The New York Herald Newspaper, December 7, 1878, Page 8

8 ee THE GOOCH BABY. | 1 Sir Francis Willing to For- give His Wife. HIS CASE PROVEN. mits Everything. . {From the London Standard.} at Marlborough Street Police Court, before Mr. Newton, Annie Louisa Lady Gooch and Ann Walker again appeared on Saturday, November 23, to answer to a summons charging them with having, a the Grosvenor Hotel, conspired to palm off on Sir Francis Gooch as his own child a strange child, with intent to detraud and deceive. Mr. George Lewis, Jv., appeared on behalf of Sir Francis Gooch; Mr. Edward Clarke for Lady Gooch and Mr, Poland watched the case for Ellen Emily, widow of the elder brother of Sir F. Gooch aud now the wife of Dr. Gream. Mr. Teevan, surgeon, Chesham place, said that on Tuesday afternoon, October 29, he went to the Gror- venor Hotel at the request of Sir F. Gooch’s solicitor; Miss Garrod took him to Lady Gooch’s room—be had previously received a communication upon the mat- ter—and there he saw a male child, which he found to be more than a fortnight old; the defendant was im bed with the infant and Mrs. Walker was in the toom, which was very dark; Lady Gooch said she had been confined a few days before, but she would rather pot say how many days, as she wished it to appear that the child was born at three o'clock that morning; witness said, ‘What, with that child ?”” and she replied, “Yes;’" whereupon witness observed that the child was more than 8 fort- night old; the ,defendant said as witness knew too much he bad better know all; she was estranged from her husband, had lost her own child about four years before, was very anxious to be re- stored to her husband's affection and had made up her mind to adopt or procure (wituess was not certain of the word) another child; she now wanted a wet nurse for the child; witness ascertained on personal examination, made with defendant's permission, that | she had not been recently confined; she also stated that she had obtained the child the day before, that it was the child of a lady who had escaped from school and had been confined at Peckham, and that Mrs. Walker had very cleverly brought the child into the hotel wrapped up in a cloak on the previous even- img: Lady Gooch said, in answer to witness’ question, that she was quite well, and, as be had nothing to prescribe, he lett the room. FIXING THE DATE. Mrs. Jane Dean Main was then cailed and examined by Mr. Lewis. She said:—I reside at Arunde! House, Ladbroke-read, Notting Hill. Q. What is your position in connection with this home in Great Coram street? A. Sixteen years ago I commenced it; I call it Main’s Howe; I was at the home on Monday, 28th October, Q. On that occasion was a male child handed to Lady Gooch and Mrs. Walker? A. It was, Q. Where was that child born? A, At Peckham. Q. Tellus the name of the mother? A. I would rather not. Mr. Lewis—Write it down, Wituess—I would rather not now, as I have consid- ered my position; Iam not bound’ in my position to tell out anything. By Mr. Newton—I have rescued many hundreds of @hiidren who have now kind homes. Mr. Newton—Is this child a rescue? Witness—It is. $ Has the child been baptized? A. No. . Has it been registered? A. Yes. Q. Where has it beon registered? A. In the neigh- horhood of Peckbam, I presume; I can ascertain. Mr, Lewis—Do you know the mother? Witness—Yes. Q. And her name? A. Yes. . Was the child brought to the home in conse- aoe of a communication you made to the mother? e8. Q. By what name did you know Lady Gooch? A. By the name of Mrs. Gooch. Q. Did you know where she lived? A. [knew she was staying at the Grosvenor Hotel; I did not know any private residence; I did pot ask her who her hus- was; Ionly asked if there were means to sup- port the child, Q. When did you first sec her? A. In August. Q. What did she say? A, She said she had lost a poe aud wanted another; she did not ask for a male child, Q. What did you tell her? A. I told her that I had had a great many children adopted and that I hud known huppiness being brought into homes in con- ‘Sequence; and she replied that she was very toud of children and did not care whether the child was a male or femule. VISITS TO THE HOME. Q. "When did she come again? A. Two or three pp afterward; she then came on the same business. . Did she give you any address in London when you Gretsaw her? A. Yes; the Grosvenor Hotei. Q. That was im August. A. Yes, I think so. ¥ Have you ever known any other address as that of Gooch? A. No. Q. Not Ogie’s Hotel? A, No, @. You say you had a second interview with her? after the first. e then callfor? A. She came to see . When did you see her again after August? A. I hhave made a mistake; the matron saw her then; it must bave been in October that I saw her. Q. You had several interviews with her? A, Yes, Q. When did you first inform her about this par- ticular child? A. Icould not tell you at which in- terview it was, but in one of our conversations I told Der that [ had @ child for adoption, Q Was the child then born? A. It was. ¥ ou at any time ask fo see the husband of A. I did not egk to see him, but Tasked Lady Gooch’s Lawyer Ad- about him Q. And what did Lady Gooch say? A. She said he Was away. Q. Did she say where? yachting. Q. Did she at any time say anything about his for- tune? A. No, siz, notHing. pi, * Had you any letters from her on the subject ? . None. Q. Did you at any time before this case know who she really was? A. No. Q. Did i ask for any reference? A. I should have asked had it not been—— Q. Did you ask? A, No; [did not. q. Did you take any receipt from her,for the child? A. on _ Q. Is there any entry in your book as to the sdop- toh of the child? Yen, 1 believe vo. (The book was produced.) No ENTRY. Lewis examined the book, but could not find any eptry of the vame of Gooch. Witnes»—i am not quite sure if it is entered, Mr. Newton—Who keeps it? Witness—It is part of ‘the books of the establish- ment. Mr. Lewis—I cannot find the entry. Witness—it is an omission if it is not done, (The magistrate here examined the book.) Mr. Lewis (to Mr. Newton)—You see the column headed “Destination,” Mr. Newton—We usust have the person here who wxtors up this book. Mr. Lewis—You will see the namo of Mr dors no ar. eaiesiin A. On the Continent or Witne hen it mnst be a mistake of mine. Mr. Lewis—There certainly is no entry im the regis- ter, Then there is u: ument at ali to show this transaction? Witness—No; T never ha b Q. Do you know Mrs. Walker? A. Yea. Q. Is she a monthly nurse? A, L don't know, . Do you not k t she got her living as a ly nurse? A. No; she had children to purse Q. Did you mention Mrs. Gooch? A. baby. ‘aiker's name to Lady [recommended her to take care of the Q. When was that? Q. Was Lady Gooe! with sent for Mrs. Walker, knowing she was a ver: person and capable of takiny | *Q. Incommunication with Lady Gooch had you | sort of ides that any mor niacaent was going me ve yone through? A. No s was amid te be to tell hild. ter the adoption? A. She did not say. (r. u—Was any money paid tor the ebiid? Witness—-No. Q. Nowe? A. Ne Q. Did you r to sach am id iusband that she A. No, had LY CHANGED HA¥DB, wive any money with the child? . No. Q. Did Lady Gooch give you any money ? A. She wave, we £8 fox the institntion, but no money for the ehild. Mr. Lewis—Was that nu annual subscription or a douation ? Witnoss—I could not say whether she said it was to be wy sunual subscription. ie aay money promised to the institution ? a @. Not for the bavy ? Qe Mer to the mot A. No, #ir. Crose-exayiined by Me. Clarke—-When £3 wan given ‘was given in an ordinary way a6 @ subscription to institution? A. Just so the ordinary way e ch—thnat it did’ You say the name was naiwes of young wow ana who are sent to be | pointed by the Momey dot every one that comes at the Home, There ave « large number of young | women. Mr, Newton—Are We not travelling out of the record? Mr, Clarke—Was the omission at the request of Mins Garrod? A. No, sit. Mr. Newtun—It seems that any one who asks for a | | Which had be | vented it bein ‘NEW YORK HERALD, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1878=TRIPLE SHEET, i Lt JUDGE PINCKNRY’S EXAMINATION, t quiry ? “"Witness-—I told you a party eame @. You deu’t tell ns who the par Garrod. A Q. You gave the child up without any questions ? A. T asked 4 great many questions, Mr. Clarke—You never had an interview with Miss Garrod ? Witness—No; she had an interview with my matron, in whom I had the most implicit confidence, Q, You said there was an explanation of not asking for reference? A. Because Miss Garrod came. Q. Did you know Miss Garrod? A. No. Q. Or her name? A. I did not; 1 had a conversa- tion with Lady Gooch that [ thought was suflicient; it was not done in a careless way a a)l. Q. Did Lady Gooch ever ask you to keep ber name secret? A, Never. HAD THR BABY CLOTHES? entered h? ALT Q. With regard to this donation, would it be asadonation from Lady Gooch—Mrs. Gooch? ot know she was Lady Gooch ; I did not ask for it; she volunteered to give it. Q. How long have you known Mrs, Walker? Three or four years. Q. You have employed Mrs. Walker from time to time? A. Yes. ." Is she, to your knowledge, a respectable person? A. Very respectacle; I only told ber that she was wanted to take charge of the infant she saw, as a lady had adopted it. Q. What name did you say to her? A. ‘That was all, except that 1 suid she was ‘to have five guineas a wonih, Q. Did you tell her that she seemed to be a lady who had taken the child? A. Yes, and that 1 thought she would be very comfortable, I hoped she would take care of the child, Q. Had the five guineas been mentioned between you and Lady Gooch before? A. 1 do not know. Five guineas a month would be the ordinary sum. Q. By whom were the infant's clothes to be washed? A. By some person I knew. Q. How was she to get the clothes? A. By going to the Grosvenor Hotel. By Mr. Newton—I believe the lady told me she had baby clothes, Q. Was the only reason you spoke of a certain wounan that you were interested in her? A. It was. Q. Lunderstand that Lady Gooch told you she did not mind whether it was a girlora boy ? A. Yes. Mr. Newton—When was. i? A. In October. Q. Did Lady Gooch ever go to your private house ? A. Yes. Q. How often ? A. About six times, near the be- ginning of October. i‘ r Lewis—She was with you almost every day ? A. No, 4 Did she at no time say the child must be a boy ? A. No; she said down to the end that she did not mind if it was a girl; I told her I had a boy. Q. At what time in the day was the child handed over? A. About five o’clock in the evening Lady Gooch came to see the child, but it was not till between eight and nine in the evening that it was taken. . Did you give any instructions that the child should not be taken to the hotel till half-past ten in the evening? A. No. Q. Did you know that the child was a fortnight old? A. Yes, I had known it from its birtn. A CHAMBERMAID SPEAKS. Mrs. Russell, head chambermaid at the Grosvenor Hotel, said:—My business took me to the rooms of the lady I knew as Mrs. Gooch. . Q. When did you first see Mrs, Walker? A. On the morning of the 28th of October; I took up some tea. Q. What did she say? A. She said the lady had been confined at three in the morning, wud she or- dered me to bring up acan of hot water; I handed it inside the room she fetched it from me. Q. When was it that she told you the lady had been confined? A. After I took up the tea, Q. Could you see into theroom? A. No; it was very dark. $ Did you hear the baby? A. Yes. ( . Did it ery loudly? A. Yes. |. Did she order anything for the Indy? A. Yes, some gruel; I took c: up at night. Q. Did Mrs. Walker at that time tell you anything about the baby? A. Nothing. Q. Were you under the impression that a confine- ment had taken place? A. Yes. Mr. Clarke—Lady Gooch had been there for some days previously? ‘itness—Yes, for two or three days. Q. You saw her going out and in? A. Yes; but I took so little notice of that I would not know her again. Nothing had been said or done to lead one to suppose that 4 confifiment was about to happen. Q. When did you first hear the baby cry? A, On the Tuesday morning. On that dey I saw Miss Garrod, at the same time that I sew the nurse. Q. Miss Garrod wus there when the nurse told you that Lady Gooch had been confined? A. She must have beenolose by. a Q. And she gave you directions to bring some things to the sitting room? A. She toi Mrs. Walker that I would get anything she wanted. NO IDEA OF WRONG. Q. Did you ask her at any time how the lady was getting along? A. Very likely I did, but I cannot say positively. iT Q. Do you not remember Miss Garrod telling you that the ay was getting on all right? A. Yes, I be- lieve she did. @ Q. When did you first become aware of the fact that there had been no confinement? A. Two # three days afterward, when I was served with a su: mons to appear here, Q. Was there an appearance of there having been a confinement ty a in J atthe hotel? A. Yes. by ‘Was that done by the orders of the manager? A. I do not know anything about the orders of the manager. Mr. Lewis—Did Miss Gerrod not say to the nurse, “Whatever you want vou mustorder of Mrs. Russell; whatever I want I get from the waiter?” A. Yes, I think she did. Mr. Clarke—Did Miss Garrod ever lead you to be Heve there was bes ead wrong? A. No. . fi said—I em a doctor of medi- St. James’. I am the doctor of the Gooch family. Q. Did Lady Gooch come to your house in Octo- ber? A. Yes; on the Ist. Q. You had known her before? A. Yes. What did she say to you? A, She asked me to her in @ fictitious confinement. Q. What did you tell her? A, I told her it wasan imy a . Did she say what communication you were to @ to Sir Francis? A. She did not wish me to communicate with him ut all. Q. What took piace? A. She asked me not to com- municate with Sir Francis; but she also said that her husband had placed confidence in me, and that if I said she had been confined he would believe me. Q. What did you tell ber? A. I told her it was an impossibility. + NOE TO BE DISCOURAGED. Q. You tried to persuade her against such a thing ? A. As far as 1 was able I tried to persuade her to give up the ides. ‘Q. What did she say finally? A. I cannot recollect; the interview lasted about twenty minutes. Q. Did she explain why she wantede child? A. Not on that day. ad agi you see her next day? A. Yes, at Batt’s love! Q. I believe Mies Garrod was present? A. Yes; I went there to persuade Lady Gooch to give up the rofect; I tuld her it would bea conspiracy and bring er to punishment; she said whe required a baby to regain the affections of her husband. Q. Did she then sugyest brn writing to Sir Francis that it was impossible for her to travel down to Ben- acre? A. Yen, but she did not ask me to say any thing about having achild; ! tried to persuade hy her plan up, but #he said nothing would persuade her to do #0; she was bent on adopting child, Q. Was it at the hotel she asked you to write to Sir Francis? A. No; at my house, Q. You told ber it was impossible to pretend she hadachild? A. Yes. Q. After such a conversation as that if you heard of her going to Benacre with a chiid you would have thonght it your duty to tell Sir Francis. A. Certainly. Q. You are on terms of tutimacy with Sir Francis? A.” Yes, as the family doctor. Q. Did you point out that as the family doctor you could not take part in her scheme? A. I said it was an impossible scheme altogether. Q. When you éxamined ber in April was there any retence for her being in the family way? A. She ad on 4 dressing gown, but I caunot sey whether she had on an undue quantity of underclothing; she was not dresved for the day, PROPOSAL OF WITHDRAWAL. =~ At this stage of the proceedings Mr. Lewis said that Sir Francis Gooch having establishod by the evidence prodyced that the confinement of mockery, and that he had pre- wed to the prejudice of bis family and their estates, ana feeling that he therefore done his duty, did not wish to presa th we further, He had provided funds for the defence of his wife in ihis court, and having no personal feeling of any kind he was prepared, on his own purt, to pardon the act his wife Lad committed unless the magistrate thought it iaperative that the case ehould go on. THE SDE OF THE Lavy. Mr. Clarke expreseed a wish to make some remarks before the mutter was decided. He wonld confine him- self as far ns possible to the dirsct iseue, although many extraneotis matters of a xerions character had been introduced. The quesiion wes whether there was.evidence upon which to commit Lady Gooch and Mrs. Waiker for # conspiracy to pelin off on Sir Francis Gooch @ false cbild, and other parties who were entitled ortain property He could not go into the adequacy of the proof as & the way in which property might have been aff unless the evidence ¢ Lady Gooch rise Mrs, Walke Was @ respectable woman, who, for some years, had been engayed by an institu- —whatever taight be stated in that couri— he believed to be an institution which was de good a work as human chavity could possibly ac lish; apd she war ealled upon, not by @ stranger, but by a person whom she knew, aud hud reason to trust, to enter upon au employment whieh had nothing remarkable about it to her. It wae nothing sual to Mrs. Walker to be engaged to take care of a child, and by there was no case against her. As to Lady Gooch, it was alleged that she bad | conspiving with Mrs. Walker to deprive the relatives of Sir Francis Gooch of the property which wonld belong to them on his death. ‘This poor lady bad and y had the in- torviews which had the course of the cage, but did not the which had been disclosed tex y all idea of any really « inal intention in her mind? Whatever might hb been the cause of the unhep- piness of Lady Gooch, it was 1% upon the evidence that when she went . Tali and Mrs. Main the idea in her miud was other iny husband's love has one with the little ehild who died four y Thad another child to take to hii, aud could por suade him it was lus own, I miglt get his iove back er to yive | #0 to defraud | ked the magistrate to find that | baby has one given them without malring any in- Wrong, no doubt, thie might be—wrong in Isand probably wreng in law—but surely not “4 jont to justiiy the magistwate in sendin: N wh tor trint on a erin charge. So far trom wutioasy aud seeretly to Work Lady Gooch ba ¢ possible pains to make It apparent ily could not carry out her object, and she went to those who were the least likely to assist her in any fraudulent intention, All through there had been no desire for any concealment whatever, and so far from having set her mind upon a boy it was distinctly en that Lady Gooch had raid she did not care whether the child which she wanted was niale or female. With reference to_ the statements of Miss Garrod, upon which his friend Mr. Lewis would no doubt lay stress, it was almost iu ceivable that those statements could be rect: if they were it would be tho rather than the innocence of Lady Gooch which ought to be the question at issue, Any attempt to bring forward a fa be the heir to old estates, was undoubtedly one wh: called for the most careful investigation; and neit he nor his client had any reason to complain of the bow | in which Mr, Lewis had dealt with the delicate and somewhat painful duty which he had had to discharge; but now that the evidence was before the Court—now that the whole of the possible mischief which could have arisen was absolutely goue—now that the family of Sir Francis Gooch nothing to fear—now that it was upon record that Lady Goce hem not been confined within the last twelve mouths— se child, who wight beroutter claim to an . PALSUS IN OMNIBUS. Mr, Newton.—Do you adniit it is all false? Mr, Clarke.—-Yes; certainly, Mr. Newton.—But what hus become of the child? Mr Clarke.—It has been sent back, The learned counsel went on to say, in regard to the matter of confinement, if his Worship thought it would be more satistuctory that her ladyship should make her own affidavit that should be done. All the mischief, he repeated, was atan end, He did not believe there would be an adverse verdict given against either de- fendant if the case were sent toa jury; and if his Worship so sent it, the result would only be a prolon- gation of misery to two persons, and of scandal with regard to a whole family, Mr. Lewis said if the magistrate wished him to speak on that point he would do 80, Mr. Newton—Then I would ask you to address me on that point. i Mr. Lewis said it was in evidence that Lady Gooch at a certain period said she wished to have a son, be- cause she would be leit destitute at the death of her husband. Of course, if there was a son, the Court of Chaucery would make a large allowance for the child and the mother during its infancy. Dr. Worthington had said that Lady Gooch wanted a son to prevent the estates going away. At that time she was resid- ing at Benacre . Her husband was aware that she was not in the family way, He left her on ac- count of her intended imposture and had her watched, ‘The part which Mrs. Walker was to Boob deg to as- sist ay oe in getting a child int ¢ hotel #e- cretly. Miss Garrod was asked to assist in the fraud, and it was tobe hoped that no reflection would rest upon her for the way in which she had performed her duty to Sir Francis. The imposture being at an Ls Sir Francis did not wish to push the matter fur- ther, Mr. Newton—The question is whether the impos- ture ought not to be punished, Mr. Lewis—I earnegtly ask you, on behalf of Sir cae not to force us to go on with the prosecu- tion. Mr. Newtoa-—I will think the matter over, and give my decision on Thursday morning at twelve o'clock, “ Lady Gooch and Mrs, Walker were then liberated on WHOSE WAR Is IT? IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION FOR THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT—SHALL INDIA OR ENGLAND PAY VOR THRASHING SHERE ALI? (From the Pall Mall Gazette.) The obligation for assembling Parliament is im: posed by a very pecuMar provision of the statute of 1858 (21 and 22 Vic., cap. 106), which transferred the government of India from the East India Com- pany to the Crown. Two clauses of this statute havo been repeatedly quoted, but not, we think, with any distinct appreciation of their purpose or of the func- tions which they impose upon Parliament. Tho fifty-fourth clause directs that when any order for ‘the “actual commencement” of hostilities by Her Majesty’s forces in India is sent to that country both houses of Parliament are to be informed of it within three months if Par- liament is sitting, and if Parliament is not sitting at the expiration of this period, then within one month after its next meeting. These long intervals of time savor of the great distance by which India was re- moved from us in 1853, and deprive this statutory requirement of nearly all ite practiéal importance. Indeed, if it be true that the English Cabinet, instead of expressly ordering the Viceroy to begin hostilities against the Ameer of Cabul, merely laid thereins on Lord Lytton’s neck, it may be questioned whether the provision has any technical application to the case; although of course the general coustitu- tional duty of the Queen's advisers to inform Par- liament promptly of any critical event affecting the fortunes of the country is as imperative asever. The really important and plooaly: relevant clanse of the statute of 1858 is the fifty-fifth, which provides that, except for preventing or repelling invasion, or ‘under other sudden and urgent necessity,” the consent of both Houses of Parliament must be obtained before By. pert of the revenues of India can be appied to defray the expenses of any military operation beyond the frontiers of India. There can be no rational doubt that this provision governs the present case, and, indeed, it may be strongly suspected that both this clause and the clause pi ing it contain a tacit reference to the first Afghan war, which is known to have been com- cancer om an express order given by the British Cabinet of the day to Lord Auckland, and to havo been paid for by the East India Company. DID BEACONSFIELD ORDER THE WAR? When the meaning and point of the provisions found in the fifty-fitth clause of the statute of 1858 are once appreciated it almost ceases to be necessary to show how wide of the mark have been the sug- yestions of some of our contemporaries as to the distribution of the cost of this war between the English and Indian exchequers. The principal Lon- don journal contends that the payment of any portion of the expenses from English funds i @ pure question of grave and _ liberal- ity. India was opyimaril Mable; but if, the English Chancellor of the Exchequer was particularly fiush of money he might perhaps spare something out of pity for an impoverished dependency. Nothing can be falser than such reasoning. A great variety of considerations will have to be presented to the mind of Parliament before such a question can be satisfactorily decided. The extreme poverty of the people of India, the recent nvtorious distresses of tna finance, will be legitimately urged on the at- tention of the noblemen and gentlemen who on this particular occasion will be acting as an Indian lature, and the membcrs of the House of Commons in particuiar will not, we pool og be suffered to forget that if they vote this money they will capone of it subject to no such moral restrictions as ordinarily control their as- sent to expenditure, but will, in point of fact, be di- recting taxation irrexpectively of representation. But, after all, the great governing question is the irrepressible question of imperialism. Is this really an Indian war? Does the necessity for it arise om the south or on the north of the Himalayas and the Hin- doo Koosh? Is it the English Forcign Office or tho Foreign Office at Simla which has most at stake inthe endeavor to bring Shere Ali to reason? FRANCE'S FUTURE. MANIFESTO OF THE COUNT DE CTAMBORD. (From the London Standard.} ‘The Count de Chambord has written a letter to the Count de Mon, dated Frohsdorf, November 20, con- gratulating himon the epecch delivered by him on the occasion of his invalidation. After some compli- mentary remarks to the affect that this time honor was once more on the side of the vanqutshed, the Count de Chambord sets forth his views as follows:— On ali the religious and political questions which agitate Lurope and tear our untortunate France "you throw Hyht, because you are not afraid t out, equally without passion and without the real causes of our decwlence and ation, Yes, the future belongs to the of faith, but on the condition that they shall also be men of courage, who will not shrink from telling triumphant Rev face what she is in her essence atid her who will set forth what should be the work of reparation and the quiet process of a counter revo- lution. I thank you with all iny heart for having once more reduced to uothing those hateful false- hoods a thousand times refuted and ever revived, that wretched equiyocation regarding tho past, as if in order to redrexs blamable abuses it were not in- | sane t bave ovethrown protecting bulwarks. I uk you for having dwelt with so inuch authority eter- frankness on the fundamental bases, nal irnths and necessary principles, with no society can live at peace or be sw By Heaven's grace the sacred trust of our 8 and traditions has remained intact da. Every man following your example nd to devote his activity and his life to restore unecting inks of the chain of ayes, Ketarn the « foarlonsly to the midst of those generous populations of the West from whom [receive such freqneut and consoling proots of inawerving affection, The Revo- lution, prosecuting her ideal of the State without God, hus inevribed on her list of proscription the humble instructor of the children of people aud the admirable sister of charity. time has come when, for every man of heart, indifievenre wud inavtion would be treuchory and shame, With those laborious classes, the constant object of my preoecupations, with those beloved workiuguen, suvrounded by so many flatterers and #o Jew veal iricuds, you, better than any one, can my interpreter. Lalweys bear with happi- ness their ery of faith and hope, Lot them be persuaded that T love them too much to flatter them; and, to sum up all in one word, peat to them tnccasingly that in order that Eyal should be saved it is necessary that God should r turn there as master and that [should return th re- as my Have contidence, my dear De M never forget that the future belongs to the men of faith and cournge, HENRI. . | WHISTLER VS. RUSKIN. The American Artist Sues the Discoverer of Turner. NOCTURNES AND ARRANGEMENTS. What Whistler Says About His Own Art. The London Siandavd, of alate date, containsa long and interesting account of the trial in the Exchequer Division, or the 25th ult,, before Mr, Baron Huddle- ston and a special jury, of an action to recover dam- ages for libel brought by Mr. James Abbott MeNeill Whistler, the distinguished and erratic American art- int, against the famous Join Ruskin, the art critic and author, The lificl was said to consist of a criticism which had been written by Mr. Ruskin upon the plain- tiff’s paintings at the Grosvenor Gallery, and which, on the 24 of July, 1877, appearcd in the Fors Clavigera. ‘That criticism was in the following terms :— Lastly, the mannerisms and errors of these pic- tures (meaning some pictures by Mr. Burne Jones), whatever may be their extent, are never affected or indolent. The work is natural to the painter, how- ever strange to ui tit is wrought with utmost conscience of care, howeyer far, to his own or our de- sire, the result may yet be incomplete. Scarcely so much can be said for any other pictures of the modern schools; their eccentricities are almost always in some degree forced, and their imperfections gratui- tously, if not impertinently, indulged. For Mr. Whistler's own e, no less than for the protection of the purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay ought not to have adinitted works into the gallery in which the ill- educated conceit of the artist so nearly approached the aspect of wilful imposture. I have scen and heard much of cockney impudence before now, but never expected to hear a coxcomb 200 guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face, Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Petheram (instructed by Mr, Anderson Rose) appéared for the plaintiff, and the Attorney General and Mr. Bowen for the de- fendant. Mr. Sergeant Parry, in opening the case, stated that some of his client's works, he thought he was not wrong in saying, were destined to imunortality, and it.was the more surprising, therefore, that # gentle- man holding such a position as Mr, Ruskin could traduce another in a way which would lead that other to come into a court of law to ask for damages. Mr. Whistler was not merely an artist, but was an etcher, and had achieved considerable honors in that department of art. The libel had appeared in pub- lication which hed @ large circulation among artists and art patrons, and the fact of its large circulation was of importance. The language used in the arti- cle could not in any ordinary sense be considered privileged. A largo number of Mr. Whistler's pic- tures would be exhibited to the jury. He trusted the case would be fairly tried and that no attempt would be made to ridicule his client. WHISTLER’S TESTIMONY. The plaintiff was then put upon thestand and ex- amined by Mr. Petheram. The following evidence was adduced after he had given the points of his career up to date:— .At the summer exhibition of 1877 I exhibited some pictures at the Grosvenor Gallery. _ Q. Was that in consequence of any request? A. There is no exhibition there except by invitation by Sir Coutts Lindsay; I exhibited cight pictures there, seven in addition to the portrait; the first was a “Nocturne in Black and Gold,” the second a “Nocturne in Blue and Silver,” the third a ‘‘Noc- turne in Blue and Gold,” the fourth a ‘Nocturne in Blue and Silver,” the Afth an iter aasied it in Bleck” (Irving a6 Philip IL), the sixth a ‘Har- ‘mony in Amber and Black,” the seventh an ‘‘Ar- rangement in Brown,” and in addition to these there wes & portrait of Mr. Carlyle; that portrait was painted irom sittings which. Mr. Carlyle gave me; the artist's proofs were all subscribed for when the portrait was engraved; before the pictures went to the Grosvenor all the nocturnes except one were dinposed of; two of them were sold to the Hon. Percy Wyndham. * Q. For what price? A, For 200 guineas; I sent one to Mr. Graham in liu of an cariier commission for 150 guineas; the third I presented to Mrs, Layland; the picture unsold was the “Nocturne in Black and Gold,” and the price fixed for it was 200 guincas. Q. You know the publication called Furs Clavigera? A. Yos, and my impression is that it has an extensive 8 Q. Since the publication of this criticisma have you sold a ‘Nocturne?’ A. Not by any means at the same price as before. + Q. What pictures have you been able to get to-day for the inspection of those that were in the Grosvenor Gallery? A. The pictures of “Irying as Philip IL,” aud “Thomas Carlyle;"’ I could obtain no more. Q. Is the one sold to Mr. Wyndham here? A. T ex- ected it, but a telegram came saying it could not be aut. Q. Is the picture of “Irving as Philip II.” a finishéd picture? A. It isa large impression, a sketch, but it ‘was not intended as a finished picture; it was not ex- hibited as for sale; there were no pentane exhibited for sale but the “Nocturne in and Gold.” Q. What is your definition of w nocturne? A. I have, perhaps, meant rather to indicate an artistic in- terest alone in the work, divesting the gee from apy outside sort of interest which might have becn otherwise attached to it; it is an arrangement of line, form and color first, and I make use of any incident of it which shall bring about a symmetrical result; ainong my works are some night pieces, and I have chosen the word nocturne because it generalizes aud simplifies the whole set of them. NEEDED A NAME ON IT. Cross-examined by the Attorney General—I have done some etchings of scenes down the river as well a8 paintings of them. Q. You have sent pictures to the Academy which have not been received ? A. I believe that is the ex- pericuce of all artists.” (Laughter.) Q. When did you iast send to the Acudomy a pic- ture which was not hung? A. The last time I sent a picture to the Academy which was refused was three or four years ayo, and the arrangement was called “Arrangement in Green and Black ; Portrait of Paint- er’s Mother.”” Q. That was the same picture which was afterward hung? A. Yes. Q. Did you send to the Academ: which were afterward exhibited. Gallery? A. No. Q. What is the subject of the “Nocturne in Black and Gold?” A, It is a night piece, and represents the treworks at Cremorne. Q. Nota view of Cremorne? A, If it were called a view of Cremorne it would certainly bring about nothing but diseppointment on the part of the be- holders—(lauyhter)—it is an artistic arrangeinent, Q. You do not think teat auy member of the public would go to Cremorne because he saw your picture (laughter)? A. Ido not know how to describe the picture; it is simply an arrangement of color; that was for sale, and the prive marked was 200 guineas, Q. And 200 guineas was the amount you thoughta fitand proper price for it? A. Yes, a Q. Is 200 guineas a pretty good price for a picture of an artist of reputation? A. Yes. Q. It is what we who are not artists should call a stiffish price? A, [think very likely it would be so. (Laughter.) Q. You know Mr, Ruskin as an art critic? A. ¥ he has written some works on art; I believe “st ot ence" is bis; 1 know that “Modern Painters” js his, Q. Youknow that Mr. Ruskin’s view is that the artist should not allow a picture to go from his hand when he, by any labor he can bestow upon it, can improve it? A. Vory likely. ' Q. And that his view is that au artist should give any of the seven in the Grosvenor ite value for mor and not endeavor to get the ighest p A. Very likely. . Artiste do not endeavor to get the highest price for their work irrespective of value? A, ‘That is so, and ! am glad to sce the principle so well established. (Laughter.) Mr. Baron Huddieston—Artists propose to give full value for their mouey ? A. Yes, PRACTICAL LYFUKMATION, Mr. Sergeant Parry—So does every honorable dealer, my lord. Cross-cxamination continued—The “Nocturne in Black and Gold” was @ finished picture; it was not 4 picture of two colors only; there was every color on the palette in it, ae there is in every paintin ; tho icture in bine and ‘silver is & #eene on the ‘Tiames y summer night; there was another “Nocturne in Blue and Silver," which was also a river scene; the arrangement in black (Me. Irving as Philip HL) d have not attempted to sell, Q. Why, do you call Mr. Irving an arrangement in black? (Laught: Mr. Baron Mudd): victnre and not Mr. emont, (Laughter) Yhot was the “Arrange A. Tt was a young lady in an amber dress with a black ground; the “Arrange- mucut in Brown" was eimilar; these were impressions of my own; I make them my study; I suppose them to appeal to none but those who may understand the | technical matter; 1 did not intend to sell the “Har. mony in Amber and Black; the “Arrangement in Brown’ was also the portrait of a lady; I have not got the “Harmony in Amber and Blac I painted T believe that the “Arrangement tn Brown’ +1 had made arrangements tor the various perane being shown at tho Westminster Palace Q. The only picture you had in the Grosvenor ¢ eae for sale was the “Nocturne in Black and Gold . Yes. ? are willing to admit that your eccentricities; y told that over and over again? A, ye (Laughter). Q. You sond them to the Gallery to invite the ad. miration of the public? A, That would be such vast absurdity on my part that I don’t. think I could. (aughier,) @. Yon don’t expect that your pictures are not to he criticised? A, Ok, no, certainly; Waloss they axe overlooked, - ©. Did it take you much time to paint the “Nocturne in Black and Gold?” How soon did you knook it off? (Laughter.) A, I knocked it off possibly in a couple days—one day to do the work and another to b . After ly inting it did you put itup to maliow? Foon Bay Do you ever hang these pic- tures up on the arden wall? A. J do not Wk ui the “Nocturne” nor any other picture to mellow; should be grieved to sce my paintings mellowed— (laughter)-—but Ido put my paintings in the open air that they may dry well as I go on with my work. Q. And that was the labor for which you asked 200 guineas? A. No; it was for a knowledge gained through a litetime, (Appla MUST DE SERN £0 BE APPRECIATED. Mr. Baron Huddleston said that it this manifesta- tion of feeling were repeated he would have to clear the court, Cross: wnination resumed:—Q. You know that many critics entirely disagree with your views as to these pictur A, It would be beyond me to agree with the critics, (Laughter,) * You don't approve of criticism? A. I should not disapprove in any way of technical criticism by a man whose life is passed in practice of the science which he criticises, but tor the opinion of a man whose life is not so passed | would have as little ppnics as you would have if he expressed an opinion on law. . You expect to be criticised? A, Yes, certainly; and I do not expect to be affected by it until it comes to be a case of this kind. ‘the Attorney General here proposed to produce the “Nocturne in Black and Gold,” Mr. Sergeant Parry objected that the court was not a fit placo to exhibit the picture in. Mr. Baron Huddleston thought it would be scarcely fait. fake artist's pictures should be shown ina aud Ligh Cross-examination continucd:—Q. What was the subject of the “Nocturne in Blue and Silv yiven to Mr, Graham? A, A moonlight effect near Old Bat- tersea Bridge. Q. What has become of the “Nocturne in Black and Gold?’ A. I believe it is before you. Q, You hayo not gold it? A. No, but I have de- posited it, Q. You can get it? A. It would be very difficult; I believe yau have it (laughter). The Attorney General proposed to show to the jury the “Nocturne in Blue and Silver," _ Mr. Sergeant Parry said it would be more conven- iont if a room could be obtained in the: tmmediate neighborhood for the jury to see the collection of Mr, Whistler's pictures. ‘he Attorney General decidedly objected to an ex- hibition of Mr, Whistler's paintings, because Mr. Ruskin had only dealt with those which were ex- hibited at the Grosvenor Gallery. It was fair that those pictures to which Mr. Ruskin referred should be seen by the jury. Mr, Sergeant Parry urged that inasmuch as the plaintift’s character was attacked, and he had been almost charged with being an imposter, he had a right to show to the jury what his works had been, Mr. Baron Huddleston thought that, in justice to Mr. Whistler, the jury should have ‘the seeing the pictures. The Attorney General said that, after His Lord- ship's observation, the impression would be that he was dealing unfairly if the jury were not aliowed to soe the pic’ ures. He did not wish it to Be supposed hat he was in any way acting ungenerously. Mr. Baron Huddleston suid that, so far ashe was concerned he had to tell the jury simply what was the law of the case, und he did not think he would be much assisted in discharging that duty by going over tothe Westminster Palace Hotel and seeing the pic- tures. Besides, he had already seen them in the Gros: venor Gallery. “a PRIVATE VIEW.” Mr. Sergeant Parry said the “‘Nociurne in Black and Gold,” with some others, been deposited with a eutleman gp the Strand, who had been summoned o produce fourof them. Those four were now, he believed, in court—two prod uaed as by the plaintiff? and the other two as by the defendant. Mr. Baron Huddleston suggested that these four ee might be placed among the others in the } estminster Palace Hotel for the inspection of the jury. After some further conversation the picture of the effect near old Battersea Bridge, alluded to by Mr. Whistler in his evidence, was produced in court. Cross-examination resumed :—That is Mr. Graham’s picture, and is the ‘“‘Nocturne in Blue and Silver:” it represents Battersea Bridge by moon ht. Mr, Baron Huddleston—Is this part of the picture at the top old Battersea Bridge? (Langhter.) Witness—Your Lordship is too close at present to ase pladas to perceive the effect which I intended to roduce at a distance. The spectator is supposed to 2 looking down the river toward London. Q. The prevailing color is blue? A. Yes. Q. Are those figures on the top of the bridge in- tended for people? A. Thoy are just what you like. Q. Thatisabarge beneath? A. Yes; Iam very much flattered at your seeing that; the thing isintanded sim- ply as a representation of moonlight; my whole scheme was only to bring about a certain harmony of color; the picture (produced) is a “Nocturne in Blue and Silver;” it is a picture of the Thamcs by moon- light, looking up the river near Battersea, Q. How long «lid it take you to paint that picture? A. Tcompleted the work of that in one day after hay- ing arranged the idea in my mind, He-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry :-—The pictures I have produced are the portrait of Mr. Carlyle and a picture of a young lady, which have not been ex- hibited in the Grosvenor Gallery; besides those por- traits [have produced one other nocturne picture the picture of Philip is @ mere sketch unfinished; there is another picture which was at Grosvenor called “A Variation in Flesh Color and Green;” there is another, representing the seaside and sand, called ‘Harmony in Blue and Yellow;" the “Noo- turne in Black and Gold” was the ont to which Mr. Ruskin alluded; this subject of the arrangement of colors had been a life study to my mind; the pictures are painted off generally from my own thought and mind; sketehing on paper. is very rare with we. Q. Do yon conscientiously form your idea and then conscientiously work it out? A. Certainly, Q. And thesé pictures are published by you for the purpose of a livelihood? A. Yes. Q. Your manual labor is rapid? A. Certainly. At this stage of the proceedij the Court ad- journed for the purpose of enabling the jury to see the pictures du the Westminster Palace Hotel. “A NOCTURNE,” ‘The jury having returned into court, the “Noc- turne in k and Gold,” which represented the fire- eR at Cremorne, was produced and exhibited to the jury. ~ By the Attorney Genceral—This is Cremorne! (Laughter.) A, It is a ‘Nocturne in Black and Golde Q. How long did it take you to paint that? A. One whole day and 7 ot another; that is « finished picture; the black monogram in frame was placed in its position so as not to put the balance out, Q. You have made the study of art your study of a lifetime; what is the peculiar beauty of that picture? A. It would be impossible for me to ex; to you, Tam afraid, although I dare say I could to a sympa- en thinks Me. Q. you no! in] » Ruskin at have co: to the conclusion that it had no verkeniae beauty? A. I think there is distinct evidence that he did; I a0 not think that any artist would come to that conclu- sion; I have known uninfluenced people recognize thut it represented fireworks, Q. You offer that picture to the public as one of particular beauty as @ workof art and which ts fairl; worth 200 guineas? A, Lofferitas a work which have conscientiously executed and whieh I think worth the money; [would hold my reputation upon this as I would upon any of my other works. Ke-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry—That picture was painted, not as offering the portrait of a particu- jar place, but ws au artistic impression which had been carried away? A. Many of my works are " “4 scenes on the Thames; I live on the Em- William M, Rossetti, the art critic of London Academy ; Mr. Albert Moore, an artist, pig Mr, W. a, Wills, the dramatic author, then gave evidence as to — artistic quality ot the plaintiff's works criti- cined. Mr. Sergeant Parry then said-That is the case. The Attorney General submitted that his learned friend had made out uo case whatever, as he had not shown malice, Mr. Baron Huddieston—Surely this is s question for the jury. As it stands by itself tt is caloulated to hold Mr, Whistler up to ridicule, but the question is whether it comes within tho license of privileged communication. That is a matter for the Jui A critic ought to be wise enough to fori a right judg: ment and bold enough to express it, Hit bean honest and fair eriticisin it is privileged, and whether in this cuse the criticism is fair in a point to be decided, The Lord Ubict Justice of Common Pleas, in a simi- lar_case, pointed out that the plaintiff would not be enfitled to recover damages unless he could show that the defendant was actuated by malice. He must rat? that the par meay matter was published with- out any ground. ‘Thus, in a case of lite critic: considerable liberty is allowod. -udanniaecs THE DEFENCK OPENED. The Attorney General said that he would call wit- nesses on bebaif ot Mr. Ruskin quite as teut as those already examined, He that his client had criticived the pictures fairly and honestly. No doubt a | gee many artists would be well pleased if critics did not exist, Phere was more abuse of critics than of auy other persons; but, after all, critics had their uses. Ho should like to know what would become of literature, of povtry, of oratory, of politics, of paint- ing, if criticse—coimpetent and able men—were to bo extinguished? If there was to be nothing but praise thero would be no incentive to cxeel. He would not be able to call Mr. Ruskin, as he was far too ill to attend, fhe jury had seen the pictures for themselves, and he asked them whether, uw th Lad beeu exhibited to them before the elabo- Hequisitions which had been given by the wit- nesses WhO liad been examined, they would uot have come to the conclusion that those paintings were strange and extravagant productions, Mr. Whistler took tiem to the Grosvenor Gallery and said, “Tere ure beautiful works of art.” Mr. Whistler might bo right; but Mr, Ruskin was of a diferent opinion, and hod not committed any misdemeanor or any breach of the Attics and privileges of an Wnglishinan bo- cause he had disputed Mr, Whistler's view of his own productions, SHERE AL'S VENGEANCE, (fom the London World, A well authenticated story reac me anent our friewd Shere Ali. Among the Ritssian mission lately received in Cabal was found an outlawed Afghan of note. ‘Uhe Ameor recognized the culprit himself, aud in spite of the protests of the general in charge of the mission the delinquent paid the penalty of bi rashuess with bis bead. metit of + CLERK ANTHONY FINISHES His SsTORY— SEMBLYMAN THAIN ON THE STAND. At half-past two o'clock yesterday afternoon the formidable array of lawyers engaged in the Pinckney case arrived at the office of the Corporation Counsel, and immediately thereafter the referce, Mr. Buell, entered and took his place. The office was densely crowded, the case apparently growing in interest day by day. After some talk among counsel about threata said to have been made aguinst the witness Anger maun, ex-Assemblyman Alexander Thain was called and testified as follows:—Lhave been a lawyer for thirteen years and have practised in the district cour presided over by Judgd Pinckney; I had one case thar came originally before the Judge named, but in 1877 it was removed to the Court of Common Pleas; 1 had occasion to see the Judgo in @ case which Hon. Fernando Wood placed in my hands, not only upon the bench, butulso in his private office; I took papers to him for signature and found him ina state of in- toxication; this impression wag made on my mind, not only from his excited condition, but from the odor of his breath; on the occasion referred to, when I visited him in his private office, he was then evi- ently under the influence of liquor, and this was between the hours of nine and ten o'clock in the morning; Thad some surety bonds. which I wanted to file in a case and went to the court repeatedly, but could never find Judge Pinckney there, Qn grogs-examination My, Thain stated that the date when he had seon the Judge under the influence of liquor was November, 1877; that he did not notice anything about the room in bottles or glasses, and that he did not think his porsistency in going to the Judge to get a certuin bond approved occasioned the exeitement mentioned, A PERTINENT QUESTION. Avery pertinent question was here asked the wit- ness by Mr. Reavey, of counsel for Judge Pinckney :— Q. Asa lawyer, would you have asked the Judge to discharge his duty to you when he was im an in- toxicated condition? A, Yes, I would. . While the case of Irving vs. Wood was pendi; did you ever sce the latter in the private office Judge Pinckney ? A. No. Mr. Patrick Anthony, the clerk of the Court, then fpok he witness chair, and his examination was con- tinued. . Did you ever state in your private office and cistenart since these rokecctite began that you “had got that ——-—, Judge Pinckney, where ou wanted him and that you would put him off the Bench vA. No, Q. How much money did you return to the Comp- troller when you were clerk under Judge Stemler ? A. Tcannot tell. / Q. Do you now keep any book account of moneya received for summonses, trial fees, &c.? A. I keep @ slip, a docket; that is all, Q. Don't you know that ates Pinckney was suffer- ing from fever and ague? A, No. . Did you give uny money to against the Judge in this case? A. A JUDICIAL EMETIC. Q. You testified yesterday that you helped to give the Judge an emetic in his private room? A. Yes, Q. Do you remember when it was you went ina beastly state of intoxication into the saloon of Mr, McManus, at the corner of Third avenue and Fiity- poker street, and had to be helped from there home? . No. Q, When were you first removed from the offite of clerk? A. In January, 19876. ma Who was appointed in your place? A, James R, vies. Q. When were you next a? A. June 17, 1878, Some amusement was here occasioned by a wrangle ameng the lawyers Over what was called “indigna- tion” meetings held in Judge Pinckney’s court room aud presided over by . Jonathan Thompson— “with ap,” Mr, Patrick Anthony also seemed con- fused in answering certain questions as to the de- struction of judgment records, In the redirect ex- amination Mr. Anthony testified that the memoranda taken by him and placed in evidence were accurate, and that Judge Pinckney’s doctor had told him that Ferrand would never recover if he did not stop persons to Not one cent. OTHER WITNESSES. Tho next witness was a young lawyer, who testified that he was admitted to the Bar in May, 1877; that Judge Pinckney often excused himself from the bench and remained awey over an hour; when he came beck he looked as if he’was under the influence of liquor, This witness admitted his practice of drinking brandy, Ciarenco C. Hard was next examined. This person - claimed to be a wholesale grocer. Upon cros#exami- nation it was found that he occupied only a part of an office down town, was @ voluntary witness, and had 4 cage decided against him in Judge Pinckney’s court, ‘The investigation was adjourned until Monday afternoon at halt-pagt tw THE SHERIDAN SUIT. IMPORTANT ADMISSIONS BY MORGAN JONES, JR.— THE PLAINTIFY, WHALEN, ON TMH WITNESS STAND. Asomewhat diminished crowd of spectators was present at the Shoridan trial yesterday in the United States Circuit Court room, Judge Wheeler presiding. General Sheridan occupied his accustomed seat un‘ 4 early in the afternoon, when he left for bis hotel. His brother, Lieutenant Colonel William Sheridan, rergained to the close of the proceedings. ‘he cross-examination of Morgan Jones, Jr., was continued by Mr. Beckwith, who put in a written agreement in which the witness agreed with @re plaintiff, James A, Whalen, to pay half the costs of tho suit and to reccive half the profitsin case any verdict should be obtained against General Sheridan on the claim of $416,278 67. In relation to thie partnership Morgan said that it had reference to the business of planting cotton, sugar and corn; the plantations were never owned by them—the Lone Star, the Ezra Dans,’ the itman and the Killona tations were rented, Witness acted for Jameq Condon, one of the owners mentioned in General Sheridan's order, and after questionings and imuch argument said that Slater, as far as the wituess knew, was uot on the plantation that day, The redirect cxamination was then commenced by General Butler, and the witness reiterated the story that the bill of sale of the plan- sale, that the purpose of it was to protect him- self and Whalen yn the js of thois creditors. A man named Stahl, who claimed to be the it of J. H. Slater, was put off the plantation by witness and Whalen. t aog 3 scared him out of bed, and he went off ina b , tor he was a “scary” fellow and easily got rid There was a United States — on the plantation from January to August of 87H. Mr. Whalen, the plaintiff, was the next witness, He testified in detail as to the value of the planta- tion and the property thereon. He said that he had worked a sugar cane plantation since 1862, When witness took possession of the plantation there was personal property of Mark Hoyt uy it. General Butler then read order No. 110 te show that it did not properly set forth the conditions of owner ship. Mr. Beckwith claimed that it did. ‘The cross-exumination of Mr. Whalen was then de ferred until Monday morning et eleven o'clock, AN ASSIGNEE'S TROUBLES, New Youx, Dec, 6, 1878, To rx Eprron oy Tue Henary:— ‘The remarks of Judge Van Hoesen, in the opinion which he rendered on denying my application for a discharge as assignee of Joha L. Parker, as published in your issue of this date, reflect so seriously upon my motives and action in that case that I desire to make an explanation of my connection with the matter. At the request of Mr. Parker and solely to oblige him, as he said he could not find any one to act as his assignes besides inyself, I very unwillingly accepted the as- signment which he made to me for the benefit of his creditors. Iexpected no commission or compensa- tion or any pecuniary benefit from it, I wished simply to help him. I expected him, therefore, to procure the sureties upon the bond which, aa ausignes, I was required to give. A meeting of the creditors was called a few days after the aseigu ment was made. Only three creditors attended this meeting, and they, after going over the acconnts futntteed to them, signed a paper agre to take twenty-five cents on the dollar in payment their claims, in notes of thi six and nine months, and agreeing that I should discharged trom my duties as assignee, and that 1 might execute a re- assignment to Mr. Parker of th ‘oe assigned to me. This er was afterwt signed by all but three of Mr, Parkor's creditors. As these three re- fused to sign, and as I was unwilling to trouble ¢ im friends by asking them to rng on te bond for $16,000 or $17,000 & oblige Mr. Parker, and as I found the duties of as- signee would seriously eneroach upon my business I made efforts to get one of the creditors to accept the trast in my place, As none of thove to whom I a plied wou accept I made application, as provided in rection 6 of the act of 1878, aud obtaincd trom Judge Larremore an order for tho assignor to show cause why Ishould not be discharged, which was served on him six days before the returo, On the return day he appeared and consented to my discharge. Tho section referred to Rear that the Court, on petition of the assignee nimself On notice of not less than five days to the as- signor or such other person as the Court may preseribe, may discharge the assignes, &e, (Laws of 1878, chapter 318, section 6) Tudge Van Hoosen hie thought iit to deny what the law expressly gives me the right to ask. U any creditor, therefore, will do ie the favor to have me removed 1 shall be greatly obliged, as 1 ouly ask to account and be disc! eal, HENRY A, MARI Ld