The New York Herald Newspaper, March 23, 1877, Page 11

THE COURTS. The Great Whiskey Ring Suit Brought to a Sudden Close, ees DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT. Duties of Referees in Divorce Proceedings. HOLDERS OF ERIE RAILWAY BONDS, a The case of the United States against Messrs, Boyd & Hill, wholesale liquor dealers of this city, which has ari very protracted trial attracted a large amount of public attention, came to an abrupt but not wholly unexpected conclusion yesterday. The defendants, Francis 0. Boyd and Kdgar P. Hill, after the failure on the part of the government to secure convictions against alleged ‘Whiskey Riog conspirators’’ in Chi- cago and St. Louis, commenced a prosecution against the defendants in this city. Tne principal witnesses depended on by the government to secure # con- viction here were parties who had been convicted of whiskey frauds out West, but subsequently pardoned ahd brought here to testify, As reported in yesterday's HERALD two questions vitul to the cuge were presented vo the Court by defendants’ counsel—tirst, an exception to the jurisdietion of the Court, and second, that no overt act of conspiracy, as charged, bad been estab- ished against the defendants. These two points were ably argued by Generals Tracy and H. 0. Burnett tor Boyd & Hill, and as ably and persistently, if not so successfully, by Mr. Roger M. Sherman, the youthful District Attorney, on whose single shoulders the herculean task of proving the alleged conspiracy was Jyid. The questions on this turning point in the cuse were presented by defendants’ counsel at the opening ofthe court on Wednesday morning, and argument thereon closed only as late as turee o’clock yesterday, From Judge Blatcnford’s directions to the jury, given beiow, it will be seen that the prosecution utterly failed in establishing a case against the de- fendants, the Court, at the close of General Tracy’s Deief reply to Mr. Sherman, without leaving the bench, directing the jury to find a verdict for the defendants. ihe result in this case will finally determine the dis- position of some dozen or more of mailer class of Walskey cases which have been a long time pending Ainst Wholesale liquor dealers In this city. Owing to the length of e consumed in the trial, the Dorian insdes at stake and the bearing of the cas jurther prosecutions upon similar charges, the charge und directions of Judge Blatchford to the jury ure given in fall velow:— “t why as Well dispose of the question now, as m: iuind is clear and fully made up onit. Llistenod wit reat attention and interest to the different and abie presentations of the questions involved by counsel op cituer side, Frou the views 1 take of the case it is Hot necessary for me to go into all the views pre- sented by counsel, I first address myself to the con- epiracy couptof tho indictment, It is framed uoder the statute which provides that when two or moro song, With intent to deiraud the United States, di Het to effect the object ot the conspiracy alleged, all the parties to such conspiracy shall be liable to « pen- ulty of not less than $1,000 and not more than $10,000 und to imprisonment for not more than two years, Under this statute no party to a conspiracy can be con- victed of the conspiracy alleged, unless iu addition to the proof of the conspiracy alleged—which must be a conspiracy within the statute—there 18 also proof that one or more of the partics therato has done some act to effect tho object of such conspiracy. ‘The conspiracy count here allegos that the four persons named in tho indictment—Golsen, Eastman, Boyd and Hili—did, in the Southern district of New York, within the juris. diction of, this court, illegally combine, coutederat conspire and agree together—that means, with each other and with one Clurke and other parti to the jary unknown—to defraud the United States of the internal revenue tax then and there by law to be collected on aistilled spir- its on each and every proof gallon of distilled spirits—to wit, 10,000 gallons, This count goes on and contains an allegation in reference to an act done to effect the object of the conspiracy and avers that af- a atter the entering into the conspiracy and in pursuance thereof, said William S. Golsen and Francis A did cause to be removed, and did remove trom the distiliery named, to a place other thana dis- ery warehouse, to New York, within the jurisdic. large quantity of distilled spirits tax had not b iracy aud in order to effect the object thereof that Goisen & Kastman cuused to be removed and did remove from a distillery warebouse a largo quantity of distilled spirits, &o. Now 1 regurd it as entirely ciear that im addition to the proof of the conspiracy, and aseuming that there is proof to go tothe jury; that this allega- tion as to the act done in furtherance of tue conspiracy must be substantially proved as alleged, and that this has not been done, giving the utmosi effuct to the ev: dence to go beiore the jury; that the Court must oharge the jury that the evidence fails to show that Golsen & Eastman, or either of them, removed or caused to be removed any spirits trom any of the three distilleries named, either Cooper's, Morsereau’s or Powers’. This being my view of the cor y count, 1do not deom tt necessary to say anything about the other questions on the subject of the alleged cou- spiracy. Lam also clearly of opiaion that under tho second and fourth counts no evidence appears wither of removal or of the aiding and abetting in the ree moval of any spirit boyd & Hill, or them. fhe secoud count, alleges that they unlawtuilly aided and ube in the removal from a disullery in Chicavo of a large quantity of distilled spirits. Of this » © no evidence to go to the jury that etber of ¢ delendants did as alleged—ad or abet in the ri lol these spirits, either from Mersereau’s or any distill 1 am also clenriy of opinion that 'ré 18 no evidence to go to the jury as to concealment y Spirits, inasmuch as the evidence ceriainly fails culirely to" tuentity any of the spirits al- joged ‘to have been so removed and concealed. 1v seems to me, therefore, that it ix the duiy oi the Court to charge the jury that under the Jaw there 18 no evidence Whatever on which the wefendants, Boyd & Hill, can be couvicted uncer avy ot the counts in the indictment. With these views, therefore, | direct the jury to find a verdict tor the defendants on each count,”? Mr. Thomas Shieida, Cierk of the Court, then called over the names of the jury, mformed them of the d rections of the Court—that they find a verdict for the defendants, Boyd and Hill, This the jury did, and in due form Mr, Shielus recorded Wie same. Thus ended the great Whiskey Ring conspiracy prosecuuon that has occupied the Court aud jury before whom it was tried over a munth, REFEREES IN DIVORCE CASES. ‘The divorce case of John D. Sullivan against Mary Ano Sullivaa, the full facts of which have already veon Published, cume up betore Judge Freedman in the Supreme Court, Special Term, recontly, on a motion confirm the relerce’s report, giving judgment for the plaiotif. Juage Freedman yosterday rendered a very elaborate opinion, denying the motion, principally on the ground that the reference was irregular, Judge Freedman holds that there are several reasons why the motion should not prevail. No proof appears to have ever been made as to the service of the sum- mons and complaint, as required by rule 87, Notice Of appearance and retainer is not suflicient, Ho says the jous objection is that the whove reference was The defendant appeared in the action, By she denied each and every allegation con- tained in the complaint except the allegation of mar- riage. The issue thus joined must be disposed of in some way authorized by law. It can be disposed of only by trial und there are but three modes of trial— first, by jury; second, by the Court, and third, by a referee. Shey could have bad a trial by a reterec, but tnstead of — pro- curing an order directing the referee to hear and deter- mine the issues they bad an order entered requiring him simply to take proof of all the material facts set forth in the pleading and to report the same to the Court, with bis opinion thereon, This order, he holds, couferred no power to try; unless a referee has author- ity conterred upon him by a special grant for the pur- poses of each particalar case ne bas no power to ad- Judicate, bor '8 there a trial by tho Court, and to con- firm the report and award judgment thereon on a mere motion Would amount suvstanwally to a trial of the issues by the Court upon affidavits, Judge Freedman then goes on to explain thé taw, and the rules and prac tice of the Court which govern’ rolerences for the dis- position of the isu ions for divorce on the ground of adultery fle says:—“'The coae gives absolute right to a reference — pro- the parties agree writing, and 272 provides that the by referees in trial shall be conducted in the same manner and on similar notice as atrial by the Court, aud the report shal! stand ag a decision of the Court, and judgment may be section entered in the #ame manner as if tried by the Court. If an action for divorce were an ordinary action at law judgment could be entered without any applica- {ion ‘to confirm the report, but there is a broad dis. tinction between actions for divorce and all other actions which may be brought for the enforcement of & mere private right. The Court has no jrberont power to decree a divurce; whatever power 1t has is derived from statuto, Society is interested in con- tracts of marriage. Itis an inseparable incident in our civilization to the status of marriage that it cannot be dissolved at the will of ties, tt is not a contract in the full common sense of the term, bat a civil institution estab. ed for great public objects. Not only the parties but the public bave an interest In marriage and disso- lution, and growing out of this (woiold relation we have ibe doctrine rupulng surough NEW YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 1877—TRIPLE. SHEET. monial suit: Lysis ins aan Seg subserviency all other | went throngh the various stages, until finally | on payment within five days of $40 referee's fees and | milk. Part 2—Held by Judge Gildorsleeve.—The Peo- ie laws on the subject; proceeding—though upon its {nce @ controversy between the partice of record only—is, 1m fact, a triangular suit sut generis, the serene ‘or public Occupying the position of a third party without counsel, it beimg the duty of the Court to protect its iuterest& From these principles it follows that po deeree of paullity or of divorce trom bed and board or from the bonds of mutrimony ean be | entered by the Court upon she mere consent of the parties of record, because they cannot bind the pablie, There must be a complaint in due torm fo cause authorized by law, sustained by doe proof. A delault docs not, as iu other suite, supersede the necessity of proof, or i u tiff in establishing the holds that the statut, although divorce may be decreed ‘and when ‘and, though the adultery may be proven, the 80 Court may deny a decree when It appears—tirst, that the complainant coanived at or procured the offence; second, when the offence has been condoned; third, when the suit 1s bot brought within five years after discovery of the offence, aud, fourth, when Ul Plaipant is tound gouty, of adultery, The Ju it the referee's report, containing of fact and conclusions of law, mast be | brought vefore the Court, together with the evi- dence, But, on the other hand, ral does not change the requirements of tue Cod releren of the issues shall be for the purpose of hearing and determining the same, and that the trial Uetore tho referee shall be conducted in the same manoer as 4 trial by the Court. The ruio cannot abrogate the statute, nor was it ever intended that it should bave that elfect, The granting of a decree of divorce being discretionary with the Court the Court, under rule 92, simply exercises a super- vising power over trials by referee: the system inaugurated by the con the former practice in equity suits, by whicl was tuken before an examiner and not in the of the tribunal deciding tho issue, was done away with, and it is only in cases Where no issue bas been joined, or where some interlocutory question is in- volved, that a refei now allowable, Mor the finding: jasae joined to take the evidence and report the same ig irregular, though both parties appeared betore the, referee, in conclusion, Judge Freedman says that “there is but one way that I can see in which evidence errone- ously tnken after issue by a reference, pursuant to an order to that effect, can be used in an action for divorce, and that 34, that by consent of parties it may be read’ upon a subsequent trial had bdelore the Court and brought on by regular notice aud in the usual way. In such cuse it may be treated as, and it will have the force of, a conditional examination of wit- nesses belore trial. But this course must be agreed to by the parties, and thereupon the Court must try the issues und make its own findings of fact and draw its own conclusions of law therefrom. As the case stands at present I bave no alternative but to deny plaintiil’s motion for coniirmation of the report and for judg- ment thereop,’’ IMPORTANT TO BONDHOLDER: The United States brought a suit against the Erie Railway Company to recover certain taxes, alleged to be due the goverment on interost coupons paid by the company for the years 1866, 1867, 1868 and 1809 on bonds issued by it, aud to recover penalties for the failure of the company to make returng of the amount of the taxes. ‘The case was tried before Judge Blatchford in the United States District Court, without a jury, and on an agreed statement of fact, in substance as fol- jows:—Prior to September 1, 1866, the company had issued and sold sterling coupon bonds dated September 1, 1865, the principal beiug payable ten yours after date, and interest payable in London by J, S. Morgan & Co., to the amount of $800,00), After the 1st of March, 1868, and before the lst of the following sep- tember, the company issued und sold $200,000 of the same class of bonds, the principal and intorest being also payable by Morgan & Co. The tuterest on all the bonds was six per cent por annum, payable sem{-annually on the lst of March and 1st of ber of each year. The bonds, with the coupons at- tached, wero all sold directly to foreign banke: cipally’ in London, and were resold by the cusioiners in different parts of Europe, During all of the years 1866, 1867, 1568 and 1869 ail of the bonds and coupons were held and owned by non-resident aliens, with the exception of bonds umounting 10 £20,000 and the coupons thereunto belonging, which were held and owned by a citizen or citizens of the United States residing in Europe, The amount of the interest as the same fell due on all of the bonds was provided for and sent forward by tho bonacgo in one sum to Morgan & Co. before the dates when it foll duo, on which date the same was paid by their agents, Mor- gan & Co, The total amount of interest so paid trom and including September 1, 1866, to and including Sep- tember 1, 1809, was £186,000, the amount of the tax on which at the rate of five per cent amounted to £9,300. Included therein is the amount of interest paid on the £20,000 of bonds held and owned by a citizen or citi- zens of the United States, and the amount of tax thereon, such interest being £4,200 and the tax £210. Tho company made no returns to the assessor or to any other officer of the internal revenue of the United States of the payment of the imterest, or of any part thereof, nor did the company withhold any part of tho tax irom the amount of the interest, which Was paid in fullto the holders of the bonds, No assessment was ever made on the company for any portion of the tax, nor was any demaud made on the company for puy- ment to the United States until December 31, 1872, andthe company bas-not paid=to the goverutment any | penalty for failure to make return of the payment of ihe interest. Judge Blatchford yesterday, in rendering his docis- fon in the cose, sald the main question was whether the company Was liable to pay to the government the five per cent tax, being £9,000 on the £181,800 of interest. which it paid to non-resident aliens, It must be regaraed as settled in the coustraction of the statute affecting the case that whore futorest is payable by a corporation to any bondbolder who for any special Teuson 18 exempt Irom the tax on such interest then the corporation is not lable to pay such tax. The tax was held to be atax on the boadhoider in effect and in substance, the corporation being the agent of the government for collecting and paying over the tax. It was really a taxon the income of the bondhoider, and was part of the mcome tax pro- vided for by the act of 1864 and the amendments thereto. Congress, by the tax in question, bad taxed either the non-resident alten or his property out of | the jurisdiction of the United States. This was a tax on the non-resident ahens themselves, aud it was one which gould not be upheld. The government was, therefore, not entitled to recover the tax on the £151,800 Of interest which the company paid to non- resident alles or any penalty thereon. The right to recover the £210 tax ou the £4,200 of interest paid toa citizen or citizens of the United St was admitted, Mr, Roger M. Sherman appeat r the government, and Judge Wilham D. Shipman and Henry L, Burnett for the company. IMPORTA WILL CONTE: Contest was begun yesterday, bolore Surrogate Cal- vin, to the will of the late Daniel 8, Youngs, tormeriy wbutlder of this city, by his two daughters, Hannah M. Caffer and Nella Bowne, on the grounds of undue in- fluence and want of testamentary capacity. ‘The estate of the deceased consists of tour houses, valued at $150,000, By the terms of the will all of the property 18 left to the widow, subject to the condition that, if the daughters surreuder to the estate a deed otf these houses made out im their names and alleged to be in their possession, each is to recerve one-third of — the perty. It is stated im the will that when the testator was sick, in 1873, he conveyed these houses to hia daughters, but did not deliver the deed to them, and that when be re- covered he found that the deed had boen abstracted from bis desk, and, a4 he believed, by his daughters. During the lifetime of the testator proceedings were vegun for the recovery of this deed, and it is also a condition of the will that ifthe daughters do not return the deed, and the suit, which is now pending, gocs against Mem, they are disivherited. It 18 claimed by the contestants that the deed was given them by their father in hts lifetime in good faith, TAXING PERSONAL PROPERTY, John T. Hanchan, a resident of this city aud on- gazed in the business of exporting cotton, objected to taxing bis personal estate beyond $6,500, of which $4,500 was invested in railroad bends and $1,000 in household furniture, on the ground that the residue ot his estate is employed in exporting cotton, and thas no part of such votton Is sold in this country, The cage came up yesterday on a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Commissioner of Taxes and Assess ments Totusing to reduce the assexsinent of his per- pal ‘estate, It was contended by Corporation Coun- sel Whitney that the power of the State to tax prop- erty within its jurisdiction is a sovereign power essen- tial to the existence of the State, and bes no other itmitations than such us are imposed by the constitu- tion of the State and of the United States; that the ar. sessment of the tax in question Is not a reguiation of commerce within the meaning of the tedoral constitution because employed in commerce, that the power of the federal government to regulate commerce is not exclusive, aud that the tax iu controversy is not an impost or duty on exports within the meaning of the coustitution. On behall of Mr. Hanchan it was urged that to tax 4 person whose sole business is that of export products from the Untied States i eflect, jayiug an impost or duty on exports, and isin Violation of the coustitutron of the Unied States, that to tax personal estate used solely for the purchase of goods Wo be exported, if invested any me during the year for which such tax is made in yoods actually exported, or to be exported in due time, 18 doing in- directly that which is prohibited to be done directly; that 1 is simply varying the form without varying the substance, and that @ tax by State authority of money invested in products of the United States in transitu from one State to another for purposes of exportation isan interference with the regulation of commerce which Congress alone has the right to regulate. The Court took the papers, reserving 18 decision, THE VANDERBILT ERIE SUI’ Amemory of the old Erio Ratlway litigations was revived yesterday in an afgument pdefore Judges Daniels, Donohue and Lawrence, sitting in the Supreme Court, General Term, upon a motion in the well-known $5,000,000 suit brought Wy the lute Commodore Van- derbilt against the Erie Railway Company, This was one of the many suits brought duting that memorably 1874, it was argued at a General Term of the Supreme Court A decision upon this ument Was not rendered, however, until October following, there beiug two opinions, In September of the following year was giveu Sos ap Barnard’s famous order m the case, The General Term reversed the {pone of the lower court and directed a new trial, t appeared in the order as if the judgment had only been reversed on questions of law. The as to amend this order so a8 to make the of both law and tact. nd appeared for the motion and Wii dex-Judge Porter in opposition, As in August, at in ing its decision SUMMARY OF LAW CASES, - Judge Larremore yesterday entered an order open- ing the default in the case of Rdward Wilson vs, Ben- jamin Wood, on condition that the defendant appear and be examined belore trial on the 27th inst, “Judge Benedict will open the criminal branch ot the United States Circuit Court tuis morning. There are some dozen of the whiskey cases on the calendar; but it is said that it i not likely they will ever be called ‘up, in view of the dismissal of the case against Messra. Boyd and Hill, after a trial of over a month, before Judge Blatchiord yeste: '. The motion to mako the complaint more definite and Certain in the suit brought by Joseph Eastburn against Henry Colton and otbers, to recover $5,860, money Jost at defendants’ taro game, was yesterday granted in part Ae e Larremore, in the Court of Commoa Pleas. He holds that it should be specifically stated under which sections of the Gambling act suit is brought, In the suit for divorce brought by Jacob H. Theobold against his wile Matilda Theobold, for aivorce on tho ground of adultery, aod in which the full facts have already been fully published in the HaraLo, Judge Larremore, of the Court of Common Pleas, yesterday ordered 4 reference to Joseph KR, Bosworth, to take | testimony and report to the Court. Judge Sedgwick yesterday ret.dered a decision ia the case of George A. Boyer, trusiee, against Frankl Wight, which was brought to settle the title tu certain land, ' Boyer claimed title from one rice, who owned the land in 1846, The property was sold under a juag- ment, by the Sheriff, in 1847, but was redeemed by Price 1m 1848, and the defendant now claims title under the Sheriti’s deed, Judge Sedgwick hoids that the SheriM’s deed is void, and that the title is in the intitt. : ‘The trial of the suit of Klijah W. Carpenter against Caleb Nickersgn was commenced before Judge Larre- more$esterduy tn tho Special Term of the Court of Common Picas. ‘This suit is brought for au accounting of certain sales of mackerel made by the defendant for tbe plaintiff! on commission and tor the recovery ot $2,000 alleged to buve beer misappropriated by ‘the detendant. The detence is that a satis ory account- 10g was bad and that there is nothing due trom tne de- fondant. Judge Freedman, of the Superior Court, yesterday rondored a decision denying the motion made before him a few days ago to vacate the order of arrest against Henry Clows, Tho arrest was obtained ina suit brought by Henri Hennequin & Co., of Paris, against Henry Clews & Uo,, to recover back certain securities deposited with the latter firm aud which, it ged, they converted to their own use, ‘The formal order appointing Juel Parker receiver of all the assets of the New Jersey Mutual Life Insurance e was fled yesterday in the . Tho Court uppomts Wiliam Mitchell as referee and the receiver's bond is fixed at $50,000. Tho order also directs the National Capital Compauy to turn over to the receiver all tho assets of the New Jersey Company now in its possession, ‘The application tor a mandamus against the Police Commissioners, directing them to pay to Sergeant Mil- ler salary tor the to months he was on duty belore hia recent dismissal from the force, was yesterday dented by Judge Lawrence, on the ground that the remody lies 1m an action at law. termination took place yesterday in the habeas corpus proceedings which were insti- to obtain possessionof the boy Willie Martin. It pulated that all further legal proceedings should De Stayed for one year, and that during that period ‘Withe shall remain in the care of Mrs. Ira Averill, who with the child isto remain with Mrs. Martin, at Now Haven, Conn, Mr. F. F, Martin, the father of the child, to hoid fis houze open meantime to receive the wile and child ip the event of a reconciliation between bim and his wife. The firm of Stanford & Muller sold to Aarons & Miller a bill of goods amounting to $817 41, upon twenty days’ time, ich sale having been made to Jacob H. Aarons, the purchaser of Aarons & Miller, upon his repre: tion that the latter were pertectly good and would pay the bili at the ume agreed upon. The bill not being paid suit was brought by Stantord & Maller against Jacob H. Aarons, and the cuse came to trial yesterday before Judge Westbrook, holding Supreme Court, Circuit, Tne trial resulted in a verdict for the pluintif for the tullamount claimed, with an extra allowance. Messrs. C. H. Halt and Charles E, Chase appeared for the plaintitt, and Morris 8, Wise for defendant. DECISIONS. SUPREME COURT iAMBERS. By Judge Lawr: ce. Reynaud va, Scott; Pelissier vs. Dusler; Reynaud vs. Scott; Geasa va New Jersey Mutual Life Insurance Company’; Cullen vs. Redegela; Germania Lite insar- ance Company vs. Vilmar; Brilt silk Company vs, “uimeky; Luigemun vs. Lugerman and others. Granted, Burns ve, Burns,—Order granted, Valentine vs. ntine.—Order granted confirming award of arbitrators, &c. Grimmond vs. Robertson.—Notice of this applica- tion should be given to the exécutors, Haven vs. Valentine.—The names of tho affiants are not wserted in the affidavits annexed to the under- taking, The aMdavits must be veritied. By Judge Barrett. Haines vs. Koseman,--Motion granted, with $10 costs, to abide event, Haines vs. Roseman.—Motion to place cause on Special Circuit Calendar granted. = Haines vs. Rosuman.—Motion to change place of | trial denied, with $10 costs, Haines vs. Rosemnan.—Motion for security for costs granted, but without costs on motion and with stay only of trial, SUPREME COURT—SPECIAL TERM, By Judge Van Vorst. Clancy vs O'Gara et al.—Decree signed, Dambdman vs. Schulting.—Counsel will band up the findings already setticd, to enable me to pass upou the fladings now proposed. By Judge Van Brunt. McMahon vs, Joues.—Order settled and signed. GUPERIOR COURT—SPKCIAL TERM. By Jadge Freedman. Durand vs. Cunningham.—Motion denied. The Madiwon Avenue Baptist Charch vs. The Baptist Church in Oliver street. —Motion granted, Hennequin et al, vs. Clews et al—Motion denied, with $10 costs. Webster vs. Webster, aud Manning et al, va, Stern,— Orders settled. Heidenheimer counsel, vs. $50 granted. John D, Sullivan vs. Mary Ann Sullivan,—Motion deuted ; opinion. Cary'vs, Havens, et al—Motion denied, See mem- orandum. Weil vs. Fischer, ot al —Judgment for plaintift, with coats und allowance, Binney vs, Le Count,—Ordered on special calendar for April 15, 1877. Knabe vs. Enerhard.—Order denying motion with $10 costs to abide event. Bryce vs. Cainerden, et al.—Report of referee con- firmed and judgment of foreclosure and sale ordered, Caroline K, Van Meerlicke vs. Julius F. Van Meer- licke. divorce in favor of plaintiff, Parker vs, Harrison, et al.—Order dismissing justi- ficution and that sureties be disapproved with $10 cosis | | in favor of defendant. Clark vs. Tho Mutunl Benefit Ice Company.—Order restoring cause to general calendar and setting it | down for the first Monday of April, Nordyz vs. Gross, ctal.; Furst ve. Furst; Postloy Ye Dlckel; Cassidy’ va. the Mayog ke; Reitinger ve Sobn and Binney vs, Lo Count,—Sders granted. By Judgo Sedgwick. Boyco vs, Wight.—Ihe pisinuff should have judg- Ment with costs, but not an allowance, Opinion. Davis ve. The Mayor, &c.; Bookman ot al. vs, Low; Insurance Koysor, &c., vs. Kelly and the Mutual Lite Company vs. MeLwaghlin, Orders settled, COMMON PLEAS~-CHAMBERS, By Judge Kastbarn vs. Daly et al. Matter of Wittera, &o,— ition granted, ‘The National Printing Company vs. Higgins, et al. — Order signed, Matter of Herman and Bembe vs. Kohnstamm.—Ap- plications granted. Nory ve. Kancke ot al., and Paff va Paif and an- other. —Motions granted. Hanson ct al, vs. Wheen,—Motion denied, see memorandum. MeCrum vs The Patterson Fire Insurance Com- pany.—Demurrer sustained, See opinion. Jacob H. Theoboid vs. Matilaa Theobuld,—Referonce ordered to ake proof and report as to alimony and counsel fee. By Judge Robinson. Katharine Brueckel vs. Jobu Bruecko!l.—Application denied, except on proof by some other persou than the applicant tuat John Brucekel 1 still under twenty-one years of age, and upon tender of further security, as Tequired by rule 63 and in compliance with ruie 71. MARINE COURT—CHAMBERS, By Judge McAdam, Schenck va, Westerveit.--lhe plaintiff in the same pleading both replies aud demurs to the defendant's answer, This is not allowable, and the plainuf must ¢lect within six days which he will abide by, and the other will be siricken out, (S00 Wait's Code, p. 273, nove B to sec. 160.) Ten dollars costs to defendant to avide event, Fitzgibbon vs. Spear.—Judgment for plaintiff on de- murrer. Mooro vs, Cochrane.—Motion denied, without co: Bigelow vs. Solomon.— Decision indorsed oa papers, Lawrence vs, Ramsay.—Motion to compel delendant to wutisty judgmeut devied and Kdwara Jacobs ap- pointed receiver, Avorill vs Stackpole; Reed vs, Phelps, detaulter; Gregory vs. Sanford, Motion granted, McCann vs Sexton,—Costs taxed at $320 96, Bear vs. Cox,—-Order va 5 won vs, Kremer.—Motion denied; $10 costs to abide event. historic period when Colonel Fisk and othor leading magnates in the Erie Railway management bad r to flight and sought seclusion at Taylor's Hot in Jersey City, or, rather, salety from the juris- all the matri- jf Sietion vf our Biale courts, Tho Vanderbilt sue iy ve, Whitney.—Ret dorsement upon papers, Lauz vs Kisig.—A, Barton Hough appolutea re. ceiver, Reid va. Prive, —The default herein will be opencd nce ordered as per in- cases the Court took the papers, reserv- | for a commission | aries Frucke vs, Mary Frucke.—Counsel feo of Report of refereo confirmed and juagment of $10 costs of motion; otherwise deaied. The plaintift’s motion lor an allowance will be decided if the above terms aro not complied with, Merchant vs. Van Saun,—F. S$, receiver. Same vs. Same, the entry of the Ta re Baebr: be Feitner uppointed ‘The injunction will be vacated, but r thereon stayed until b 28. k.—Motion granted and stay rgued at next General Term, GENERAL SESSIONS-—PARY 1. Hefore Judgo Sutherland, | THE PENITENT MILKMEN, } When Judge Sutherland took his sedt om the bench yesterday morning his keen glance at the surround- ings must have convinced him that the lacteal con- | tests, in the firstof which—a test case—he was the patient and impartial admiuistrator of justice as b tween the contending parties bad not yot terminated. | For instance, there were present Messrs. Prentice and Hastings, counsel for the Board of Health, at whose instigation the crimina! prosecution against the sellers of adulterated milk wus begun, Equally | belligerent looking were Messrs, Lawrence and Waehner, counsel for the Milk Dealers’ Association, But aside trom these —_ legal advocates might bo noticed ball a dozen or more gentlemen with very, chalky looks, any= where inthe way of age frou) thirty-five to sixty. ‘They Were in the untortunate predicament of having | to plead to indictments charging them with selling | adulterated miik—doubtless a hurmiess fluid, but uot | at all nutritious, in what 1s known os “hard times,” | ‘The ensuing named defendants were arraigned, pleaded guilty, and were disposed of by Judge putherland as Jollows;—John River, No, 101 Willett street; Robert | Miller, No, 158 Nortolk street; John Blac! 183 | avenue A, and Louis Costa, No. 218 Monroe street. wore fined each $00. David Hamilton, No. 1,414 Sec- ond avenue, was tined $10, | THE VALUE OF A BETTER HALY, | Benedict Hotman, of No. 33 Ridge street, not wishing | to plead guilty, faced the storm and took his seat for trial, The indictment was the same as in the other cases, the complainant being Dr. J. B. White, Assistant Sanitary Inspector, Alter some testimony on both sides as to the quality of the milk, it Was sliown to the satisfaction of the jury that the defendant's wife was | the owner of the establishment in which was found tho alleged adulterated milk, and he was accordingly | acquitted. acated | and cause PLEAS AND SENTE! I. Assistant District Attorney Gell called to the bar the | following prisoners, who, having pleaded guilty, were | sontenced as follows:—KFrank Whitemore, of No, 61 | Sullivan street, charged with stealing a silk handker- | chiet trom Emma Riggin, No. 613 West twenty-second street, was sont to the State Prison for eighteca months, and William, Kenuedy, who stole a leather card case from 3. C, Snow, of No, 120 Filth avenue, was Sentenced to two years’ Imprisonment GENERAL : ONS—PART 2, Bolore Judge Gildersieove, THE DIAMOND BONANZA, With the characteristic coolness of an experienced AurgeoD about to perform a severe operation Assistant District Attorney Lyon proceeded yesterday morning to cross-examine Colonel William F.tz Charles McCarty, now on trial for complicity im the robbery of somo $15,000 worth of diamonds on the 27th of Junuary last. The court room was crowded, and ag the accused resumed his seat upon tho wit ness stand his appearance attracted gencral attention, He was playful with his right hand glove, and although presenting an attractive presence seemed to bo uneasy in his position, preserving withal a kindly expression. Wiihout much ado Judge Gildersiceve ordered the case to proceed, ‘To the cagual observer it might have appeared that Mr. Lyon, the prosecuting counsel, was struck by the cap- tivating deportment of the witness, trom. the gentle | manner in which he opened the attuck. As a general Tule, however, it is unwise to judge from appearances, To the mild tnquiries of the prosecuting counsel the witness stated that he was a Virginian, and while a youth went to Texas and lived in affluence until the breaking out of the war, in the #tirrmg scenes of which he was engaged to ‘the end of that lamentable event. Ho then returned to Texas and engaged io the marine insurance business with Mr. A. P. Hun i Galveston, who, however, lost a great deal of mon speculating in wrecked vessels, After getting tho wii- ness thus fairly started Mr. Lyon rather suddenly ai- rected his inquiries first as to the domestic relations of the witness, then as to his several trips to Englacd, | then as to his whereabouts between times; hie busine: abroad, his 1acome and how he obtained it, his specu- Jations, the extent of his estate in ‘Texas, bis | many negotiations with the business men of Engiand—im fuct, in overbauling the statements | mm the last mentioned respects made by the accused ou the previous day Mr. Lyon proved a Tartar: for, Vesides declining to respond to many severo home thrusts, the witness took occasion to cull the prosecut- ing oflicer to uccount, Judge Gilderslceve kindly 1n- ructed the witness to the effect that he need not an- swer woy question when objected to by his counsel until it should be raled upon Md the Court, and that the law gave him the privilege of declining to answer any interrogatory that might tend to crimi- | nate or degrate him. For a while this generous admonition seemed to have itseffect; but when Mr. | Lyea renewed his attweck the tomper of the witness | again asserted itself, and when questioned as to tho broad acres of Texas which ho ciaimed to possess, and in reference to which numerous parchment roll drawn up with ail the ornamentation und style chara teristic of the English serivener, were exhibited tho | day previous, the witness, iailing to sce what these | elaborate documents had to do with the issue at stake, refused Lo gratily the counsel for the people with the desired informauion, Tho counsel, again repeating his | interrogation, asked the witness whether he | | had a litte Emma Mine or a Venezuela goid | | mine, to which Colonel McCarty replied that he bad a brass mine, “Ob no, sir,’’ quietly observed the counsel, “you don’t necd that,” at whieh remark a | universal simile pervaded the court room. During all these episodes Judge G. M. Curtis, the earnest and Vigilant counsel for the accuzed, calmly eurveyed the | scene, and Napoleon-like waited for his opportunity | | to rush to the rescue, He suggested to bis occasion- | | f. ally warm-blooded client to preserve bis temper, and | although the latter bowed witn graceful submission the raking fire maintained by the enemy was ofventines productive of rashness and defiance. Mr. Lyon still persisting in his auetuous method, the witness showed a letter of credit for £10,000 from Mr. White of Queen Victoria street. He wanted to draw £200 upon it, and gave it to Mr. Hook, # broker aud general nego- | tintor, of No. 229 Broudway, but who, since his arrest, | had done nothing iu the matter, Indeed, his arrest hand. Witness claimed to own and have an interest | in 184,000 acres of Texas lands. He w mitted to a very eubtle and searchin | to the contracts he had made in Kng! to the Texas property, and the witness in response invariably referred to bis documents as furnishing | the desired information. In conc!usion the witness | almost reiterated his narrative of the diamond transac. | Gon as told in reply to his counsel, Judge Curus, on | Wednesday, At the conciusion of the crose-examiua- | tion Judge Curtis apps to the Court on behalf of the accused, stating that he again sub- Xamination ng | Assistant District Attorney, and that under advil was willing to respond, The questions the accused ined to answer were then read to him, which he And the farther hearing of the case Was until this morning. he adjourne cou 5—THIS DAY. Held by Jad WL, 147, Lol, 240, 26 | rence.—-Nos, 1, 2, 3, 180, 196, 198, 206, » Tent—Held by Judges Dicis. —) OL, 58, 4G, 5, 7, 17, Olay bo My O89, 'kuM—Held by Judge 104, wit—Part 1 os, S047, Hela by Judge 5, 4003, 4617, ar old by Judge Dono- 2168, 4154, S108, 4207, 4192, 4204, 4468, 28, 4280, 1100," 4288, 4408, 4 , 3086, 4602," 4632, 5760, 1a. 2, 1862, by Judge West 4567, 4619, 4451, $4031, 4429, 4283, Commoy’ Punas—Tiian Teem—Part 1—Held by Judge | Rebinson,—Ove hour causes, 725, 1507, 1408, | , 1207, 1099, 1469, 1467, 1474, 1 588, 1619, 1588, | ; L449, 1615, 1529, 1490, 1493, 1 | 1601} 1508, | Surenion Cockt—Trial Tx I—Hold py Judge Van Vorst. 475, 370, 3 072, 620, 1177, 758, 672, 67%, 743, B14 683, 866, 948, 629, OV, "784, ‘751, 754, , 482, 244, TI, | SureRion Covrt—Srxciat Tenm—Hold by Judge Froodinan.—No day calendur, | one. t 1—Hold by Jud go Sipnow—Short cause: 006, S081, 9049, 9242, $705, 9210, 256, , 9243, 7507, 9216, 67%, 9002 Part. 2—Held by Judge Goepp—Short causes, —Nos. 8376, 9165, 8821, 8433, 9058, V1U1, 7806, 9155, 9062, 9063,’ 9191, 9190, 9143, 9145, 9102, 9218, 9156, 9196,'9177, 9217, "9149, ' 6997,” 7702, 9484, 7155, | 0203, 7643, 8867, 928 Part %—Held by ‘Judge Shea. © on, No, No day calendar, Surexion Court—Gryenat Term; Ser TRIAL TeRM—Parts 2 and 3 Tena; Common Pixas— Pieas—Triat, Trem—Purts 2 and Adjourned tor the term. Count ov Gesunat Sessions—Part 1—Held by Judgo Sutnerland.—The People va, Andrew Moore, manslaugh- ter; Same vs. Lorens Kunengi elonious assault and battery; Saine vs, George Carroll, assault and battery ; Samo ¥s. Ferdinand Anton, felonious assault and bat Same vs. James P. Morris, burglary; Same vs, 1 Donnelly, burgiary; Same vs. John Hogan, | grand larcony; Sime va Jolin O'Neti, grand larceny; Same vs William Cooper, burglar’s ‘tools; Same vs, John Koster, adultorating, milk; Same vi Tens, and Common Priuge, adultorating milk; Jona terating milk; obn Ferling, adult milk; Same va, John Spatte, adalterating miik va. Christian Finkinan, aduiterating milk Peter, adulterating milk; Same va Jobo Keto, adui- | of his intention to move for a new trial, | bad puta temporary stop to several negotiations on | H Mayer.—Seo memorandum for | din reterenco | ad private reasons for not | answering the questions propounded to bim by the | ple va, William F, C. McCarthy (continued), grand lur- weeny. TARDY EXECUTORS. Motion to set aside am execution granted against thi executors of the estate of Nathan ©. Matt, on the ground that it was issuoll without the ieave of the Sur- | rogate, was made in bebalf of Aaron A. Dograw, In the | Supreme Court, Kings couuty, yesterday, Nathan C, Piatt, who was for several years engaged in the Jewelry business inthis eity, with — his brother George Platt, died in 1863, leaving an estate valued at between $400,000 and $500,000. The executors sued George, alleging that he had exercised undue influence iy controlling the disposition of the property of Nathan while tho latter was sick, recovered a judgment of over $200,000, A certificate of an execuior was produced yesterday in support of the motion stating that no funds were in the bands of the executors, Lt was stated by the plaintif’s counsel attorney for the executors, had be legal services up to January 3, 1 ecutors were insolvent and app) that Mr. Martin, a paid $44,659 97 for and that the ex+ oriating the funds, rd the ceived $150,000, not one cent having ever reac creditors. Although the testator died thirtee ago there had been no accounting. Counsel for the executors denied the allegations und argued that the application ought to go beture the Surrogate. Decision reserved, A TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR VERDICT, Julius F, Cheesbrougb sued the North Sceond Street County Supreme Court, before Judze Gilbert and a Jury, to recover $15,000, boing the amount of cortils cates of the company which the latter bad refused to deem. The jury rendered a verdict in tho sum of $10,000 for the plaintif, MRS. FERCHLAND VINDICATED, ‘The jury in the case of Dr. Charles Ferchland agurnst his wile, ristine Ferchland, for divorce on the ground of adultery, which was tried in the Brooklyn City Court, before Justice Neilson, agreed upon a ver- dict atan carly hour yesterday :norning, which was brought im sealed and opened by the Court, The ver- dict entirely arquitted Mrs. Ferchland of the charges, Ex-Judge Morris, counsel tor the plaintiff, gave notice she claimed to be in possession of additional evidence, COURT OF APPEALS. Aunayy, March 22, 1877. Present—Hon, Sanford E. Church, Chief Justice, and associates. No. . Samuel J. Thursby, appellant, vs. William V. Lidgerwood, respondent.—Argued by Walter 8, Logan tor appellant; submitted for respondent, No. 232. Javez Elverson und others, respondents, vs. Jacob Vanderpoel, appellant. —Argued by De Witt ©. Brown for appellant and Albert Stickney tor ro- spendents, No, 433, Bertha Cahan, appellant, vs. William R, “Grat,”? receiver of the Continental Life Insurance Company, respondent.—Argued by samuel Hand and Louis Sanders for appellant and Coudert Brothers for the respondent, No, 234. John C, Rust, respondent, vs. Charles Han- sell and others, appeliants.—Argued by Louis Sanders for appellant and Joseph M. Dixon tor respondent, CALENDAR. ‘The following ts the day calendar for Friday, March 23:—Nos, 130, 237, 239, 241, 242, 243, 246, 250. THE EVIL SPIRIT A WOMAN SAW AT HER HUS- BAND'S FUNERAL—SINGULAR BLANDER SUIT— HOW THK HEATH FAMILY LITIGATED AND CONSPIRED, ‘+A suit more complex and painful in its characte: romarked one gentleman to avother yesterday, think I never witnessed in the courts.”” “It certainly is very unusual,’’ remarked the gentle- man addressed, “Jor a daughter to appear in the courts a8 @ suitor against her mother, particularly when the charges, as shown by tho testimony, present such peculiarly revolting features as in the trial just finished.” ‘The first gentleman quoted is certainly correct as to the complex charactor of the suit, and it requires somo preliminary explanation to make the matter in- telligible. For a good many years L. ©. Heath kept a store for the sale of Jadiea’ patterns at No. 316 Grand street, He was 4 married man, and had one daughter and only child, named Kmma J. Heath, In his employ, as clerk and galeswoman, was’ Sophronia Moody, The business wasa profitable one, and Mr, Heath became possessed of considerable real estate in this city, Brooklyn and New Jersey. Miss Moody lived the position in the Heath houschold of housekeeper and companion for Mrs, Heath, Finally, Miss Moody became proprietress of the Grand street store, which position she still occupies, and meantime Mr, Heath turned his attention to real ostate matters, About three years ugo Mr. Heath died, A STRANGH FUNERAL SCENE. Thero was a Jarge attendance at Mr. Heath's funeral, he having a wide circle of acquaintances, and accordipg vo allaccounts being held by them in bigh respect, Miss Moody was oue of the attcudants at the funcral, Mra Heath 1s represented as having been very much incensed at Mise Moody hav at the obgequies, “hero is my devil!?? she 1s said to have remarked during the ceremonies, pointing ont Miss Moody, and to have repeated the observation us she was subsequently riding with her daughter and son-in-law in acarriage following the hearse containing the remuing of Mr. Howth, which were being couveyed to, their final resting place. MRS. HEATH IN A LUNATIC ASYLUM, Circumstances anterior to the funeral served to throw a little | on the peculiarly trate remark mado by Mra Heath in regard to Miss Moody Miss Heath bad, some time betoro ber father's rried Dr. Sumner Mason, Mrs. Heath al- that her busband, some time previous to the daughter’s marriage, formed @ liaison with Miss Moody, while the latter was living at their house, and that the result of such alleged criminal imtimacy ‘1s @ girl, now known by the name of Carrie Manners, and living in Division strect, a child, by the way, alleged to bear in {is features a striking resembiance to both Miss Moody and Mr. Heath. Between Mr. Heath, Miss Moody and Mrs. Dr. Mason, it is charged by Mrs, ath that a conspiracy was formed to deprive her of y, of which she owned a good deal in her nd thatthe result of this conspiracy wits her propel own right, her Incarceratic tic asylum at Trenton, N. J. QUARRFLLING OVER PROPERTY. Following her discharge from, the Junatic asylum, | aud subsequent to her husband's death, she having about two years later married one John Liboy, a suit | was brought against her by her daughter to obtain p | session of property which (he latter claimed belot | to her father, a as sole heir, she hada just title, This suit is now pending m the Supreme Court, SUIT Fon ‘The case on trial yesterday belore Judgo Donohue, holding Supreme Court, Crreu't, $2 damages for alleged slander, the plrintil im Unis. a and M Mre, Heath, the defendant, aithe atter clanns that the réal parties proseeutin it were Dr, Mason and his wife, Miss Moody, who chums to be « maiden lady of sixty-three summers, brings the suit to punish the defondant for her statements, charging ber | With amproper intimacy with her tormer husband, and at Mixs Moody ap) Libby, formerly j with having given birth to an illegitimate child, all of which sho denies, Mrs liboy is & | wi about sixty-five yours of me, and ap- | pea in court accompanied by her husband. § iressed in sombre colors, and altogether & very matronly and dignitied too lady | daughter, Mrs Dr. Mason, was also present, atte’ by her husband, the Doctor, Mra Mason’ is of the | vlonde style of beuuty, and wore arich black velvet | cloak, trimmed with fur, A wealth of laxariant curis | hung down her shoulders. During most of the | coodings ber husband, who #at next to her, be | arm teederly around her, Between the mothor and | daughter and son-in-law there passed nition, There was quite & number of other ladies in court, friends of the respective parties, Mr, Miller appoared for Miss Moody and Mossrs, William A, Beach and Chauncy B, Ripley tor M bby. A DAUGHTEIUS STORY. Mrs, Mason was liret catied to the witness stand, Sho took her seat with easy noncbalance and answered the queations put (o ber with wo exbrbition of embur- rassment. After reciting a poruon of the story given above she told more io detail what occurred at her father’s funeral, in August, 1873, Sho remembered very vividly what her mother said while riding in tho carriage to the grave, “What did your mother say!" asked the counsel, “She expressed herself as very indignant at Miss | Mody for coming to the funeral.’* “Do you remember her language?” here goos my devil!; 1 remember her saying that.’” “Can't you recall anything else sho said??? “She spoke of Miss Moody’s child, and sald she pre- sumed that Miss Moody Would want the child to come into some of the property.”” A SON-INLAW'S STATEMENT, Dr, Mason went through the ordeal of an examina- tion with as much apparent oase as if he were dissect. ing a dead body, He said he rode in the same carriaye with Mrs, Libby and bis wife on the day ot M funeral, aud corrobora what Mrs. Libby a ther, that Mra. 1 Moody's ebtid, the hor first husband. Ho asked her if she bad any evi- dence that the child was Heath's child, and sbe said, “Yes, the evidence of its looks, A BOARDER IN THK FAMILY, Mr. Warren 8. Crook, Mrs. Mary Crook and Mre, Ellzabeth Lowenthal were next calied as witnesses for the plainud, The last witness wi boarder at Dr, Mason’s, in Lexington avenue, said that Mrs, Libby told her about the imtimacy existing between Mr. Heath and Miss Moody, and told atout Mise Lg dd ag and described its strong resemblance to f. Heath, aternity of whieh she charged of ‘ HOW THE CASK ENDED. No testimony Was offered on the part of tho defence, A motion made to dismiss the complaint waa denied, altor which the counsel proceeded to sum up. Mr. George Newler, aduiterating milk; Same va. Deittriea Verasing mik; Same vs, Kovert H. Audry, aduiterating Beach was particularly severo on the son-in-law, and and that they had already, or thei attorneys bad, re- | and Middte Village Ratlroad Company, in the Kings | “THERE GOES MY DEVIL." | with Mr. Heath and his family, und, as stated, filled | | They | put in an appearance | did not speak im very complimentary terms of Mi Magon, charging them both with retailing confident ubter: that never oaght to have been repeated outside of the house, Mr. Miler followed, Ragectikir te ringing of the sutt aud claiming that the plain! to the damages asked for im her com Short time, and brought jor tho plaiutitf, FAT RENDERIN NCE, THE BOSBD OF ALDERMEN APPEALED TO, The Aldermanic Committee on Polico and Health, consisting of Mossre, Koenun, Guntzer and Morris, yesorday heard a number ef property owvers in op: position to the continuance of a tat rendering estab: lishment at Forty-ninth street and Eloventh avenue, Compianis were made that this establiohinent was de- cidedly unhealthy, enusing sickness in the neighbors hood, and that the odors | herefrom were unhealthy. Dr, N. C. Husted, of No. 301 West Forty-second street, ga a certificate a3 to the foul Vapors and gases emanating irom the establishment, which mightatany time cause mended (8 iinmediate removal, inants stated they bad become P could not receive any sutisiaction, Atderman Keenan, Chairman of the committee, promiged that he and bit colleagues would look into tue matter and report at the next meeting of ibe Board. It must be recollected that the Aldernien have no power whatever in the Premises, but tt 1s proposed that they should paas ares: cintion requesting the Health Department to take some action in the mutter, REAL ES'PAT Five parceis were sold by auction yesterday at the Reul Estate Sulesrooms, No, 111 Broadway, the aggre- © amount being $71,300, Those by Mr. Ken- nelly, it will be seen by @ reterence to the tablo below, were made by order of Mr. Best, tho receiver of the defunct Mechanics and ‘Traders’ Savings Bank. This sale was made im the presence of many victims of the bank, and it attracted unusual attention, It was stated by one of the victims of the defunct bank that the lot was worth $15,000 and that the building cost tn construction $5%,00u, which makes the total vaiue of the property yesterday sold to Meyer Finn tor $27,500 worth $74,000, THE BALES LIAM KENNELLY. ng Court, W i ny Wi know Bank” (No, ieing al fOr... rocoiver, in . with lot 4y., on 45th ot, to Fred . steyaiserssedsntacsens . 10,000 BY JOHN T. HO¥D. Foreclosuce aale (T. refereo) of the building, with lot t No. O08” Powel ots. tod. J. Schall, plaincif, 1 s+ 11,250 w eleven yours’ I Jand 60x, 2d wy., to B. BY WoW. LEAN, Foreciosure sale (A. TI, Kirchies, re! house and lot 108, east 14th wt., ft. &. of Ist av., to Jacob Carmel, for.. Total sales for the day.......... HAN 28th st, mon, LIRA ft. @. of Bd av., 7 Murks aud wife to Sieve! Bernhard. rine Ate, We, 72 $XU8.0; same to ° Ist ay ais to sine sss. Madison av. “Surah E 4 arriet smi Mh wt., 265x100; M w. 5.5 tt. k vern an! wite to Jane MeNully, . ‘Oth ay he, TO the GUtN at. Martin und wife to Michael Fitzsimmons. + Nom. 2d av, #. w. corner 111th st. Ixd0, A. BL Fiteh, releree, tv Charles 8, Loper | 10,000 50.9 tt. §. of BUxM, WL Noxscr. hela by ber, trustees for be I Vompany, was cancelled in the Register's ofice, monraacys. Byron, Josophine and husband, to Mary E, Nulbert, n. 8. Of 40th xt w 5 years " John and wife Cunnin hi of Henry at. 6. of Scamme! 4 wife to Willlam P. Parson Hen; yours Harris, Philip and wite, to Bowery Savings §. OF Bd AV, 4 OL SOLE MEE DORE sce cae : 6,000 Livingston, Eliza and husband, to ‘Kilzabeth Sorts, s,s. of 18th st... w, of Bd av: Lyeur...., 2 1,000 Same to John Hefner, s,s, of 16th st, av. ; 1 year... and ‘wits, to dav. n. of Sith st Michael, to Johi thst, @. of Sth nv. RGLARS CAPTURED, At the Tombs Court, yesterday, Alexander Bried and Charles Oakley were charged with attempted bur- glary by Officer Monaghan, of the Fourth precinct, | The oflicer found tho prisoners endeavoring to torca n for twenty-two months ia the lana. | ! GpeAto “retin x took of recog. | an entrance into the store No, 487 Pearl street, at a 6 bour the night previous, They were held in each. PATRICK, FORMERLY OF STEUNEY. sland, ov his children or their personal rep” co, that, purstant to a urtot Middiesex, in Kngland, made intitt, and NO GhOL Middlesex, nitty teen @, that if you, a eiuins to share in thee as her next of kin 1s! d prove suet ptorily excluded the teh will be February, 17 PROPOSALS. KMILWAY * COMPANY” of Canwda ‘Tenders tor Coul. ers are invited for ths f Hroqutced by his the period of nay ain Cu nde, duriy more or lens, qual monthly ine free of ull coarges nud eon as Kuiall be ted owt by the about 1.000 tom o be do all extraneous substan en of not leas than one quarter . ments will be i. Interest with, Joan cash or by notes at short dates, the month following the delivery name or kind of eoal © for Steam ¢ al parts the al," for the above Jf not less than Tho company do not bind thomselves to accept the lowest or any tender. _JHOKSON, General Manager, Le D PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED BY THB , w York and Hrookiyn Bridge, at thelr otter, Water st, Brooklyn, antl Taesda: 27th I tor lowering buildings wud covering them with fee pr roots. Plans and specifications can be seen at the office, Total e708 ot roots, BRODY egnann Up W. A. KOEBLING, Chief Engineer. “WANTED ‘TO PURCHASE. WELL ESTABLISHBD DRUG STORE, ADDRESS JA with/tuil particuiurs, 0. 8, box 11% Herald office. STURTEVANT EXIAUST FP AXA oF 5; also three oF four gos KALD ANTED TO PUR uum Pan, either seco dininetor. Addeens 0. 1, lowest ensh price and 1 PPERY hand or new, from 8 to 10 tect Post Oftice Vox 4,016, stating tietlars. A Lo WATTERBON boing for turni pianos, bagange, & moved In the eity or to the country: JU years’ experiences Twentiure boxed for shipping. Uitive, 209 West 40th st, eure ner of 7th w EW STORAGE WAREHOUSES, Tod, 74 STE av. corner 44th st. for furniture; for carriages, & ke, eri SMITH & SILL BILLIARDS, SOND WAND HILLIARD TALES TS al to new, at vory low prices, i, We . Proprietors. _ MERICAN STANDARD BEVRL BILLIARD TABLES, with Deluney’s wire cushions, indorsed by all lendin rolersional players; extra inducements now offered ; s¢ i great bargains, W. H, GRIFFITH & OO, (LOSING OUT ALL OF OOl SROOND HAND J Billiard Tables very low; now Tablox a6 surprising lige ures. L. DECKER & CO,, 726 Broadway, Nex, AND SECOND HAND BILLIARD TABLES AP | IN ware tow ries. LORGE EB, PHELAN, 36th at, aud 10th ay