterday to enter com: plaints against James Alken and William T. Corcoran, two of the alleged assailants, The prisoners plosded not guilty and were held for trial. Three others aro still at large, Officer Fritchen’s escape irom fatal 1 juries was most fortunate, considering the serious na- ture of the wounds he received, PICKPOCKETS AT A PICNIC, ‘When the shower of rain occurred on Monday the crowd of picnickors at Landman’s Park crowded to- gether under the awning. John Veight, ot No, 295 Third street, was one of those who rushed for shelter under the canvas, but the next minute he felt a tug at his watch chain and detected the hand of one Fred- erick Green, of No. 90 Sheriff street, in the act of be- ing withdrawn trom his vest. he same time he noticed. that his gold watch, chain and locket wero missing. He then caused the arrest of Green, who was held for trial at this court, in detauit of bail. He pro- tosted bis innocence of the charge and pretended that he had seen two strangers robbing the complainant. ALLEGED BURGLARY, Daniel Vaughan, an old toper, who has been times without number under arrest, but never for any more serious crime than that of intoxication, was at Jast brought hy the serious charge ot bu y. Ho was a curious looking specimen to be ~“ded to ‘the list of burglars, and yet it was not imposible that lus desire to get liquor may have led bim to the commission of the crime, which was that of breaking into a cellar and stealing some lead pipe, He was held tor trial, HARLEM POLICE COURT. Before Judge Otterbourg. ROBBING A PUBLIC SCHOOL, John Quinn and Jeremiah Collins were discovered yesterday fn tho act of breaking off the copper gutter on the roof of Public School No, 37, in East Righty- eighth street, for the purpose of taking it away and selling i. The person who witnessed the action of the thieves called « policeman, who arrested and took them before Judge Oiterbourg, who held them for trial in default of $1,000 bail exch. POLICE COURT NOTES. At the Washington place Police Court John H. Hendrickson, of No. 7 St. Mark’s placo, was commit- ted in default of $1,000 bail for stealing a horse, val $125, {rom Benjamin T, Loomis, of No. 45 Bothune street. Albert Howell and John Rielly, of No. 501 West street, were held for trial at the Washington place Court yesterday for stealing $100 worth of lead pipe from the house No. 63 Mortof street, In the Court of Special Sessions yesterday William Sueily, who attempted to commit ‘suicide by cutting his throat in the Tombs, 98 already published in the Hxnako, was sentenced to six months in the Peniten- ry for assaulting bis sister-in-law, Eliza Gibson, of No. 160 Mulberry street. Jobu Owens, a young pickpocket, was committed at tho Tombs yestorday on complaint of Officer Holly, of the Twonty-sixth precinct, for attempting to cominit larceny in the City Hall Park. “Colonel Jim,’ who gave his residence as the Brower House, was brought before Justice Wandell Yesterday on suspicion of being one of the gamblers who defrauded Louis Bayliss of $300 in tho faro bank No. 1,156 Broadway. Bayliss failed toally to identify him, and ho was dischargod. Kichard Wagner, of No. 129 Bleecker street, William Heenan, of No. 149 Kloecker strect, and Martin O'Day, jeecker street, a party of shoemakers, were charged by Stepharin uerbo, of No. 43 Bleeeker street, with having st a bag containing silver to the value of nine dollars from his saloon while the com- plainant was asleep. They were held in default of $300 each to answer. COURT CALENDARS—THIS DAY. Surname Covet—Cnamunis—old by Judge Dono- hue.—Nos_ 118, 130, 134, 138, 140, 151, 162, 150, 154, 185, 166, 176, iso, ioe, ‘202, '203," 210, 232) aaa) 254, 285, 237, 278, 270, 304, 311, 318, 323, 324, 329, B42, 3, 48, 349. Scerreme Covrt—Geserat Terw.—Adjourned until July 6, for the purpose of rendering decisions, Scrreme Covet—Srecia Taxu—Held by Judge Lawrence.—Law and fact—Nos, 97, 200, 361, 410, 411, 223, 376, 241, 874, 379, 387, 398, 214, 420, 278, 279, 173 174, 617, 51,’ 4, 508, 542. b00 Sis. Surname Covntr—Cincuit—Vart 1—Held by Judgo Westbrook.—Nos. 1072, 111, 2858, 1500, 1781, 1623, 1461, 1493, 2859, 1535, 252, sj, 1148, 107, Lazbag. 1391, 1577, 1579, 1647, 1) zona, $20, 1770, ‘a0, 914, 683, '1510)5, 1627, 1488, 1489, 1281, 982, 1353, 138 4 1350, 1611, 1657, 1801, 1651, 167%. Par’? Hold by Judge Van Voret.—Nos. 1368, 1824, 112544, 736, 1422, 1318, 872, 2110, 1442, 2808, 69S, 1011, 1436, 1437, 1876, 1164, O48, 2702, Hold, wash.’ Part 3~ Held oy Judge Lairemore.—Nos ‘1750, 2489, 301, 1407, 12%, T1, 1071, 1918, 950, 1160, 715, 691, 107855, 1201, 174186, 1515, 1837, 621, 1811, 1735, 3182, 3086, 2908, 2550, 15404. SUrexton CoURT—GRSRRAL TkRM—Adjourned sine die, Surxxion Court—Sracian Txam—Héid by Jadgo Sedgwick. —Case on, No. 41. No day calendar, Surerion Coorr—Taiat Trew.—Part 1—Held Judgo Suntord.—Nos 1113, 1092, 1196, 787, 1054, 331, 1283, 1102, 1068, 1178, 1002, L7H, 1177, 1180, 1035, Part 2—Hebi by Judge Spelt,—Nos. 1005, 608, 741, 1139, 964, 764, 1157, 722, 119%, 1194, 1198, 1196, 1197, 1198, 1199, Common Piras—Gexenan Teru.-—Adjourned until Jane 26 for the pr of rendering decisions, Common Pueas—taorry Tera—Held by Jadge Van Hocvom—Nos. 24, 4, 28, 30, 27, 19, 1, 6, 8, 28, 34, 18, 20, 33, 2, 3, 25, 9 Demarrers—Nos, 2, 3 and 4, Part 1—Hela Commox Robinsou.—Nos. 706, 1092. 2337, 1871, 1097, NEW YORK HERALD, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 1876.—TRIPLE 1199, 2128, 1 1867, 2162, 2072, 1350. I7T21, 2493, °10041;, 2231, 1680, 2147, ie Pid ‘2154, 1104, 1658, 2281, 231 Part 2—Held by Judge Yan Brunt.—Nos, 2537, 2108, 2067, 155, 1804, 2059, 2169, yy Judge J. F. valy,—Nos. 2509, 2628, 2582, 2541, 1861. pot a bo pe) bt nar A be 175, 4176, 4177, 3844, 4 1001" 7588) 7074, 7719, 786%. Part 2—Held by Judge Sheridan,—Nos. 7592, 4116, 4245, 4288, 4114, 3886,” 7 7827, 6705, 4125, 4090, 7833, 3583, 5841, 5342 Part 8—Held by Judge Sinnott.— Nos, 7330, 7831, 6951, 7877, 6008, 4205, 6952, 6879, 6308, 6758, 4911, 6761, 5059, 7077, 7078, 6927. Count ov GexxRAL' Sexsions—Part 1—leld by Re- corder Hackett. —The le vs. Thomas J. Battell, homicide, continued. Purt 2—Held vy Judge Giider- eve.—The People vs, William Mitchell, felonious as- it and battery; Rame va George W. Russel), John ns and Thomas Muret, felonio vs assault and bat- tery; Same ve, James Downey, felonious nssault and battery; Same vs. Isaac Blumberg and Eva Goldman, | felonious assault and battery; Same vs. William Staf- ford, felonious assault and battery; Same vs. Hyman Goldstein, grand. larceny; Sume vs Sigismund K. Mendell, grand larceny; Same va, Cornetius C. Hopp, grand larceny; Same vs. George Erskine, grand lar- ceny ; Same vs. Alexander F, McKenzie. perjury ; Same vs. Anthony Bronson, ft pretences; Same vs. Will- iam Kelly, petit larceny; Same vs. Henry Muller, petit larceny; Same vs. Juha Biggard, grand larcenv; Same vs, John Burns and Jobn Hallenbeck, grand lar- ceny. DAMAGES FOR A DEAD HUSBAND. Yesterday the attention of the Brooklyn City Court was occupied in the trial of the action brought by Catherine Leonard, as administratrix, against Martin Collins, to recover $5,000 damages for the Joss of her husband, Hugh Leonard. Deceased was Jaborer, sixty-one years of age, and was kilied by the fall of an embunkment on the Kne of the Bay Ridge Railroad, in the town of New Utrecht, on February 26, 1876, ‘He lefta widow and two children, Defendant, who was contractor for the work, ordered deceased to go under an overbanging embankment jor somo purpose, and while obeying the order the earth fell upon bit, killin, him instontly. The jury found a verdet in favor ol tho widow, awarding hi 500 damages, CLAIMING HER CHILDREN. Awrit of habens corpus was issued by Judgo Neil- son, in the Brooklyn City Court, yesterday, on the application of counsel for Mrs, Ann Hape, commanding the managers of the Brooklyn Industrial School Asso- clation to produce in Court William, Bortha, Lizzie and Frederick Hape, children of the plaintiff. It'is set forth in the petition of Ann Hape that she ia the wile of Ju- lius Hape, to whom she was marriod in 1866; that sho ts separated from her husband; that in November, 1875, she, boing destitute, placed her children for temporary shelter and care in the tnatitution namod, and that they were removed to the Wost without her consent or knowledge, » 2588, 5 1407, 1419. Part 3—Held ey CIRCUIT COURT. Avnaxy, Jane 18, 1876. The Extraordinary Circuit Court convened hero this afternvon, Judge Daniels presiding. Yhe Judge informed counsel present that>be would take up no business in addition to the canal suit, Mr. Ruger then proceeded to argue some objections to the manner in-which the jury in the Dentson case had beon drawn. Mr. Hale replied and the Court overruled the objections, Owing to the absence of Mr. Hiscock, of counsel for the defence, ant the fact that the other canal case comes on tho 19th day of June, the Denison caso was adjourned to the 21th of Jaly. SUPREME COURT. Aupayy, June 13, 1876, In the Supreme Court, Special Term, Justice Osborne presiding, the case of The People vs, tho Mechanicsand ‘Traders’ Savings Institution, New York, came up on an order ty show cause why an injunction should not be continued and a receiver for that institution appointed, ‘The Attorney General appeared tor the people, He said tno accounts of the institution showed that the amount due depositors was $1,400,000, while the as sets of the bank were but $1,300,000, Mr. Creok, of Brooklyn, appeared for the ‘defendants, and said ‘the papers were served on him on_ Satarday, and = pe wished to have the matter postponed so that he might be heard on the merits, They were not insolvent, aud he was informed thai they had at least $100,000 surplus. He wished the in- Junction modified, as’ the interest on securities was becoming due and should be received. Current ex- penses were to be met, and he wished the Court to allow a margin not to exceed $3,000. The Court or- dered the case to stand over until a week from to-day, at Hudson, and modified the injunction so as to enable the bank’ to receive the interest on securities. In other respects the injunction is to remain in force, The case of Cnarles H. Adams and Dadiey Olcott vs, The Clifton Company and others, was up before Justico Osvorne this afternoon on a motion that the company be eae to file a separate answer in the case. The action is brougnt to foreclose a mortgage for $60,000 on the company’s property m Cohoes, given to secure $60,000 in bonds which had been issued. It was claimed that as ouly $37,000 of the bonds were actually sold, the balance of $23,000 cannot be held due on the mortgage, us claimed in the complaint. Mr, Stedman argued for and Mr. Miller in opposition to the motion, and the Court granted an order of reference to Charles T. F. Spoor to hear and deter- mine, and alao allows the Clifton Company to serve an answer and tho plaiotifls to amend their answer, CALENDAR. The following is the Supreme Coart, Fourth Depitt ment, General Terin day calendar for June 14:—8, 13, 20, 23, 23, 29, 87, 41, 42 and 44, COURT OF APPEALS. Aunaxy, June 13, 1876. DRCISIONS MANDED DC WS. Judgment affirmed with costa—Keogh vs, Wester velt, Preston vs, Russ, Walbridge va, ena Borst ve. Lake Shore, &c., Railroad; Brown vs. The Mayor, Ripont vs. Merchants’ Lite Insurance Company, Har- nett vs, Garvey, Niestman vs. New York Central, &c., Railroad, : Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event,—The American Medicine Company va, Kessler. Order of General Term affirmed and judgment abso- Jute for plaintiff, on stipulation, with costs.—Ratherford vs. Holmes. Judgment affirmed so far as the personal property is concerned, and modified in other respects, according to the opinion of Judge Allen, without costs to either party ‘as against the other in this Court—Young vs. jeemana, Order affirmed and judgment absolute for defendant, on stipulation, with costs.—Knoeppel vs. Kings County Fire Insurance Company. Order affirmed and judgment absolute for the de- fendant, on stipulation, without costs to either party tn this Court, —Brandaw vs. Brandaw, Appeal dismissed, with costs. —Bonnet vs. Li.hauer; Plunkett vs. Appleton. Order aflirmed, with costs,—Franklyn vs. Spraguo; Tho Peopie’s Safe Deposit and Trust Company va Buchanan; Powers vs. Gross, Order of General Term reversed and that of Special Term affirmed, with costs, in re-petition of Second avenue Episcopal charch. Judgment of this Court modified so as to affirm judg- ment of Supreme Court, with co: of all parties in this Court, payable out of reserved tund and remititur amended accordingly.—Thurber vs, Chambers, Judgment of this Court modified so as to aiirm the judgment of the Supreme Court without costs to either ty as against the other io this Court, and romittitur amended accordingly.—Brick va, Brick. MOTIONS. No. 74. Wakeman vs. Town of Duanesburg. No, 75, Weftienheimer vs. Same. No, 76, The Schon: National Bank vs. Same.— ‘Affirmed by stipulation upon motion of N. G. Moak. Peopie ex rel Mott vs. The Supervisors of Greeno county.—Mouon for reargument, Jacob I. Werner for motion, James H. Olney opposed. James A. Tice vs, James ‘A. Tice, Jr., ct al.—Ordered on motion of H. 8, Sickles, for appellant, that this action be revived in the name o! Cornelius C. Tice, executor, &e., of plaintiff, deceased, APPRALS FROM ORDERS, No. 376. James A. Wright and another, respondents, ‘va Arthur A. Brown, appellant.—Argned by Robert Johnstone, of counsel for appellant, and by Winchestor Britton tor respondent. ‘No, 384. Preston vs. Morrow. No, 386. Barnes vs. Proston.—Argued by James A. Dewey for appellant, Henry Smith tor respondent, No. 886, Cochrans, executor, &c., vs. Ingersoll. — Argued by P. R. Stanton for appellant, Win- chester Britton for respondent, 4 GENERAL CALENDAR, No. 234 Esterves vs, Purdy.—Argument resumed and concluded. No, 236. Fairfax va N. Y. G. and © RR. Co | pen hs bbe by Albert Stickney for appellant, Fr: omia for respondent, Adjourned. CALENDAR, Day calendar for Wednesday, Jyne 14, 1876.—Nos. 237, , 243, 68, 887, 147, 231 and 208, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. Wasmixatox, Jane 13, 1876. A DECISIONS. ‘The Supreme Coart of the United States have ren- dored opinions in the following cases:— b, IMMIGRATION—THE CALIFORXIA CASQ—THH EXCLUSION OF DEBAUCHED WOMEN, No. 478. Chy Lang, plamviff in error, vs. J. H. Free- wan, RK. K. Piotrowski, Commissioners of lmmigra- tion, and William McKibben, Sheri of the city and county of San Francieco, Callfornia-—In error to the Supreme Court of the state of California, The full text this opinion Ifis been published, but the following syllabus is given to present a clearer view of what was. decided than could be gained from the text without much study. The stotute of California, which ix tho subject of Consideration in this case, does not require a bond for every passenger or commutation money, as the statutes of New York and Louisiana do, but only for certain enumerated classes, among which are “lewd and debauched women.’? Bat the featares of the statute are such as to show very clearly that the pur- is tO extort Money from a large class of =, gers, of to provent their immigration to Cahfornia altogether. The statute also operates directly on the passenger; for, unless the master or owner of we vessel gives D onerous bond for the fatare protection of the State against the support |. of the passenger, or pays such sum as the Commis- siover of Emigration chooses to exact, he is not per- mitted to tand from the vessel. Tne powers which the Commissioner is authorived to exercise undor the stat- ute are such as to bring gee ee States into ne With foreiga nations, and which can only belong to federal governinent, A the right of the Seates 40 pasa statutes to protect themselyes in regard td the crim!- nal, the pauper and the diseaged foreigner landing within their borders existe at ail, it is limited to euch Jaws 6 arc absoiutely necessary for that purpose, und this mere poli¢e regulation cannot extend so jar as to prevent or obstruct other classes of persons trom the right hold personal and commercial intercourse with the people of the United States, ‘The stat of Cal fornia im this respect extends far beyoud (ue necessity in whieh the right is founded, if it exists at all, and in- vades the right of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and 6 therefore void, jected, = Mr, Justice Miller delivered the opinion LETTERS TESTAMENTARY—THKY ALR NOT BYIDENCE OF 3 THE DEATH OF THR DECKASKD. No. 94. Mutual Benetit Life Insurance Company vs. Hatue B. Tisdale—Error to the Circuit Court tor the Disirict of Iowa.—This action was brought upon a pol- icy of insurauce issued wo Mrs, Tisdale upon the lite of her husband. Evidence was given teading to show the death of Mr, Tisdale on the 24th of Séptember, 1866. This evidence consisted chiefly in the sudden and mys terious disappearance of Mr, Tisdale, under circurm- stances maki , his death by violence, Evi- dence was given by the defendant tending to show that he had been seen alive some months after the date ot his supposed death. To sustain her case the plaintift oflered in evidence letters of administration upon the estate of ber husband, issued to her by the County Court of Dubuque county, Iowa, The objection was overruled and the letters were read in evidence, to which the defendaut excepted. Tho real question, eaid the Judge below, is, whether Tisdaic was dead at the time of issuing the letters of admiuistration. It is incumbent on Dpianvif wo prove that fact. She bas shown as evidence of that fact letters of adiminis- tration issued to her a# administratrix by the probal Jud It 18 the duty of the Court to instruct you that this makes @ priina facie case for the plaintiff, aud changes the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant, Without contradictory evidence these (the letters of administration) give the plainuif the right to recover, ‘To the charge in this respect the defond- ant excepted. In an ym brought, not as admin- istrator, but in an individual character, to recover an individual debt, where the right of action depends upon the death of a third party—to wit, an insurance npon his lite—do letters of administration{upon the es- tate of such person, issued by the proper probate court, afford logal evidence of nis death? This is the ques- tion we ure cailed upon to decide, It presented simply, and is the only question im the case, In an elaborate opinion the Court decide that in a suit brought by an exceutor or an administrator the letters testamentary are admissible in evidence and are conclu- sive of his mgbt to sue, Butin an action between stra) gers such letters are not admissible as evidence of the death of the decedent. So, in this case (an action by a wife upon a policy of insuranee on the busband’s life in her favor), lettors of administration are not evi- dence of the husband’s death. Reversed. Mr. Justice Hunt delivered the opimon, SURISDICTION—THE REMOVAL OF CAUSKS—SUIT TO ANNUL A WILL—MRS, GAINES CASE, No. 104, Myra Clark Gaines vs, Joseph Frientes and othe:s—In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana,—This is an action in form to annul tho alleged will of Daniel Clark, the father of the app lant, dated on the 13th of July, 1813, and to recall ¢ decree of the Court by which it was probated. It was bronght in the Second trict Court for the parish of Orieuns, which, under the Jaws of Louisiaua, is in- vested With jurisdiction over the estates of deceased persons and of appointments necessary in the course of their administration, ‘The potition sets forth that on the 18th of January, 1855, tho appellant applied to ‘that Court for the probate of the alleged will, and vhat, by decree of the Supreme Court of tho State, this ulieged will was recognized as the Jast will and tosta- ment of the said Mantel Clark and was ordered to be recorded and executed as such; that this decree of probate was obtained ex parte, and by its terms authorized any person at any time who might desire to do so to contest the willand ity probute in direct action, or asa means of defence by way of answer or exception, when will should be setup as a Muniment of title; that the appellant subsequently commenced several suits against the petitioners in the Cireuit Court of the United States to recover sundry tracts of and properties of great value situated in the parish of Oricans und clsewhere, in which they are interested, setting up the alleged ‘will As probated as a muniment of title and claiming under the same as institated heir cf the testator, and that the petitioners are unable to contest the validity of the alleged will so long as the decree of probate remains unrecalled. The petitioners then proceed to set forgh the grounds upon which they ask for a revocation of the will and the recalling of the decree of probate, these being substantially the falsity and insuiliciency of the testimony upon which the will was admitted to robate, and tho status of the appellant incapacitating er to inberitor take by last will from the decedent Acitation having been issued upon the petition and Served upon the appellant she applied m proper form, with @ tender of the n bond, for removal of the cause to the Circatt Court of the Uniied States for the district of Louisiana, under the twelfth section of the Judiciary aet of 1789, on the ground that she was citizen of New York and the petitioners were citi- zens ot Louisiana, The Court denied the application for the alloged reason that, as the appellant had made herself a party to the proceedings in the court relative to the settlement of Ciark’: ecession by applying sor the probate of the will, she could not now avoid the jurisdiction when the attempt was made to set aside and annul the order ef probate which she had obtained, The Conrt, however, went on to say, in its opinion, that the federal court could not take juris- diction of & controversy having for its object the annulment ot a decree probating a will. The appellant then applhed for a removal of the action under the act of March 1867, on the ground that from prejudice and local influence she would not bo able to obtain justice in the State court, accompanyipg the application with the ailidavit and bond required by the statute This application ‘was also denved, the Court resting its decision on the alleged ground that the federal tribunal could not take jurisdiction of the subject matier of the controversy. ‘Other parties having intervened the applications were renewed and again denied, An answer was then filed by the appellant, denying generally tho allegations of the petition except as to the probate of the will, and interposing a plea of prescription, Subsequently a durther plea was filed to the effect that the several mat- ters alleged as to the status of the appellant had been the subject of judicial inquiry in the federal court, and been there adjudged in her favor. Upon a hearing a deorce was entered annulling the will and revoking the probate, The Supreme Court of the State having affirmed this decree the cuse was appealed to this Court, In the view we take of the application: of the appellant to remove tho cause to the federal court no oth tion than the one raised upon that application was open for our consideration. If the application should pave been granted the subsequent proceedings were without validity, and no useful purpose would be obtained an examination of the merits of the defence upon the supposition that the State court rightfully retained its original jurisdiction. On these tacts the Court decide as foliows:—In cases a power of the United States can be applied only because they involve controversies be- tween ¢itizens of different States tt rests with Congress todetermine at what time the power may be invoked and, upon what conditions; whether originally tederal court or after suit brought in the State cou: nd, in ti latter case, at what stage of the proceedings; whether betore issue or trial by removal to a {ederal court, or after judgment on appeal upon a writ of error. As the constitution imposes no limitation upon the clags of cases involving controversies between citizens of dif- ferent States to which the judicial power of the United States may be extended, Congress may provide for bringing, at the option of either of the parties, all such controversies within the jurisdiction of the federal ju- diciary. The act of Congress of March 2, 1887, authorizing and requiring the removai to Circuit Court of the United states of a suit pending or aiterward brought in any State court involving a controversy between a citizen of State where the euit is brought and a citizen of ai other State, thereby invests the Circuit Court with ju- risdiction to pass upon and determme the controversy when the removal is made, though that court could not havo taken original cognizance of the ense, A suit to annal a will as a muniment of title and to restrain the entorcement of a decreo admitting it to probate is, in essential particulars, a suit in equity, and if by the law obtaining in a State, customary oF statutory, such a suit ean be maintained in one of its courts, Whatever designation that court may bear, it may be maintained Circuit Court of the Unied States if the parti ot Jifferent Staves, Reversed. Mr. Justice Fieid dolivered the opinion. PARDON—THE PROCEKDS OF CONFISCATED | PROPRRTY— WHEN THEY PASS FROM THK CONTROL OF THE COURT. No. 7% Thomas A. Osborn, James 8. La? and James L. McDowell, plaintifs in error, va. The United States —In error to the Circuit Court for the District of Kansas.—The material questions presented in this caso for our determination relave:—First, to the effect of tho Prestdent’s pardon bg the rights of tho peti- toner to the procecds of his property confiscated by the decree of the District Court; and, second, to the power of the Court to compet restitution to its registry of moneys es ly received by its former oihcors, In May, 1 the District Court of Kansas decreed the condemnation gnd forfeiture — to the Untted States of the several bonds and mortgages described in the information flied by tne government. In June tollowing it ordered that tho soveral debtors on these bonds should, within five months thereafter, psy into court the movey due by them reapectivels, and that in default of such pay- ment the clerk should issue to the marshal orders for the sale of the morigaged property, upon which, he should proceed as on execution under the laws of Ka sa. me of the debtors paid the amounts due by them into court; but the majority of them failed’ in this respect, and orders for tne sale of the property mortgaged were issued to the marshal, To him the groater nawber paid without sale, but in some instances sales were made. Over $20,000 fn this way came into the postersion of officers of the court, ‘There were atthe time namerous other confiscation cases pending in the court, and the moneys received from them were indiscriminately mixed with the moneys received in the Cases against the property of the petitioner. None of the money received in aay of the cases was patd into the Treasury of the United States, and no order was made by tlio court for any such payment. Some of them were deposited in a banking house ‘enworth, designated as the place of deposit of moneys paid into court, and afterwards drawn out. Some were obtained by officers of the court, and to an extent greatly 1 excess of :heir legal charges, and some of them were paid to the Judge, The moneys from the diferent coniisc tion cases being indiser:minately mixed would seem to have been taken by the officers of the court when- ever funds were needed by them, without re- gard to the sources from which they we derived or the propriety of their applicativn to the pur- for which they were used. In April, 1866, the petitioner applied to the ourt for le file a en for the restoration te iim of the pi property, {ter deducting the costs of the legal pro- ings, alleging that he had been pardoned by the President ot the Unived States, and sevting forth a copy of the pardon, The pardos 1805, and was in terms afuil pardon and amnesty fot alloffences commitied by the petitioner, arming ee ak direct or indirect, in oS robellion, tions sub- to certam conditions, one these condi. costs Siten cal ave comes in procedings Mo ‘alias Albert Johnson, New Bedford, Mags., $481 should pot by virtue of yeyger rn claim avy property or the proceeds of eny oy sratch bad boc sda, by the bruce, Judgment’ oF deoree of w court under the confiscation laws of the United States, The District Court reiused the applieat bat the Circurt Court, on reversed its order allowed the petition tobe fitea ‘The Distros Cours held, it would seem. that the conditions attached to the pardon preciuded the ee. from seeking to obtain the vot h Court was of was to restore to Its recipient lost by the offence pardoned, unless the property had, by judicial process, become vested in Racor gal sons, subject fo such exceptions as wero by the paraon itself; that until an order of the proceeds was made in these fy ead the proceeds were actually paid into the hands of party entitled as informer to receive them, or into the bier gd of rid vais States, Fen Bova Rely ey Caco Boa pord ourt, that no vested right to ao teithe pentiecsr "The dedrion la. giteu te guletanse to the 1@ decision m the Raowine syllabus:—A by the Presiden Testores to its recip! the offgnce pardoned, unless cial process become vested subject to Fase tape od prescribed by aly SE tho pardon itsell A condition annexed to a that the recipient shall uot by virtue of it claim any property or the pro- ceeds of any property oid by the order, judgment or . enon of acourt Paglia ag py oe of bn United States, does not im from apy! the Court ior the proceeds of money bonds 4 mortgage confiscated, the proceeds being collected by officers of the Court in part by voluntary payment obligors and in part by sale of the lands mort, The condition only intended to protect pu re at Judicial sale decreed under the confiscation laws from any: clam. of the. original owner for the property sold or the purchase money. ot erty confiscated paid into court are under the control of the Court uutil an order for their distribution is made, or bag are paid into the hands of the informer entitled to them, or into the Treasury of the United. States, Where moneys belonging to the 1 the Court are withdrawn from it without authority of Jaw the Court can by summary oe compel -their restitution; and any one entitled to the moneys may apply to the Court by petition for a delivery of them to lim. Decree to be modified and affirmed. Mr, Justice Fiold delivered the apinion. ASSIGNMEN FOR BENEFIT OF CHEDITORS—VALID WHEN, MADE SIX MONTIS BEYORK PROOREDINGS IN BANK- RUPTCY AGAINST THR DKBTOR. No. 646. Frederick J, Mayer and Seth Evans, as- signees, et al., plaintiffs in error, vs, alax Hellman, as- signee in bankruptcy, ‘et al —Error to the Circuit Court for the Sonthern district of Ovo, —Tho plaintiff in the Court below 18 assignee in bankruptcy of Bogen and others, appointed in proceedings Istituted against them in the District Court of the United States for the Southern district of Ohio; the dofendants are assignees of the same parties, under the assignmeut laws of the State of Ohio, and the present sute is brought to obtain jon of property which passed to the latter under , the assignment tothem. The facts a8 disclosed by the record, so lar as they are material tor the dipositivn of the case, are brieflythese :—On the 3d of December, 1873, at Cincinnai, Obi® George Bogen and Jacob Bugey, com- posing the firm of G, & J. Bogen, and the same parves with Henry Mutler, comprising the firm of Boge Son, by deqd executed ot that date, individually as partners, assigned certain property held by them, including that in controversy, to threo trustees, in trust for the equal and common bonellt of ail their creditors. The deed was delivered upon its execution, and the property was taken possession of by the as- signees. ey the law of Ohio, in force at the time, vben an igument of propefty 18 made to trustees for the behefit of creditors, it is the duty of the tras. tees, with ten days after the delivery of the assign ment to them, and before disposing of any of the property, to appear before the Provate Judge of the county in which the agsignors reside, produce, the origiual assignment or a copy thereof, and file tlre same in the Probate Court and enter into an undertaking payable to the State, in such sum and with such sure- ties as may be approved by the “Judge, coi ditionod faithful performance of thoit) duties. In conformity with this law, tho trustees, ‘on the 13th of December, 1873, within’ the’ prescribed ten days, appeared before the Probate Judge of the proper county in Obio, produced tffe original assign ment and filed the sume in the Probate Court One of the trustees having declined to act, another one was named in his place by the creditors and appointed by tne Court. Subsequently the three gave an undertak- ing, with sureties - of tor pel ADI then pr suoed 7 with the administration of the trust under the direction of the Court, On the 22d of June of the following year, more than six months alter the execution oi the aesigninent, petition in bankruptcy against the insolvents was fled in the District Court of the United States, mitiating the proceedings in which the plainuil was appointed their assignee in bankruptcy, As such oflicer he claims. aright to the possession of the property m the hands of the defendants under tho assignment to them. The validity of this claim ‘depends, as a ma ter of course, upon the legality of the assignment. and on this question it is held that an assignment by an insolvent debtor of his property to trustevs for the equal and common benetlt of all his creditors is not fraudulent, and when executed 61x months before pro- ceedings in bunkraptcy are taken against the debtor isnot asswilable by the assignee in bankruptcy sub- sequently appointed, and the latter is not entitied to the possession of the property from tho trustees, versed. Mr. Justice Fiela delivered the opinion. MANDAMUS.—IT WILL NOT ISSUE TO KN¥ORCE 4 JUDG- ‘MENT WHICH DID NOT DETERMINE MATKRIAL J8SURB PRESENTED. No. 7 (original). Ex parte—In the matter of Ira G. ‘rench, petitioner—Petition tor mandamus.—Fronch sued Edwards and othera to recover tho possession af certain lands, alleging that he was the owner in fee, and that the deiendauts unlawtally withheld the pos- session from him. ‘The defendanis answered, setsing up several defences, and, among others, the follow. ing:—L Want of title in the plaintit® 2 Statutes of linritations, 3, In some instances title in themselves, 'Thé case was submitted to the Court without a jury, and upon the trial there was a special finding of tacts, to the effect that the detendants were in the adverse possession of the property ; that the plaintiff ovce held the title, but that, on the 9th of January, 1863, and be- fore the commencement of suil, ne had executed a certain instrument of writing, a copy of which was given. Upon these facts the Court found, as a matter of law, that the legal title passed out of the plainti’ by: the operation of the instrument set forth, and did not revert on the failure of the conditions it contained, but still remained and was vested in the grantees. Judi ment was given in favor of the defendants upon th: Tuling. At the last term wedecided that upon tho facts found the Court should have presumed that the grantees in tho instrament of Janual 9 had reconveyed, thus reinvesting the tit in the plaintiff, and adjudged accordingly. The judg. ment was for this reason roversed und the case re- manded, “with imstructions to proceed in conformity with the opinion,” (See the case reported, 21 Wall. 147.) Upon the filing of the mandate in the Court be- low the case was set down for @ new triaL French now moves here for a mandamus, directing the Ciromt Court to enter judgment in bis favor for the recovery of the Jands upon the tacts tound. The finding brongnt here for review was special, and met only a part of the issues. If the conciusion of law to which the Court came was correct the othor issues were immaterial ‘The case was disposed of without reaching them. We have, however, determined that the facts found were not sufficient to justity the conclasion reached, and have ordered the Court to proceed with the case, not- withstanding the (nding. In effect have decided that the Court crred im not ling to try the other issues. Our action only precludes that Court from a judging jn fayor of the defendants upon the Berle facts found and sent here for our opinion. In all other respects it is at liberty to proceed in such mane ner as, according to 1ts a KTS justice may require, The petition is denied. The Chief Justice delivered the opinion. ALABAMA CLAIMS, Wasuinotox, D. C., June 13, 18764 In the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claim to-day the following judgments were renéerod:— For tho loss of personal effects and wages by the destruction of the Ocmulgee by the Alabama, Septem. ber 5, 1862:—Case 1,519, Charies H. Gifford, New Bed. ford, Mass., $557 50; caso 1,521, Joseph C, De Avalar, case 1,602, Manuel Mecedonea, Boston, Mass., 3 case 1,717, Wendell H. Cobb, aaministrator, New Bed- ford, Mass, $390; case }, the sa $205; case 1,533, Joseph B. Diaz, New Bedford, Masa., lone of pestcartely § the destruction of the Shenandoah, April 1, 1845, $507 50; case 1,588, Joseph C. Hanon, New Bedford, Masa, for case 1,633, Frank Rodinque, Boston, Mass, tor ot same ce destruction of the ising Fisher by i, Alabama, March 23, 1863, $659 10; cuse, 1,566, Manuel Joseph, New Bedford, ae for the sane,’ $001; case jas, for the 1,635, rrp Frates, New Bedtord, laterest Na ail tho above cases at four of loss. itted on evidence and argument same, $575, per cont from the dai Ten cases were subi of counsel, BEATING A CHILD. One of the worst cases of brutulity to children which has come ander the new law touching tho question was developed yesterday afternoon before Justice Morgan, in the Essex Market Police Court, during the examination of Mrs, Helena Wol®, aged forty-two, of No, 44 Firstavenue, arrested on a charge of bratality, for beating hor niece, Annie Schmidt, aged ten years, witha knotted leather strap. It appeared from the testi mony taken inthe case thaton Tuesday lagt, Mra, ‘Annie Koch, a lady residing in the same house, learn: ing that the child was crucily treated, reported what she knew to the oilice of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, No, 856 Broadway. ‘The case was placed by Mr. Evans, the Superintendent of the society, m the hands of Oflicers Alexander T, Gernet and J. Groom, who visited the roonfs occupied by Mra Wolf on the third floor ot the house No. 44 Firstavenua They rapped at the door but gained no admission, Their knocking at the door was auswered by the child, who said she Would not let any one in, as she had bees told by her aunt not to do #0, The oflicers went on the roof, crawied down the fire ecape and succeeded in gaining access to the room by the window, The chilé then told them that for two years it, her aunt, Mra et oe her contianally with a knotted strap. On examining t ir tele body the officers found her back, shoulders aus find hips almost completely covered with welts ‘and tho result of the brutal beatings she had received the hands of Mrs. Wolf The littic girl aiso said, in reference to her retnsing to admit the officers into the Toom, that her auut had told her if she thedoor to any ono she would kill hor. Mra, Wolf said sho did not beat the child. Justice Loeed Morgan, however, the knotted ing oll ia ehoae weer Sap produced 1m rt