Newspaper of The New York Herald, August 27, 1842, Page 1

0Bl, teT Vwl. VUl.~Io.tt3C -.-Wtiolo Ho. 30H7. UNITED^STATES TEA EMPORIUM, 121, late 129 Chatham street, New York. WHOLESALE AND RETAIL. THE CANTUN TEA CO vPANY continue to offer for A solo mw and fragrant Tea, of every varietyandstyle.? Their assortmc nt specially includes the moat ilelicioas ami powerful grades of Green and Black, Every package bears the stamp of neatness and elsgance, aud the Teas tbrrrm are so thoroughly secured from fight and air that tneir quality and power will remain unimpaired in any climate. Their system of prosecuting business is perhaps scarcely to be eicelled. It is founded upon the utmost regard to the ngnls of the easterner, especially with respect to weight and iiuality, and unrivalled cheapness. All purchasers aie called ujioii to return any the Lnooey will be cheerfully uiH promptly it-funded. Country merchants, public ealahlithtneuu, heads of larmlirt, ana shipmasters, will Bad it a decided advantage to supply themselves from this establishment. Coffee roasted every day. , Orders Iroin all parts of the Uniteu States executed with promptitude and despatch. ... [TV^ The only warehouae tu America for the tale if Honqnaa celebrated Black Tea. salt lm*r THE CRYSTAL, CORNER OF WALL % BROAD STREETYe Conoiseurs and Epicurvs who throne the "Money" atrcet, When you are dry, atop in and try, the "slock" that there you'll meet; Well do our beat, to stand the teat, with any house in town. And while we do, we look to you, lor some share of renown. 'THE Proprietors of the above establishment will take a pride A in redeeming the above pledge, and they will permit no article but the very beat to appear ou the bar. A choice Lunch can also be found daily. au'<!S r W0VE5TWOVES! r BACKUS' PATENT RARE FIE R, OR FRUGAL HOUSEWARMER. fPHE Proprietor, in offering this valuable stove to llie public, a- would briefly state some of the advantages of.heir improvement, which consist chiefly in the following particulars, viz:? 1?To obviate the evil of im- 5?To be capable of affordpuru aud noxious gas in the iug a mild or an intense heat, buramv of anthracite coal. 6? To avoid all iucovenieuce ?To fane rate and diffuse from dust, a warm and wholesome at- 7?To preserve the air of the mosphere la places expound to spurtineut pure and wholedamp and cold. some. V-To lesson the risk of acei- I?And to unite with all dent by fire. tkose excellent qualities, an 4?To be quickly kindled elegant and durable article of and easily managed. luruiiure. This SrnTs u ronstrnrteil of the best nuslirv nf Hitasis ,L<-| iiOa, upon the cylindrical i>Uu?the furnace or fire-chamber occupying a part of the centre cvlinder, to which ia attached an aunoapheric Rarefier upon each aide, of a tubular form, and lined throughout. The heat that ia created in the oliainber paaae* between the linings of the two raretiers (or radiator* a* they are called] into the base at the bottom, and a current of air continually ruahing through the tubes, which are I.-ft open at each end lor that purpose, carries a great amount of rarehed or warm air into the apartment. The purity and softness of the air in a room heated by this store are peculiar and remarkable, the heat being diffused from a great extent of surface moderately boated. The bested .sir. on entering the wings or sides of the stove,descends anil spreads over the entire surface of the base at the bottom, keeping the colder portion of the air next the floor in constant circulation? in the meantime pseserviug it entirely from contamination, rendering thin Store perfectly safe and agreeable for a|<artments of invalids, sleeping rooms, kr. Manufac ured by J7li E. BACKUS, it Bowerv, NT. Y. N. B. A new article of air tight stores, with rarifiers ; also the new kitchen companion cook store, warranted equal to any in um in thia city. au21 lm*r J. P. CARROLL'S MEDICATED VAPOUR BATHS, 15 Courtlandt meet, arl will afford imradiate relief to all those i>ersons who are afflicted with lumbago, coughs, colds, kc. This changeable weather admonishes all to get nd of their colds as soon as |k>?sible. au24 Iwr WATCHES AND JEWELRY VERY LOW-The sub ~ senber is constantlv receiving, direct Irom the manufacturns, all descriptions of Gold and Silver Levers, Anchor, Escapement, Lepine, and Verge Watches, of new and splendid patterns; gold and silver pencils, gold chart, keys, &c., which he is selling at retail lower than at any other place iu the city. OoM Watches as low as 25 to 30 dollars each. Watches and j? welry exchanged or bought. All watches warranted to keep good time or the money icturned. Watches and clocks reiwired In the best manner and warranted, at much less tliau the usual prices, by one of the beet workmen in America. O.C. ALLEN*, Importer of Watches and Jewelry, aoS) lw*rc Wholesale and retail, JO Wall st, up stairs. BUTTONS. J JONES, M Plan atieet, wishes to inform his friends that his new style will not be ready befoiu the first w-ek in September, but has on hand the Flats and Bevel Edges, which he offers at the following nriees :? Best English B rocadedj $t .50 ** French " 2 oo " " Twist, 2 00 " English *' 2 25 Figured Satins, 1 so Mohair Over Coats, 1 50 Several hands wanted. in 17 im't CHINESE LEMONIA. A N ENTIRELY new and splendid article for the Toilf. r, surpassing in fragrancy any article of the kind that has ever been introduced into this country. Every housekeeper Will highly appreciate it a* an indimueusable familv invienrm tor. AUo, Lavender, Pine Apple, Vanilla and Cologne, h'ghly fragrant?logether with every variety of fragrant odor* in liquid form. Kw tale wholesals and retail at the De|iot of Health ana Strength, JO Canal street. one door rait of Broadway. anjQ2w?r A. V. H- WEBB. Agent. UKOL1US* BOAT ESTABLISHMENT. 400 WATER STREET, VOOB DOOPA BAST OF CATHARINE MARKET FPHB Subscribe! having in hla manufactory, and under hia A own immedial ' uperinleodence, *omr of the oldeat and moot experienced k lilden in dun eitT; and the beat of material* for building every descripbon of boat*, which enable* him to furnish, at the shortest notice, Boau of the moat approved model and workmanship, on tlie moat liberal terms. BUILDER of the Sultan of Muaoat's Pleasure Barge, the Wave, Gazelle, Victoria. Atlantic, Wakona, Itc. Also, the Ann, at Peelukill, Washington, of rough keeiuie, Duchess, of Hyde Park, Sylph and Wars, of Mobile, Geo. Stewait, of LonisvUle, Madame Celeste, ol New Orleans. 8cc. Also ? T)ie sail boats Wu Crolins, Fashion, iianonl, Star, and EdWt Format. Ac.. I t. Ac. iy23mi-o<l*e GAZCTPNEUMATICS. rpHE subscriber is prepared to eiecute orders for the Qazo A Pneumatic Hydraulic Machine, for raising water any height or quantity, Irom mines, or lor water nones, by means of vacunm ; and the simplicity of th* machine gives it a great advantage over any othei now in use. au? la'i ^ _ *"w Atae, 22 Pine st. New Ifong It Albany Kail Koad Company, 2 Park Place, New York. VfOTlCE is hereby given to the Stockholders of the New A" York and Albany Hail Koad Company, that th* President and Directors have directed a call lor an instalment of five per cent on the Capital stock of die Company, payable on the fifth day of September nest. Subscribers resident in New York and We?tche?ter, will pay their instalment to Josiah Rich, Chairman of the Finance Committ-e, and Treasurer for the Southern District, 172 Front st. Subscribers resident in Dutchess, Putuam ami Columbia counties, will pay their instalment, to Jona. Akin Taber, of the Finance Committee, and Treasurer for the Middle District, in Pawling*. Subecnb-rs resident in Renaelaer counn-, will pay their instalment* to Jonas C. Heart, of the Finance Committee, and Treasurer ofthe Northern District, at his office in the city of Troy. By order of the Board, altsepSr JOB. F,. BLOOMF1ELD. Secretary. T OBT OR STOLEN.?Kentucky Bond, SUMO, dated 22d -Li May, 1142, No. 1119. Bank Now MM, A, No. 730, July 23.1035. Alabama, at Mobile. " 1M, " " 115, Feb. 23, 1839, " 100, " " 116, Dec. i, 1831, " '? " 1M, " " 164, " II, " " " 50, " " 721, Julv 1, I8T6, " Montgomery. 50, B, Jan. 1, " " M, A. " 2929. " 1, 1235, 10. D, " 198, July 25, 1833, " Mebile. " 10, B, Feb. 12, " Tuscaloosa. 10, A, " 38, Dec. 13, 1039, " 10, C, " 128, Mar. 1, 18:13, " Montgomery. " 5, B, " 1821, Sept. 7, " " D.-cator. 5, A, " 100U, June 9, 1831, " Mobile. 4 Small Notes. The above have been Helen or lost in transmission by inn I from Louisville, Kv. Broken and others will please take norice that all the Bank Notes are itampeil Massol k Co.. 29th July, IMt, and will detain the parties who may offer them for tale, and five information to 8. J. 8TLVfcSTF.R, an 24 1WT 22 Wall strtef. NAVY AOKNT'8 OKKICC..) New York, Aitfuat 22, 1842.) SCALED PROPOSALS will he received at tint office until the 17th inttant, at 3 o'clock, P. M. for furnishing ihe following tpeciAed materiala to be uted in the conitruclion of bnildioga at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. All ihe materiala to be delivered at tuch part of the Navy Yard aa amy be detifnated, en or before the Jtb dav of September neat, enhjeet to the approval of the Yard Intpector. Proposals will be received for the entire list, or separately far cither branch of it,e^(juaH^''Ptoj>o*sls^lor^?inldinK materials." It pieces North Rivar bine curb stone, 4 inches by 12?1 feet M pieeee North River blae enrb stone, 4 inches by 20?B feet 221 feet of lla?fins, of the 1st qnality North River bine stone. tH " CM teasM, for water uble. UO " do for window sills and lintels. 40 " do lor doop sills and lintels. US loads North River bailing stone, (one fourth pan fonnditi?n.) t JO .000 New bo nth hard paving brick. barrels Thomaaton lime. 420 loads scraeasd bailifing sand. SO pieces timber, white pine, 24 feet long, 3 by 12. M " do do 13 " 3 7, 4 " do do 20 " 4 " 12, 4 " do do 22 " 4 " 9. IS " do do 20 " 4 " 10. M0 merchantable Albany plank. 213 floor plank, tongues) and grooved. 3010 feet l* inch clear bins plank. . 4000 4 ao do one half 30 feet long. 13 boies X tin . , . . SM feet Ant qnality lead pipe, 2 inches in the clear. 438 " do do 3 " do do 8S0 lot 12d iron cat nails. 1,0 " ^ ^Rr "WETMORE. N.v, Agent. aa24 3tr ? '> Water street. /COTTON BAOOINO, Bale Hope. Twi.ri, lie. V 330 BaI** ?ut Iod?A heavy, 44 to 47 inch*** WKle. Ml Piece* Dundee, 44 inches heavy apd light. M do Oerma? 41 *42 inches lkn>|?er\anl. 300 Coil* b*le rone. vartoas liwi: Kmsia Anil AmBTWin Dawk*; Bridacjairt, American and Eaat Indit Twine*, for Mil maker*, and bailing, Sc., Ac. For tale ou favorable term* for ca*h, or approved B??ton or New York paiwr. Apply to CHARLES BALDWIN, 70 Wall at,.in ataira, an Jt eod*re Aaem for the ewner*. RILLS OF EkCHASOE. on *11 pert* of England, Ireland D and Scotland,>11011 in of ai.JCIO, ?11, ?20, to any amount, for aale *t S. J. SYLVESTER'S, U Wall atrect, anil and 1311 Broadway. QALT?2NU>icki Salt, Aahloiuk Blackbnm'a,factory filled, V landing from ahip Shciidan. and lor aale in lou to auit our ehaaera, by E. K. COLLINS A CO., aetlr ^ M South atrect. fOAL? IM ton* Liverpool Cannel .Coal, for aale in lota t# v aait parehaaen, now landing Irom ahip Siddona. Apply to *4' E5W'U R. UlbLINH. A Co.. M Booth alraet. Wl9 E NE Cmue of Mariaim* lljtlH. T? the Public and the Pre it : It will Im* recollected that, about fifteen mouths siuce, the un (lerfigntd was the object ot much uevrs|uper v itineration ami abuse; every variety ofoiMirohriou* iiiTrctirr the ianiruiirt af lorded, wu brought into requisition by which to stigmatize the atrocious M woman " No epithet was considered loo grots, too T"J? jo express the holy horror entertained by the truly pare ?i a1 i P?'?'* virtuous write rs of the newspaper anathemas.? Had the undersigned been convicted of the moat foal and atrocious crime, strougnr or more bitter terms than those aheady lavished upon her, would have been wanting?the vocabulary being in thu particular, bankrupt. A reflecting and impartial mrnd would naturally inquire the cause of all this malediction. Was it that the object of it was tried aud convicted, on proper and legal testimony t of some unheard of and most horrid atrocity ??of murder, of manslaughter, of arxon, or of some other heinous leionv I No. not so.? WVif than all this. She was charged with the commission ol a mitdemtanor . It was this charge, uusostained, (as 1"* Supreme Court declare) by a particle of legal testimony, which caused thu mighty newspajter volcano to burst upon her devoted lie .id. An experte affidavit was drawn up by one of the Police clerks, embellished with the horrid, revolting, and disguatiug. This affid vit (which, be it rememiK-red, was oil there was to sustain tha charge ujion trial) was seized with eager zeal and uraeuy avidity, and published, far and near, long before trial, accompanied with such virtuous outpourings, as would lead one to suppose the writers tcrbe either thi veriest saints ur the veriest hypocrites in Cluistendom. Long before trial it was settled that the accused was guilty. Kvery person read our or more of the public journals, each of which deemed it necessary' ?>r palita to toy so walk big about iha ' woman.'-otd tluu lay claim to a proportion ol morality, sit :etnia wa an opportunity to gun it cheaply, snppo iitg, doubtless, that he who prates lend est and longest against " iniquity," kc. will be snre to be considered excessively virtuous. After public opinion w*s thus effectually poisoned, it is neither reasonable nor probable to expect that the minds of those individuals composing the Court before whom the accused was yet to have a heating, could I* in a condition for that calm,cool, and diiqiasiiouate adjudication, without which, that intended to be tin- safeguard an J anchor of our civil iiulitntiou*?trial uy jury?is tt idle rrieiu.iuy, .1 mockery, i deception. Judge* ire but men?some of them with minds not the strongest, or moat clear, very often with hankerings after popular favor?who w ill in trying eineritenriea, hcaitate between their duty aa impartial administrators of the law, and the possible personal consequences of displeasing a supposed " puolic opinion." I do I ot wish hi re to intimate that the Court of Sessions acted from other than correct motives, notwithstanding that it seems a" remarkably singular coinc^ence" that throughout the whole of their proceeding* against me, in not one single particular,(so says the Supreme Court) did ili-y act in accordance with the plainest, simplrst, and best established and most fundamental principles of common law, statute, or precedent, but on the contrary, in every iustance, doubtless unintentionally, yiolateu the clearest and nearest rights of every citizen.? This is ceatainly singular ; extremely so. Dntso it u, nevertheless. I intend merely to suggest the gross inn ropriety and tlagiant injustice of the public press ; thus, ill effect, destroying.the glorious privilege of a fair, unbiassed, and inqiarlial trial by jury contemplated by the Constitution, ?* guaranteed to the veriest wretch, though lie should have the tins o( the ~oilil to answer for. How can this be attained, if, ou the first blush ol a complaint, on an tip,tile affidavit,howevei false, however unfounded, or however abandoned and wicked tli party by whom inade, a simultaneous and savage yell from t e press astounds the public ear ; ih<" matter H seized held i, ttt nggl i ted, perverted, uii*re|>rc*euted, maguitieil ; the enormity ol the supposed offence is freely and uiueseivcdly commented upon to exhaustion, as though the )>arfy, as vet only accused, and whose innocence or guilt is yet to be tested, were actually and beyond all |ieradvcnlurr, guilty. But tills l, not all This might, prrliaps lie tclerated, if, on findiug themselves in the wrotir or misled or deceived they had the manly honesty to acknowledge themselves premature in their surmises, slid forthwith correct, with the utmost publicity any error of judgment or of fact into which they may have (alien. But no; net even this pailitl act of common justice is scarcely ever rendered. And I will venture to affirm that noi one press in ten, loud-mouthed in my abu.e, will even lisp that the Supreme Court have decided ilial the ev i Juice u|ion which a conviction was obtained against Madame Ketlell, was illegal, unautlioriz-ri, and inadmissible. No. 1 exiitct it not. (respectfully submit it to the press whether such a ccu.se is not repugnant and dangerous " to the liberty of the citizen," cerUiiiinly not less to be prized than the " liberty of the nrrts." I take this opportunity to set the public right in refation to the matter pttl'crred agaiiut ine, by prcseutiug to llieir notice j sucli facts as will suable them to judge how much credruce is to be given to the affidavit of the miserable, wicked, and abandoned woinau, who affixed her signature to it. It will be recollected that in the. affidavit, taken ill March, 1811, slit states thai she called upon me, two and a ha1!'years before, viz: in 1839. That on that occasion she gave me a pledgeticket, consisting of some aiticles enumerated. But on the trial it was discovered that she lia<l made a previous affidavit, a year before, which was produced in Court, swearing in that affidavit that she had lost that self-same ticket, consisting of the same enumer-tion, by which oath ?he succeeded, it appeared, in obtaining the articles pledged. Here, then, she must have sworn falsely eillier iu the one affidavit or iu the other. Either she snore false in slating that she lost the ticke', or else she swore falsely iu alleging that sh-gave it to ine It did not appear in evi- I dence npon the trial that I ever had the pledge-ticket except by her affidavit, which was set aside by her prrvioua affidavit, takeu a year before. In which she swears as having lost i*. Had this woman testified on the stand in open Court, or where the wonlil l??. I..I. .okl.ol.a e-..,.!- -c- IJ I have convicted herself of perjury. Such was the character of the testimony upon which a conviction was obta ned, and it would have bet n surprising indeed if the Supreme Couit would permit such proceedings to have passed without administering aiiniet, but severe and well-merited rebuke. Dr. Marvin, her family physician, testified that 'The was a woman of weak intellect, silly, and easily influenced." This being so. it was not to be wondered at that such a woman, iu the hands of her notoriously abandoned and desperate husband, should have been prevailed upon to testify in a manner which would have subjected her to the penalties of the law. I wish the public to bear iu mind that this W. W. Purely, her husband, testified under oath that he never made overtures to me, either persaually or otherwise, to compromise; when a gentleman, then one of the (irand Jurors, came forward and tealified as follows:? " Huron Betts sworn for the defence, deposed that lie knew W. W. Purdy?that he requested witness two or three weeks ago to go to Madame Keslell and ask her if she would give him so much money to krep his witnesses away from the Court.? He did not name anv particular sum. Witness went with Purdy from the Bowery down Cha'ham street, from Chatham street to Broadway, and from Broadway down Cedar to the corner of Cedar and Greenwich streets, where Purdy left witness, promising to meet him at a barbel's shop at or near llie corner of Courtl'iudl street. Witness went into the house of Madame Rested and saw a woman." The immateriality of this Purdy's testimony u|*>n the main questional issue, was all that saved hun from an indictment for penury and attempt to extort. Such was the prosecution and such the testimony: and I refer with pride and pleasure to the decision of the Supreme Court as a shield and protection against injustice and oppression. I have, in conclusion, bat oue ether point to broach upon.? The beautiful aud high-wrought s|**ciineii of a literary composition, drawn up by one of the Clerks of the Police, before alluded to, contained, among other things, intended toshockalike the moral sense and decency of the community, the allegation that a " man." hoodwinked, muffled up, ant! wrap|ied up?doubtless, a very demon?was in attendance on that special occasion. The composition, as a production intended to I* startingly horrid, would have been incomplete without som/adjunct equally preposterous, ridiculous and absurd. The only drawback upon it being that it is false from beginning to end. I need only add that in no eaae do 1 engage a " man" or physician, for the simple ami all-abundant reason that, whatever I undertake I feel myself competent, as well by study, experience aud practice, to carry through properly; and, so fart from requiring a physician in my practice, it M not unusu il for me to be called for in preference to a " doctoi" in confinements, where a proiier delicacy forbids the presence of a male practitioner, and also in sncli other cases in which it is more fitting and proper, and more in consonance with our ideas of jiropriety, 'that a lady, provided man. I It will be ptrceivcd that every one of the exception* t.vken by Mr. Jordan, on account of illeirality, are sustained by the Supreme Court. A sufficient commentary upon thai gentleman's legal ar<(iiirementa, to whom I return my micere thank.1 for the faithful, able and fearleu manner in which he conducted himself throughout, regardless alike of the frowns and caresses of all. MADAME RESTELL, Female Physician, Kg Greenwich strert, N. Y. Supreme Court?The People vs. Hestell. Oeimois or the Couht. Bmoifsois J. The depositions ol Mrs. I'urdy, who had died before the trial, were offered in evidence upon two grounds? 1st, as de|msitions taken de kene esse, in the (hrurt of Geneial Sessions; and, 2d, as examinations before Mr. Meriilt, the committing magistrate. There is difficulty in the outset in allowing them to lie read as depositions taken in the General Sessions: for at the tiaae they wire takrn, there was no suit or one ceediug against the defendant iwiiding in that Court. The defendant had just before been committed to prison by a magistrate on a criminal charge; but no indictment had been found, and whether she wonld be indicted, if at all, in the Sessions or the Oyer and Terminer, wis a question about which nothing I on Id then be known. 1 do not see how the Sessions eouhl acquire jurisdiction of the matter except by indictment found in that Court, or in the Oyer and Terminer, and transmitted to the Sessions for trial. If Uis Court had no jurisdiction, the depositions are extra-judicial, and consequently void. But as this difficulti was not mentioned at the bar, there may be some legal nrovis ou on the suhject which I have overlooked, or there may hase been an understanding between the counsel that the nlijrctions should not be made. It is proper, therefore, to consider the ease ujxin the hroad ground discussed at the lur. Can the public prosecutor have de|ioailiotia taken de kene esse in criminal raaes, and read them in evidence without the consent of the defendant ? I think hr cannot. The general rule certainly is, thai the witneaaes must appear in Conrt, and lie confronted with the accused party. On trials for homicide the dying declarations of the person murdeied may be given in evidence against the defendant. This is, I think, the only exception to the general rule which has been mentioned, except such as are baaed upon some statute law. A practice sprung up in this 8ia-e at any early day, of taking depositions rfe kene e??e in civil suits, which were afterward read in evidence an proof of the desth or absence of the witness. [Mumford v. Church, 1 John.Cas. 147; Sandford v. Rurrrll, Antn. N. P. 1(4; Jaclunn v. KciivCow.4#\ Wait v. Whitney, id.69; Packard v. Hill, id. 4(9 ] This practice haa since been sanctioned by the Legislature. [I R. 8. Kt, Art. 1.] But this statute does not. nor does tne prior practice rxlend to criminal cues. We are rrferreu t-i another statute, which provides that "the proceedings presrnlwd by law in civil cases, in respect to the luipsnueiTtng of juries, the keeping them together, and the manner of rendering their verdict, ah <11 lie had u|K?n trials of indictment ; and the provisions of l?w in civil cases relative to eompelliug the attendance and testimony ot witnesses, their elimination, the administratien of oaths and aff.rmuttons, anu proceedings aa for cotiteni|<? to enlorce ilie remedies and protect the rights of parties, shall extend to trials and other proceedings on indictments, sh far aatheymav be in their nature applicable thereto, siibicet lo the provisions contained in any statute." I 2 K. S. 72J, sec. 14.] It was not the object of this section to give new r? inrdiei in criminal cases, hut to direct the mode in which existing remedies should thereafter I"" applied. "The provisions of law in civil ours," in relation to the matters particularly sjwrilied, are extended to like proceedings on indictments ; but its is only "so far as they may lie iu their nature applicable thereto." Much stresa has been laid upon the words "tnrir examination," as applied to ?itnessrs. But lltnue words muat be restricted to cases where the examination was alre.nlv provided for In. law : and there is Still,le senile I'm. ll.eir Operation. They apply where the witne's i? produced in court, wh?n he I* rttminril nti commission, ami when rttmintu conditionally at the inataiirr ?f the defendant. (2 H. S. 731, arc 73, 7i.] Tlie Legislature titd not intrml by this general provision in (elation to the forma and mode of nroreriliiu; in criminal eases Ui introduce a ne w rule into the law of evidence. Thia is the more evident from the fart that special provision had already been made in the aarne chapter for the eiauiinfttion of wHoeaaea out of Court. After issue joined it|>on the indictment the defendant may have aeoinmiition to eaainine witnesses re iilina onl of llie State,end the prosecuting officer may join in the c.nimtsaion and name witnesses on the part of the people. t?n? 171, tec 711 After hnving thus especially pnividen for I particular eases, It la impassible to suppose thai the Ligl'latnrc, III the aeneral proviaion which followa on pane 73J, aec. 14, intended to cover an entirely new rlaaa of eaaea, and provide for the eiamination of witneaaea rfe bene me on the part of the rre are a claaa of cases where deposition* taken out of C.onrt, and without the consent of the defendant may be read in evidence against htm. The Statutes I and 2 Philip aud Mary, 17, and 2 and J Philip and Marv c. 10. provide, that the tnagistrate aiiall take the eiamination of tlw |inaoner, and the information of (hem that biing him, put the same in writing, and certify it to the nnt gaol delivery within hia commission. We have a aimilnr alatute, 2 R. H. TOO. ilJ? 27. It ii generally agreed thai depositions taken in immivnee ol these statutes miy, when the witn. .? ii .lead, and in loine other caws, be Mi Mi evideuce on the trial. The statute! do not ptotide that the de I potiuona shall be evidence; but the> ve attainted on the gruuud W YO V YORK. SATURDAY M that they have been taken in the course of a judicial proceeding expressly authorised by law, when the defendant was present and had the right of crasa-t-lamination. It i* sometimes aaid iu the hooka that the deposition ia admitted because it u not eilra-jttdiria(. But that ia only a part of the true reason,and ia calculated to mitlead. Uoitu: ujhiu that ruaaou alone, the origiual complaint on oath before the magistrate on apply iug lor the w arrant would be admissable evidence against the defendant although he had not then been brought into court. That ia a judicial proceed iuic i and yet I am not avrare that the 01 initial complaint was ever received iu uvidence attain*r the defendant. The contrary was* expressly ad^udgid in the State vs, Hall, 2 Hill's Law Rep. [ So Car.] W2. The dejmsitioii must uot only be taken ill a judicial proceeding. but it must be taken when the defendant was present auil h ve the *>pj?oituuity to cross-exsraiue the witness -t otherwise it will not be received. It is said t^at depositions taken by the coroner on holding an inquest, are evidence, although the defeudant was not present when they were taken. This doctrin** has been gravely questioned, and I am strougly inclined to the opinion tlut it caunot be maintained. The great principle that lf?e accuser and accused must be brought face to face, and that the lat'er shall have the opportunity to cross*examine, can never be departed from with safety. Neither life nor liliertv should ever be nut 111 pent by testimony to ex-parte deposition*. It is better that the guilty should sometimes go free, than that the innocent should bo subjected to such ad ordeal. It is not, however, necessary at this time to pass upon the admissibility of depositions taken before the coroner in the absence of the accused, and I will therefore only mention some of the books where the tilth t to give such evidence ' as been strongly questioned. 2 Stark Iv. 489, 493, Ed. of '26; 2 ltuss on Cr. Ctil; Hoscoe Cr Iv. 5.1-1: Tin* State \. Hill, 2 Hill's Law Ksp. [So. Cue.3 GC7,1510} Cow. and Hill's notes to Phil. Ed. 940, note 077. If such depositions arc admissible, ilproxes nothing against the def-udaut, lor the coroner is authorised by statute to examine the defendant and to return the* testimony of all witnesses examined before the jury: t K. S. 712 Art. 1. The deposition* are not, therefore, extra-judicial. But there is no statute which authorises the Court iu which an indictment is |>cudiug to take depositis>us without the consent ol the defendant. The authority of the Court of General Sessions to take these depositions, if it exist at all, must therefore be found in the common law. Tin common law kMnotattibm^sodiay such pfooasdif i it criminal cases. The statutes of Pin lip and Mary only provided for the taking of depositions in cases of felony, and it was long since settled that depositions taken by the magistrate in rases of iuisdein--auor are not admissible: Hex. v. Bailie, 1 Salk 281; 1 Ld. Eaym.7f?; 5 Wood. ItiJ; Comb Carth 405 S O. This case seems fo hare been very carefhlly considered. The justices of tne K. B. sent one of their number to the justices of the Common IMnas to learn their opinion, aud all the judges of botli courts agreed that the deposition could not he received. Cart hew only mentions tho other questions which arose in the case, and the re|Mrt in Modem states that the deposiuou was rejected because the defendant, was not present, and so had lost the benefit of a cross examination. But there can be no doubt that the other point was also decided, *ud the case must therefore he regarded as an adjudication by the twocouru that there is no authority at the common law foi takiix depositions out of court in criminal casts. In the case of i hatcher and Waller, Sir T. Jouti 53, the defendant* were footmen to LordCornwallis, and were charged that, with him, they had murdered one Robert Clerk. The.y were acquitted for?w*?t of evidence, aud i; whs then moved by the Chief Justice tlitithe footmen " should be examined before one of the judges for the prosccutlou of their testimony againscthe other ollVndeis; this was not assented toby the other judges, who said that they had no authority in the case, other than as justices of the peace." If the Court of K. B. in England cannot order the taking of depositions before one of the judges iu criminal cases, it is quite clear that the N. Y. General Sessions cannot order the examination of a witness before the Recorder.? in me mug >. oiorpnew, i ni. ami t? no;, me c mil maue 11 a condition 111 putting nlf (lit-tri il on llie application of the defendanr iliar to- st.ould consent to the examination upon interrogatories of a miterial witness for the crown, who nu about to leave the country. Aud notwithsladdiug the defendant's counsel, the Attorney General, Sir William Garrow, doubted win tiler ilie deposition eMUi M ri id in ev iilrnce. At the common law the defendant as well as the public prosecutor must produce l is witueasea on the trial-, hut the defendant was sometimes aided by puttiug ?tT the trial until the public prosecutor would consent to au examination out of Court: Moilyu v Fabrics*; Cown 174; 1 Chit. Cr. L. 612. The statute has now given the defendant a commission for witnesses out of the State, and allowed him to examine other witnesses conditionally, at in civil rases; but these privileges are confined to the defendant. 2 K. S. 731; sec. 73, 75. These provisions show very satisfactor ily that the Legislature thought there was uo warrant for examining wituesses out of Couit in criminal cases, and that the right to do so ought not to be given to the prosecuting officer. There is a case of Matthews v. Post [Comb 63] which, after deciding in tluee lines that the visitation books kept by the heralds are good evidence, has four concluding lines ss follows: "The witnesses may be examined before a judge by l-ave of the court, as well in criminal causes is incivil, where sufficient reason appears to the court, as going to ses_, fee.,and when the other side may cross-examine them." Mr. \ inec, with his usual industry, has found a place for this dictum in his gnat abridgement; but that has added nothing to its force. [Will. Ab. Kvp dence, Ab. 32, pi. 7.] As that was a civil suit, it it not very probable that the court mule auy such remark; but if they did there is no aiijudicatiou or practice to support it. Ths court of geueral sessions acted without authority in ordering the examination of Mrs. Purdy\ and the depositions taken before the Kecordet were therefore extra-judicial and void. II. It remains to consider these depositions as they were taken by Mr. Merritt, the committing magistrate. Our statute is uot, like those of Phillip aud Mary, coiifiued to cases of felony but extends to every criminal offence; and although the dcfetidaut wis only charged with a misdemeanor, the justice had authority and it was his duty to examine the complainant and the witnesses produced in supi>ort of the prosecution [2 R. 8.706, f 2, 13.] If the depositions were taken puisuant to law, and have one. suffered no detriment, they were properly admitted in evidence on trisl?the witness being dead. Were they taken pursuant to law ! It is settled, upon the construction of the statutes of Phillip ami Mary, tharthe defendant must he present at the examination of the witnesses against him; and one statute expressly provides that the examination shall be had "in the presence of the prisoner," Q 131 anil if desired his coiiusei may also be present. [>11 J The Legislature ha* thus carefully provided that the deleiidant shall have the opportunity to Croat-examine, and if that right is not et'joyed the deposition cannot lie read in evidence against him oil tne trial. [ The King v. Paine, 5 Moil. 163; Comb. 358, S. O.; Woodcock's case, 1 Leach, 5110; Uingleria case, 2 id. 561; King v. Callaghan, t .MncNally Lv. 385; Rex v. Forbes, I Holt, N. P. 507, note; The State v Hill,2 Hill Law Rep. (9. Car.) 607; 2 Stark Kv. 488-02; 3 Hawk (by Carwood) 591, i 24; I Rusa. on Cr.660; I Phil. ?v. 369. 372 etl. of >39; RoscoeCr. fcv.50-I; Bull N. P. 2(1-2; 1 Cni(. Cr. L. 77, 79; Cow. aud Hill's notes to Phil. ef. 938, note 389> The Kim: v. Crow her I T. R. 125.] The answers of the witness should b- on oath : he should he first sworn anil then examined, instead of taking the examination fir*t and then swearing him to th? truth of the statement. [The Kins v. Kiddy, 4 D. It R. 731.} uid the deposition should br taken m nearly u possible in the words used by the wituess. [l Phil. Ev. ISti.J When the direct rumination is closed, the defendant should be allowed to cross examine at large, anil the answers should be ctrefully set down by the Magistrate. In short tlie deposition should lie so taken that the defendant will loose as little as the nature of the rase will permit by r? ailing the deposition on the trial instead of hating the oral examination of the witness before the jury. In Rex. rs. Forbes. 1 Holt, N. P. Hep. 597, note, the prisoner was not present until a part of the deposition had been prepared, when he was introduced and heard the remainder of the examination; and wt.cn it was concluded, the whole deposition was read over to the prisoner. Chambre J rejected that part of the deposition which was nreiured in the defendant's absence. He said, "the intention of the statute of lliilipand Mary is sufficiently plain. It is that the prisoner shall he present while the wituess actually delivers his tesmony.sotliat he may know the precise wools lie uses, and obseive throughout the manner aud ilt uieanor with which he gives his Ustimouy." This was in 1814. Rex. vs. Smith, 1 Holt, N. P. Rep. Git, and 2 Stark Rep, 2U8, 8. C. was tried in 1817, and afterwards came before the twelve Judges, and is re|?rted in Russ vs. Ryan, Or. Cas. 339, where the facts are more fully stated. The oath was administered to the w itness brforr any part of his evideuce was reduced to writ ny. The prisoner was not present w hen theexamiuation commenced, but was brought into the room before Ute three last lines of tie deposition were taken down. He was then informed thsl the magistrates were taking the examination of the witness, and was desired to attend 1 he oath was agaiu administered to the witness in the presence of the prisoner, and the whole of what had lieen previously written down from the mouth of the witiu-vs, was, in his presence, resil once more very distinctly and slowly. After this was d'nr the witness was asked, in the presence of th priiouer, whether what hail keen written was trite, and what he meant to say; and the witness auswercd that it was perfectly correct. Tlie magistrates theu proceeded to examine the w itness farther; and alter the three last lines were written, the prisoner was asked whether he chose to put any ipirstions. Tlie deposition was then signed by the witness and certified by the magistrates in the presence of the prisoner. Richards C. B., before whom tlie defendant was tried, wax of opinion that the evidence was admissible, "siarc ihe deceased hail been re-sworn in tlie presence-ofthe prisoner, and had repeated what he had stated before, and the prisoner then-fore had an opportunity of cross-examining him." Ten of the eleven Judges who afterwards met to consider the rasa w.-rr of opiuii n that the deposition was properly received. Abhott J. thought nilmrwiie. I have been thus particular in stating this case, because it has been snnposed to depart esaentially from the doctrine laid down in Rex. vs. Forbes; but that is a mistrake. In Rex. vs. Forbes it did not ap|iear that the witness had been re-aworti before the deposition was read once in the presence of the prisoner. Mr. CnitryflCr. 8. 80) says, if the orig.naliiufnrmation and evidence taken before the warrantfwas issued, contain a complete case, it is toe practice, after reswearing the accuser and witnesses, to read over their fanner depositions in their presence and that of i he prisoner, and to state to the latter that he is at liberty to ask the prosecutor and witnesses any questions respecting the charge against him. This practice may, perhaps, lie tolerated, though it clearly is not the most proper course. In this ease the first and principal deposition was ori rinally prepared and sworn in tlie defendenl'a absence, and, conld not ih-.-f,,,, G# HMitnn lit, trial iinlpaa viae aligaeaatl V aaraa oln iafe-l by what took place after iht arrest. Ami here there are several objections. Although the defendant consented to (0 with the Justice to the house of Mrs. Portly without writing for the return of her husband with 'counsel, she gave the consent on hi nig tohl hv the Justice that the OUT tnfNt in going WMtV hate the defendant identified by the witness. When they got to the house, tint Justice not only prepared an affidavit identifying the defendant, hot he proceeded to swear the witness to the original dep-rsition, and did what as is now said, will make that paper good evidence agaiast the defendant. Although nothing wroug was intended, I think this was not a pro|>er course of proceeding. The husband had gone after counsel for the very purpose of having assistance on tne esamination, and if tne defendant had hern made to understand how much was to be done on this visit to Mrs Pnrdy, it is highly probable thai she would have decline I going there until sumrirnl time liad been allowed for the return of herhushand. There was no occision for urging the woman away with -o much haslr after she had desired to have counsel, anil when the return of her husband might be exjieeted within After n or twenty minutes. The witness, so fir as appears, was not then dangerously ill, am) the did not die until the lapse of more than a month from that lime. The language of the statute is, " if desired by the person arrested, itis counsel may be present (luring the examination." 2 K. 8. TirJ. <11. A reasonable time after the at re St should he allowed for the employment of counsel, sod I think the Justice misludgrd of his dill f in proeteding to an ramunition before a reasonable time ban elapsed for the relum of the husband. But what was this supposed^ lamination of the witnessThe Justice did not pursue tne course which was adopted in Hex vs. Smith?the esse on which the District Attorney relies. In that case the magistrate in the Ilia' place rr-strore the witness in the presence of'he prisoner, and then very distinctly and slowly read over so much of tne deposition as had been previously written. The witness was then asked whether what had been written was true, and what he meant to say; ami he a swered, thvtit was perfectly correct. The magistrate ihen proceeded mil comple.ed the depc-uiotl. There was an examination of the witness on nath and in I lit- prtimer of thr pritnnn, and when tlis direct examination w.u through, the prisoner was invited to cross-eaamine. How *as it here 1 The Justice wilhani waring the witness to answer questions touching the complain* re id over the original affidavits, thvu prepare J anolt, er ami read Hut; md then swore the witness to botn depositor in the gross. , , , , . After all had been thus completed, the defendant was told thet she eonlii put questions; she did tail questions; but if the witness had answered falsely, she could not have been convicU'l of perjury. She had just sworn that, the depositions> -ere true; Tin", she had not sworn to answer question* at all. The whole matter was sccomplished and the |rurlies left the house within iwentyi r thirty minutes after thwy hid entered it. It will never do to hold this such an examination as will make the depositions evidence against the accused. The witness was not ex xnnnrn on omit, in Hie |rra?lirr Ol on- i'i , ? nrr j itc atatute require*. 2R 8. 700. |I3. In otir aval te puniah enme, treat care alioulii be taken not to make nreeedrnta which may prove tl*nferon> to tiie innocent, and it ahoald never lie forxotten that even the uuilty have righta w.ich vhouhl be acrupiilonaI y retarded. I think the Juatiee alao erred in m t firing the anawrr of the Wltneaa to the qneetiona nut by way of croia-exainination. If, aa the Jnatice underaunda the nutter, " there waa, in point of I RE I ORNING, AUGUST 27, 1 fact, but one question," and the defendant Mpot the tame question over uiul over again," it in ev.dent that the defendant thought that a veiy material inquiry. The Justice does not deny that the questions aud answers were peitinent, but he thought it was not material to put them down ; and the reason assigned is, that " the answer had been given before any question wis put by Madame Restrll, at u itnns nmxiderrd, and was already in th- affidavit." It must be recollected that this was Uy first time that the witness had been confronted with the accused, and if the witness had answered the satnc qu stion before, it was when she did not stand face to face with the defend int. The statute provides thai the magistrate shall proceed to examine the complainant and the witnesses produced iu support ol the prosecution 011 oath, in tile presruce of the prisoner, in regard to the offence cha ged, and iu regard to any other in tiers connected with such charge, which such magistrate may dee in pertinent." (3 H. 8. 708, f 13.) "The evidence given by the several witnesses examined wis all be reduced to writing by the magistrate, or under his direction, and sha I he signed by the witnesses resjiectivrly." (*19) I see nothing in these provisions to warraut the magistrate in refusing to take uunu Mil- .iinni ii I" prmueui questions put Uimll me cross examination. If the name question it put more linn aucr and receives a uniform answer, one insertion in (tie deposition will be enough ; but I see no rraaon why the answer should be rejected altogether. When the examination is produced,and the magistrate swears that it was talteu in pursuance ol the stature, and uollnng appears to the coutrsrv, it may be presumed that all the necessary forms were duly observed. (The 1'eople vs. Moore, 16 WeuJ. 419.) But it may be, and was showu ih this case that the de|>osition was not duly taken. It was thought iminrrtaat ou the trial to prove that there was a subsemjt-ut off I r by the magistrate to eiaminr the wituesses for the People in piesenre ol the defendant and her counsel, and to allow a cross-examination. But this could not aid the defective depositions which had been taken ten days before tiie offer was made. If it was not thru too late, the Jo?t li e should have gone on anil hail an examination dr. noi-w, Instead of couteutiug himself with making a proposition to that effect. X There is a further otyectiou against receiving the depositions as examinations before the magistrate. They have undergone a very imimrtsnt alteration since they were taken by Justice Me my, an.I now ap|iegr to be dv|M>sitiotu in the Court of General Hussions. When all the Judges and B iroui of England assembled on the trial of Lord MorTey for inurder, by his Peers the fourth resolution which they adopted was, "that in case any of the witnesses which were examined before the Coroner were dead or uuable to travel, and nth made thereof, that then the r laminations of such wituesses, so dead or unable to travel, might be read, the Corouer first making oath tint such laminations me the same which he took upon oath, without any addition or alteration whatsoever." (Kelyug's Hep, JJ, JJ.) An J Hawkius says, the deposition is admissible " if it be made out by oath to the satisfaction of the Court that the examination offered in evidence la the very same that was sworu before the Coroner or Justice, without any alleratiou whatsoever." (2 Hawk, [by Cruwoodj 692,116 ) And to the sime effect is 1 Chit. Cr. L 81. Bellinger vs. The People, t Wend. 699, per Hnthvrland, J. It is impossible to say that these are the sa-*e depositions winch were taken before the magistrate, without addition or alteration. The objection is presented iu another and a more conclusive form. The principal deposition when offered on the trial, pillported to lie adeposi'iou in tiie court of " Hcurril Sessions of the peace in and for the city and county of New York," and to hare been lakeit pursuant to an order of that court. And although the defendant excepted to the evidence, the District Attorney was iiermittcd to prove by jiarol that it was a deposit.un taken before, the committing inigistrate. The esse comes plainly within the general rule th^ a written document shall not be contradicted or impeached by parol evidence And, besides, there arc decisions going to the precise point under consideration. The prisoner is to he examined without being sworu. lu the King v Smith. 1 Stark Ken. 212. the eirmmr Hon o( the defendant was rejected, became it purported to have been taken on oath, and Le Blanc J. leliised to receive evidence that uo oath had in fact been administered to the defendant. A like decision was made in Hex v. Rivera. 7 C. It P. 117. 1 Phil. Er. 113, 114^ 370. In Hex v. Walter, 7 C. t P. and 67, the written examination of the prisoner stated that he had answered, ' I decline to say any tiling," and Lord Abingvr would not allow the prosecutor to prove that the ptisoner had inade a confessiotf of his euilt when under examination before the inagistrate. Alter these |>apcrs had been tuned into depositions in the court of Oeneral Sessions. they could only be used for what they were worth as de|Hjsition< taken in that court, 'l'hey could not be reformed by parol evidence into depositions helore the committing magistrate. In every view which I have been abb- to take of the case, tlie depositions were irnyrorrerly admitted, * And after indictment found, the defendant may also examiire witnesses cotuli ioually, as iu civil cases. [Sec 75.1 _lly- Philadelphia (.'hiouicle, Ledger, anil Spirit of 'limes; also Boston Daily Times, Boston Daily Mail, and Boston Morning Post, will please copy. HOTEL DE L'EUROPE, No. b Broad Street. rpHE Proprietor having removtrl to No. I Broad street, and i. opened this establishment for the convenience of the eat in* public, solicit! tin Irieuds and others to give trim s call. Every delicacy of the season may be had here, and every thine served up in the most recherche style, the bar is supplied Willi good Wines and Liquors at all times Table d'Hote, at 3 o'clock. Citixsa* and strangers will find this an admirable place to dine down town, being so near business. N. B. Private Rooms may be had for parties or single gen tlemen, furnished. aii20im*r THE OLD UNITED STATES CAP. STOCK, SHIRT, AND OILED SILK MANUFACTORY. JOHN M. DA VIES & JONES, SUCCKSSOg TO LUKE DAVIES Ik SON, 100 William street, corner John, New York. UURCHA8ER8 will at all times lind the most extensire as1 aortraeut in the United States, of the following aiticlrs, on the must reaonable terms, wholesale and retail. Cap*far gentlemen, youth and hihlrru of velvet, cloth. merino, silk, glaied silk. lie. Icc. Full and jart trimmed with fur and plailk Army and Navy officers dress and undress caps. u..?l. ?r.. .,.1. ....i ?...i;..?-r..ii..?.... ing.kc. made plain. trimmeu Willi bowi, cravat lira, Paris tiea, dress apron stocks, ike. kc. T>- Hprriority n| our frames ii well known by the lightness perfect nT, tear and elasticity of every stock. Shirts of all linen plain and fVillr d,nf muslin plain and frilled, with linen roll tr? bosoms and w ristb nda of the moat appi oveil iwltrrna. Fancy cambric shirts of all quxl ities. Linen collars and bosoms of every style and qnality. oiled silk, white, plaid, and fancy,of suirerior manufacture. Ladies, misses and children's oiled silk aprons. Oiled silk, medicated, for the cure of rout, rheumatism, See. Jappaned leather, linen and inuslin, suitable for harness and coach manufactures, cap fronts, Stc &c. The above articles are made under our own inspection, iu the best posatblr manner and of such materials and workmanship as will be found on examination equalled by none. To which is added, a superior assortment of fancy articles of various qualities and prices. Gloves, suspeudeis, cravats,scarfs, umbrellas, handkerchiefs, hoisery, cravat-stiffners, guard-chains, under garments of every description and qnalily, Shaker knit and llamiel shirts and draweri, The attention of t'ne public generally are invited to the above extrusive assortment of goods, many of which are of nor own importation and will be sold at such prices as cannot fail to suit. JOHN M. T1AVIE8 k JONES, au25 lir.*r IOC William, corner of Jonn. cast~OTF^LOTHTNG! ENTLEMEN or Families laying aside articles of weariug vT apparel, and wishing to tlispoie of the same for cash, can obtain from tlie subscriber 20 per cent more tlian from any other To ladies and gentlemen about leaving the city being encumbered with a superfluous wardrobe, will find It much to their advantage to send loir DM subscriber, w ho will allend tbem at their residence by appointment. A line addressed to BOX 107 LOWER POST OFFICE, will be punctually attended to. au2C3t*r TO THE LADIES. ]\AADAME C09TELLO, Female Physician, still continnes ivl to treat, with aatonialuug success, all diseases pecu liar to females. Suppression, irregularity, obstruction, kc, by whatever cause produced, can be temoved by Madame C. in a very aoit time. Madame C.'a medical establishment having nndergone thorough re|>airaand alterations for the better accommodation of her numeronr patients, she is now prepared to receive ladies on the point of confinement, or those who wish to be treated for obstruction of their monthly period. Madame C. can be consulted at her residence No. 34 Liapen ard at, at all timet, and with the strictest regard to secrety. All communications and letters must be post-paid anJC lw#v TO THE LADIES. DR. HULL'S UTERO ABDOMINAL SUPPORTER. rpHI9new Instrument for the radical cure ofrrolapstis Uteri * or Failing of the Womb, by external application, superseding the use of the objections! Pessary, is confidently recommended to the afflicted as the means of perfect restoration to health, it never Having failed of |>erforming a cure, even under the most aggravated circumstances. The Su|>|H>rter has attained a very high ckaractrr in Europe as w:ll as in this country,- I' is adopted to the eutire disuse of I'essaries.and all other painful surgical expedients,in the Lying n-HospiuU of London and Paris, and is universally recommended in Europe by medical men of the highest rank. In this country it is sustained by the leading members of the facilities if Colleges and Hospitals, and by all the eminent private practitioners. Rooms have been furnished exclusively for ladies, at No. 4 Vesey street, having a separate entrance Irum the business depvrtment, where a lady is in constant attendance, lo apply I riisses ana supporters to Irmair patients. augti Im'i MADAME-CDSTELLO. UEMALK PERIODICAL FILLS, (ivuto'd in cterr raw r where the monthly periods have been irregular, from enlds, or other rinse*. Their certainty of anion ha* long been acknowledged by the medical pretention, and hand red* that hare uselessly tried rarioua boaated remediea; indeed, ao aure are these pills in their effects, that care ia sometimes neceaaary in their are, though they contain do medicine detrimental to the conatitntion. Advice given gratia to all who uae the pilla, by Madame Crutello, 34 Liapenard at, where the pilla are sold genuine. Price $1 per bot. an 20 lw?r CM ORLANDO KI8H will introduce hi* Fall Style of Hata J^hfor gentlemen'* wear, on Thuraday, lat of September. au23 3t*r 137 Broadway. DRESS BOOTS?Latest French Style ?The ^g^HV'thacnher re*pertfully invite* the ritit?n* of New York, aiid *tranger* viaiting the cityktn call at 114 Fulton *tr*et and egimine a large assortment of Dre?* Boot*, made in the lateu f?hion, and of the fineat French rslf-skin. Gentlemen can have boon inade to order in the beat manner at $H,00 per pair, warranted rrpial to any made at $7,30, and a* the undenigiied take* drawing of the feet and keeji* laata for each Cintomer he can ep*nre an easy yet h*nd?omr fit. Constantly on hand, Ka*hionable Boot*, Itc. at the following rrdncrd price* Seal Skin Boot*, (r im (2,2.3 to 2,73 Calf. 3,00 to 6,00 Half Boot*, 3,00 Oaitera, 2,23 Shoe-. 1,30 to 230 I'iimp* and Slipper*, he., prn|>ortionably low. Term*, caali on delivery. JOHN L. WATKINst, an23 Im'r III V'ulp.n .(. h-fw> n \ **?*ti in,I Our. I,. FRENCH IMPORTED GAITERS ..f all c<>lor* of Fashion ; French boots and i-atcnt leather <hoe?, dre*? ?hoe*, gaiiera, walking *hoc? and puni|i*, for men, boy?, and children. Mrn and boy# cheap liooia from $3,73, ft, S3,iO, and $1 per pair. Men'* shoe* 7 lo 10 and Ida per pair Bnvs' *hoe* 30 rn 73 cent* and $1. and warranted good. Ladies misses, and chi!ilr*-iin gaiter boots. baakina* walking shoe*, ma slipper* o( all color* and *i*r< latest fashion*, tie*. buskins, and slaps, 73 cents to (I, good 4* slipper*, Come and see a Broadway. and at 20r> Canal it., north-Weal corner tlmiaon at., at Wall.fr a. au?t lm*r HARD TIM K8.-Thn only Tea/on that A. I ^I^^KNd.V It CO. can aaaign for .ellinc ?o many boota ami tiin at the Clinton Bwt nu.t Shoe Market, '.Dl Canal at. northi aat corner ol Hudaon 'treel?wheu r.lmoat ererv body er.mplain* of hard timea, la, that they keep rood a r?f the heat pia'ttj ami aell them at pricea to auit the tim??, and it aertna aa if almnat eeery body had found thia ont. If any who tead thta alinnld not yet hare lound out the atom, the aooner they come and try the aooner they will reap the ad??nta?e. Almoat any thine that ia wanted in the boot and altec line, of any size, color or quality, can be found here cheat'. ? lro'r A. KNOX ft I'O. Wi Canal at. 1)1,ATR (Ml M Ht A I. I*. for a ill-, wetehintt jeiunda. Price X Mo. Apply at the Tin Mote 106 Cherry itreet.fiye iloou (rom Catharine au2))?r IERA 842. Ueneral Naval Court Martial, on board Ibr C. N.Shlp NortU Carolina. Kridat, Aug. j6, lo4j. Trial of Lieut. Charles Wilkes, Continued. The Court met, pursuant to adjournment, ?N the mrmbers present. The journal of yesterday was read by the Judge Advocate. Purser Dunn, called by the Judge Advocate and sworn. J'jbuk Autocatk?State whether you were a Purser attached to the Exploring Expedition, before it sailed from the United States. A?I wu. Judos Advocate State whether the marines that went in the F.xploring Expedition received a bounty I A ?Some of them did. H.-llow was that bounty paid' A.?faiil by me in money by order of Commodore Jones. Q?Was that payment disallowed by the Fourth Auditor; if so, how does the account now stand 1 A.?It was disallowed, and all that wu not recharged to the men, stands charged to me. Q ? Did those men re-enlist after their original enlistment? A.?1 do not know; 1 dont recollect. Q.?If they had, would it not havo been in writing' A.?I presume so. tj.?Did you ever see such writings 1 A.?1 don't recollect. Q.?Would not that written re-enlistment have passed through your hands if it ever existed I A.?I think 1 should have seen it. The marine* received their bounty and went on shore with the sailors. There were so many run away after they had been drafted and received the bounty, that I received orders to pay t iem only half the bounty when they went on shore, and the remainder when they cameon'board, Q.?Was all the bouuty paid in money 1 A.?All that I paid. Q?For what purpose was this additional money given ? A? It was paid by an order of Com. Jones. The order is on tile in the 4th Auditor'* ottice, in Washington; I dont know what it was paid Tor; 1 do not recollect that the order stated what it was tor; it is not general order No. 1, it was a special order directed to me; I recollect it speaks of paying bounty to the marines as well as the sailors. Cross-examined by Mr. Hamilton, through the Judge Advocate. Q?What was the amount of bounty you paid to each man? A?The highest amount paid was three month's pay, and some of them only received half of it. Some of the marines run and never come on board. Q.?Was the bounty paid to any marines but those who went in the Expedition or were detailed to go, and did not on account of sickness .' A.?1 don't know. 1 did not go in the Expedition. Q.?You say Commodore Jones ordered you to pay the bounty to the marines as well as the men. Was not the bounty paid to the men to re-enlist t A.?It was. Q?Look at the letter shown yen, is it not signed by Aaron (J Dayton, 4th Auditor of the Treasury ? A ?It is. Mr. Hamilton read a letter from A. O. Dayton, to Purser Waldron, dated Aug 3,1839, in which he states that he has inclosed a list of marines attached to the Expedition, who have received bounties from Purser Dunn, and instructing him to check the amount against them, as it is contrary to an Act of Congress to pay bounties to new recruits. Jrnuc Advocate.?You have said that Com, Jones gave you orders to pay the bounty to the marines as well as the men, and that the men re-enlisted; how do you know the men re-enlisted? A.?I saw the ar'icles. Q,?Did you ever know the articles of enlistment of marines to be in possession of the purser 1 A.?No sir. Q ?Did y oi ever know the articles of enlistment of marines to pass through the hands of a purser ? A?Not unless these articles of enlistment passed through ray hands, which I do not recollect; I do not know that any such articles ever existed. The evidence of the witness was read over by the Judge Advocate. Lieut. North called by the Judge Advocate, and sworn. I Jc doe Advocate?State to the Court when vou ioined I the expedition, and when you left it. A.?I joined the Expedition .under Con. Ap Catciby Jones, in November 1836, and left it in July 1843, after it* return to the United State*. Jidda Advocate?State whether the marine* who went out in that Expedition ever re-enli*ted after their original enlistment. A.?1 think they never did. Judge Advocate?State whether they ever received a bounty, for what it was paid, and the circumstances. A.?As well as I recollect, they did receive a bounty, because they were going out in the expedition. I think there was an order that all the men and marines who went out in the expedition were to receive three month's extra pay. Juddk Advocate?State what the character of Smith, Bahb, and Pensyl are, especially Babl>. Mr. Hamilton objected, as the character of Babb had not been impeached. The Judoe Advocate said one of the members of the Court had expressed doubts, but as it wa? objected to, he withdrew the question. Lieut. Wilkes declined cross-examining this witness. Pl-rsek R. R. Waldroiv called by the Judge Advocate and sworn. By the Court?What was the entry on the muster-roll of the Vincennes touching the expiration of the enlistment of Samuel Pensyl, Philip Babb, George Smith and Samuel Dinsman I A.?There is no entry on the muster-roll of the expiration of the term of enlistment of any marine, or seaman either, to my knowledge. Crost-txamintd by Mr. Hamilton through the Judge Advocate. (4 Was you on the deck of the Vincennes on or about the '.'6th of August, 1839, when Lt. Wilkes hailed Lt. Pinknev, on board the Elying Kish, when lying near the Island of bisappeintment; if yea, state the circumstances. A.? I was on deck. Lt. Wilkes hailod, and said you have disobeyed my written orders, sir; it is now three quarters of an hour after sunset; I ordered you to return at sundown. Never do it again, sir,?never do it again;" or wards to that effect. Q?Was you near enough to Lt. Wilkes to hear distinctly all he said I A.?Yes, sir, I think I was. I certainly could hear all that passed. 1 was on the quarter deck?he was on the nrm-chest, a little forward. Q,?Did he make use of the words, "(Jod d n it f* A.?I did not hear him use any such words. Q.?Was the Seagull a vessel of about the same measure as the Flying Fish? did Lieutenant Wilkes rate a boatswain's mate for her, or a quarter master? A.?Only a quarter master; she was about the same measurment. Q.?What reason was assigned by Lieutenant Wilkes for not approving the account of the repairs of the Flying Fish at New Zealand 7 A.?Lieutenant Wilkes said there were not satisfactory explanations of the account given by Lieutenaqd Pinkney; he did not think so large an amount necessary, and he"would not pay it, unless he received satisfactory explanations. Q Was that account paid finally out of the public monev, and at whose risk? A?It was. After Lieutenant Wilkes refused to pay the account, Lieutenant Pinkney asked me to pay it, and charge it to his private account. I asked Captain Wilkes if ho had any objection to my paying the money out of the iron chest. He said he had no objection to my making any arrangement, but he would not approve the account. I then paid the f.WO to the Consul, and Acting Master Sinclair receipted to me for the same, on account of pay, that amount and more, being due him. There was no risk on my part. Q.?Did you ever call the attention of Lieut. Wilkes to the letter of the 4th Auditor, on the subject of checking the bounty placed to the marines, and if yea, did ho order you not to check them, alleging that the payment had been made as part of a bounty for re-enlistment? A.?Shortly before sailing from the United States in August, IflM, I received a letter from the 4th Auditor, enclosing a list of bounty paid to certain marinas, and directing me to check against certain marines on my roll the amount of bounties received, and report the same to his office.? Shortly after we got to sea, 1 showed it to the commander of the F-xpedilion, and a few days after he gave me written orders not to check the bounty. The order will be produced. Q?Look on the list of marines now exhibited, and say whether it is the paper enclosed in the letter of Mr. Dayton. A?It is. The witness went on to read a copy of his letter to the 4th Auditor, which was obje.-ted to by the Judge Advocate, because it referred to documents which had not been produced. The letter was withdrawn by Mr. Hamilton. <J.?Did any of the marines "who received the bounty, and whose term expired during the cruise, refuse to do duty, except Babb, Pensyl, and Smith? A.?I Know of no others on board the Vincennes. I heard report* of tome reltmng to do duty on Doara ma Peacock. Q.?How many of tho?e who received the twunty were on board the Vincennesf A. -(The witness referred to the mutter roll of tho Vincenne*.)?Twenty-one, tir, on the arrival of tha Vinc en net* in the United State*. There waa no heading for exiiiratien ofaervice; it wa* never filled up; I received no order* to do to. Q.?Were 'he Kanakamcn, mentioned intheAth charge, hipped by tho content of tho anthoritie* of Oahu? A.?The) were, and were telectod by the anthoritie*. (f.?State the circumtlancr* under which a portion of the crew weredischarged at Oahu, and whether Lieutenant Wiiket made any provition tor them. A.?Tho teamen who refuted to re-enter and tign new article*, were Pent on ?hore to the Contul, and 1 wa* ordered to leave three month* pay fov each man in the handi of the Consul; and ho wa* requested to send them home at Consul's men, if it could bo done without expense to the United States, and to pay their tmard on shorn at Oaliti. 1 did not pay all thnt wa* due them, their account* were trantferrod to the department at Washington. tg.?It the letter shown rou, dated Oahu, November 4, 1H40, the order from Lt. Wilkes addressed to you on that subject) ! A.?It waaaddrescd to Purser Speeden and myself jointly. I enclosed it and tent it on thora to tha Contul. The letter, the tukitanro of which it contained in the Purser'* answer to the previous question was read, being an order of Lieut. Willies for him to make provision for the men in the manner he states he did. . By J,nor. Anvocsrr. Did the marinas receive the a.idi- n tional pay of per cent, a* provided by Act of Congress LD. Price Two Cent*. for every month they terved alter their time hail e* pired ? A.?No air. Q.?Did the teamen t A.?Yet, tir, all who signed new article! at Oahu. By Coi aT?Were there any American vettelt lying at Honolulu at the time of the discharge of theae men ? A.?Yea, air, several, tome shipped on board then: vettelt, others came home at Contul't men, and others re mained there for six months. y Hamilton?Did any of those men wiio were discharged threaten that Lieut. Wilkes should take them home in irons, if at all 1 A.?I did not hear any of them say so. Q.?Has the treasury department settled the accounts ol disbursements for those men ? A.?The Consul's accounts have been sattled. By Court?When the Kauakamcn were shipped at Oahu, was the Vincennos short of her complement I A?She was, after the men were discharged, and they were taken on board to All up vacancies in the squadron. The testimony of the witness was read over by the Judge Advocate. Lieutenant Johnson recalled by the Judge Advocate. Judge Advocate?I hold in my hand the proceeding* of a Court Martial held ia the Exploring Kxpeditiou, on Peter Sweeny, but it is not approved by the Commander. His signature is now here attached to it. 1 he sentence ia that Peter Sweeney receive 34 lashes on the hare back, at such time and place as the Commander-iu chief shall direct. The charges on which ha was tried are desertion and disobedience of orders. By Judge Apvodate.?What was the sentence ol the Court in Peter Sweeney's case 1 A.?That he should receive 34 lashes at such time and place as the Commander should direct. Judge Advocate.?State what farther was done to Peter Sweeney after the expiration of this sentence. A He was placed in a boat, his hands tied behind him and he was lashed to the thwarts, his bag and hammock were put in behind him, and the collar ol his frock cut off This heat was taken in tow by one of the ship's boats, anil she made the circuit of the ha'ibor, and he was then landed on the beach among the natives. By Coubt?Was the boat towed stem foremost I A I do not recollect, but 1 believe she was. She was a small boat about six leet long, that had been purchased at Sydney. Q.?Was there any provision made for the return of Sweeney to the United States t A?I don't know. Crott-Examintd, by Mr. H amilton, through the Judge Advocate Q?Waa that proceeding in regard to Sweeney .directed by the order of Lieut. Willtes to csrry out the sentence of tne Court Martial I A.?No air-, it was not, and I had nothing to do with csi rying into execution this proceeding. Lt. Sinclair, recalled by the Judge Advocate. Judge Advocate?State to tho Court whether you saw Sweeney on shore 8fter his discharge, and what was his condition ? A.?I saw Sweeney o? shore and he asked me what he was to do with himself. 1 told him to goto the Consul. <d.?Had he any employment I Was there any provision made for his support ' A.?I dont know. Lieut Hudson recalled by the Judge Advocate. Q.?State whether you received orders from Lieut. Wilkes about the 12th of May, 1S40, not to allow Lieut. Pinkney to leave the ship ' A.?1 dont think I received such orders. Idontrecol- ? lect. Q.?Was Lieut. Pinkney sect oil from shore on that day by Lieut. Wilkes I A-?1 think he was. Midshipman Blair was sent after him I believe. I am only stating now what I heard. Q. -Did you not on the following morning tell Lieut. Pinknev that Lieut Wilkes had ordered that he should not leave tne skip. A.?I don't recollect. Lieut. Wilkes told me he had sent Lieut. Pinkney oil' from shore for turning his back upon him, but 1 think I received no orders to keep him on board I Croit-examined by Mr. Hamilton through the Judge Advocate. (J.?When did the Peacock leave the Fijii group t A.?On the 12th August, 1S40. H ?Did you ever prevent Lieut. Pinkney from going on shore while under arrest 1 A.- No. Q.?How were you employed at the Fijii group, what portion of the time were you under weigh, and what were the opportunities for going on shore 1 A.?We were almost always under weigh, beating anting the Fiji's ; when in port the boats were always employed in surveylngQ.?How long were you at Overlou, haw long at Sandalwood Bay, and how long at Mudwater 7 A.?We were at Overlou five or six days, I think , at Sandalwood Bay, perhaps not so long ; and at Mudwater a little longer. By the Count. ?Was the confinement of Lieut. Pinkney while under arrest, so severe as to become oppressive 7 A.?No. It was precisely the same as any other officer's in the ship, except the privilege ol the quarter deck. There was more privilege allowed on board to officers under arrest than any vessel I was ever on board. I have written orders from Lieut. Wilkes to permit both Lieut. Pinkney and Dr. Oailisa to go on shore. By Mr. Hamilton.?Was there ?ny reason that Lieut. Pinkney did not go on ahore, except the want of inclina. tion on his part to do aoT A.?it waa a want of application on hie part. I did/not consider myself bound to aay to Lieut. Pinkney that he had better go on shore. Whenever he made an application to that effect, it waa at once granted. JuDor Advocate.?Have you yourjournal 7 A.?I have. ?If an officer on board a sloop of war la excluded from the quarter deck, is he not neceesarily thrown among the men forward ol the gangway 7 A.?tjfo air, not on board the Peacock, she had a gun and a spar deck. The evidence of the witness was read over, and the Ji'noc Advocate stated that Mgjor Howe waa an important witness, and that he had expected he would arrive today, but presumed he had been kept back by the bad state, of the roads in the neighborhood of Baltimore. He expected if there were any papers referring to the enlistment of the marines he would bring them on with him. He also expected testimony in relation to the sixth charge preferred by Dr. Ouillou, which charges that Lieut. Wilkes did nnt discover land on the 19th January, 1840, in the Southern Ocean. Mr. Couthont called by the Judge Advocate and sworn. Jt'doe Advocate?State what passed at the time the Flying Fish was hove to under the bows of the Vincennea. . A.?I was standing on the quarter deck at the time?the starboard quarter?it was the lee quarter at the time. The Flying Fish was some eighty yards distant. Lt. Wilkes hailed her, and ordered her to heave to. She did not heave to, but kept on till abreast the gangway, when Captain Wilkes hailed her again, and ordered her to heave to. After the lapse of a minute he hailed a third time, and said, "Heave to?why don't von heave to 7 Heave to imme diatelv." When the order was given the second time, I remarked, "If she heaves to now we shall be afoul of each other directly." When the order to heave to the third time was given, she was hove to immediately, and shot up in the wind scress our bows, forging ahead at the same time, the ship's flying-jib-boom just clearing the schooner's main rigging. When she hove to, Capt. Wilkea walked forward nurriedly, and I followed,expecting some collision between the vessels. When I came on the forecastle Capt. Wilkes was hailing through the trumpet. He appeared much excited, stamping the deck, and called out?"What do yon mean, sir;?what do you mean by such conduct as this 7 I never aaw anything like it?I never saw anything like it in my life." Lt. Pinkney replied, "I hove to in obedience to your orders." Capt. Wiikss replied, stsmping on the declt, "God d n it, sir, I did not order you to heave to under my bowa." I was one of the naturmlista, attached to the scientific corps. Cross-examined by Mr. Hamilton, through the Judge Advocate. Q.?Have you had any difficulty with Lt. Wilkes. A I decline answering the question, as having no bearing either on the specification or my evidence. Jvooe Advocate?The question is a competent one. Mr. Conthony. Witness? If I was submitting my opinion of Captain Wilkes to the Court, the question would, I admit, be pertinent; but I am now stating factt, and theae cannot be modified by any relations existing between Capt. Wilkeu and mysell. I am here upon my oath to speak nothing but the truth, I must refuse, therefore, to answer this question unless permitted to lay the nature of any disagreements between us before the Court. Mr. Hamilton objected to the witness goingon to state the detailafcof the difference* between Lieut. Wilkea and himself. Com. Jones remarked that it seemed but Just, If a witness was asked such a question, he should be permitted to state the nature of the difficulties, as otherwise it subjected him to suspicions and imputations of impropriety from which uvw|wnumiy 01 iroeing nimiirii. Witness?With thia privilege, I hive no hesitation in lying there have been difficulties between in. They aroae from Capt. Wilkes ,.??r' Hamilton objected to entering on the nature of them difficulties ai irrelevant. W'Tsr-ii?I will then state it informally to the CourtThe difficulties were owing Ma. Hamilton interrupted the witness, Witness.?lam not giving evidence, or speaking to you. I insist on stating, in self-justification, to the Court, that my difficulties with Capt. Wilkes arose from his repeated and annoying interference with my discharge of the duties assigned me, of whoie requirements he was utterly ignorant, and from a differcn.-e of opinion as to the extent of his jmwer to interfere with, und control me, in the performance of my dutyMr. Hamilton inquired if these remarks of the witness were to go on the record. The Court said they were not. as they were not considered testimony. The testimony of the witness was read over by the Judge Advoeste. The Jt one Anr.itsrr. said that <ia held in his hand let ten fiom Lt- Wilkes to the Navy Department, dated 16th, 17th, 19th, and SM September, |S|9, which were sent by the ship Awashankus, on the 53d September, l?.T9. from Sydney. Hi' merely referred to these despair lies in connection w'th the first specification of the second charge, which charges Lt. Wilkea with neglect of duty in refiisng to transmit a document sent to him by Lt. Pinkney heween the 16th and 90th of September, ISM, when he night have done so by the same conreyance by which hese despatches were sent. Mr Hamilton said all those documents were reports dative to the operations of the squadron, and showed onclusively that Lt. Milke* was so (deeply engaged in hia uties, that he badnt time to attead to forwarding Lieut, inknoy's report to the Secretary.