New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-09-27

rreeee or induced the assault, IN order to mitigate
he densges H. CRIMINAL acsicrs the Judge = al
I 60 Iok into ef=dayi.s ~ ind II any provoca'ion
tiea,es the degree Of punishment. Ih" Jaw, ~ shao-
ing homicide from mur 'er % mansianght'r, anu IN
drawing III. nctIors between nnproVokrH ofnsilV ani
assaults fro If passion looks upon nunHa ainre
az it il constituted IN the breasts OF all oil IA, ind
from the affidavit. mitigation tna' you wire one 81
the deputy -lerf. anh, n such, by vIrtae OF your
oEice had charge of the jail OF the city ~ San Fran
cisco: that Z, wa. s1rouDded by uHkI;hOri-cd IL
legal BODY Of mn who endesvorod - force al en-
trance In order b. sake from yonr cnsody certain pr
s,ners entrusted - your care, ard whom yo1 were
btr,d to protes. that IN consequence OF your resist
snce ard efforts 10 sustain te ne you incurred th-f
dis sure that the complainant wa On: Of the lead
or, .io frcie!y took the pnsovers from the jail and,
with others seized imprisoned and banished you from
the state we mont plomerts warning, thus leaving
war family in destitute cnesion and unprotected,
n city where law and ords defed, and no. and
violence rcgued supreme. You auege that the sight
Of the complainant ard tss memory Of your wrong-,
and Of bis sctve connection with them, excited your
pas,op 10 such extent To cause you 10 assault
him IL il urged by yo<r counsel that you did to Mr..
Webb on en- individual scale only that which he on q
larger scale assisted in doing 10 yon. These consider
a,ions cannot Justify your conduct nor prevent the
law IN this city from being vindcated IL was your duty
TO have soug legsl redress, for two wrongs
make d right The vioencf 10 your person and feel
inas which the complainant committed, under the
sanction If power were no presidents Tor the in1-
But AN Of opsion that tine provocstion, and due
sepse OF lie influence upon human nfrmity, ought 10
mitigate the punishment which follows for the
pie and to sustain the law agaDet even the most pro-
yoked assaults unless they were in self defense.
THE sentence Of the Court is that you pay 6ne
Of $50 and stand committed until the fine is paid
Mr. Mullgan drew the amount from his vest pocket
with air ef the utmost Indifference and walked up
TO the Clerk desk and paid the fine.
Harrison Smith convicted of forgery in the fourth
degree, was sent to the Penitentiary for one year
Joseph Warren, convicted of burglary in the third
degree sent 10 the State Prison for ca, years
Mary Conway who threw her child, three days old
into q pvy. was convicted Of attempted nansaagh-
ter, and received one year in the Penitentiary.
Michael Downing and Lodowick Tick, convicted OF
highway robbery sentenced to ten years IN the
State Prison.
Thomas Mccoy, nm old offender, convicted Of bur-
glary IN the third degree, received hve years IN the
State Prison.
John Donnely, alias Walsh, convicted Of assault
with intent to kill Oliver Stout, policeman, by stab
bng hin--a very bad cs.ereceived Ave years. in the
State Prison.
shoe store in Leonard street allowed t. depart It
being clear that he Of unsound mind The Court
adjourned for the term.
SUPREME COURT-GExrsAL TEhs.-sEpv. 2s-Before
Judges DAVIES HoeEBeon and SUTHERLAND.
rsURY AS TO OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES THEY RECOVER 1T
John BueIworth Receiver of the Island City Bank,
William and Jcnn OBrien.
This was argued last Thursday The plaintiff,
receiver brought scln of defendants ON
and upward paid the bank usury within d.
fore i; failure The defendants demur % me complaint on the
ground the Of 1850 having forbidden Cororatons TO
ntose the defense of injury they cannot recover pa
Til. pstif tina, has nigh, ~ under
the statute s p ~ sec bis action hsy hs been brought
the be- so S. pad 20 s Ne
the defense OF usury does not take IRON them the night TO
That the defense spoken of in the statute defense
dest contrac, by reason OF the faint OF usuy that Cp
rs,ions forbidden 20 make the defense 81 contract
tain, Of a.arv tia, the forfeiture OF penal ouury
the evil intended to Be remeded by the s,a,ute and that
the statute is limited 20 tbs. in re operation
a. That the 'tsu,e nes pobnns eoTPs.oh, 20
for the Of money what would be u'ury in the con-
That the law limiting the ra.e Of interest as to
torsos as was eeiore That seven per cen, wa. SUI the
.as. and ,S v I be recovered back but s
more than 3st va sIeed u Dc Pad n statue sG
create the forfeiture Of all embraced in it, principal aud legal
interest.
cps and legal notwithstanding the contract should be
That the fact Of usuy and assumed by the
susse the remain Corporations well
the ~: II Hat ss s &c is % 'ly t. 10
feat recovery by reason Of u.uy ,,,.,.
repeal the against 20 CORPORATIONS That they
could defense q, s they could not to
That as cy could not use defeat recovery u.ury
they could hot Of course u'e as the ba OF recovery Of tine
For plaintiff Charles A. Peabody for defendant, w Hut
chins.
PILOT
The People of the State AIT. Peter Francisco.
This came up on bill Of exceptions from the
Of General Sessions where the defendant indicted
and convicted Of violating Act Of the Legislature plotting
through Hell vessel called the umng Bird the 6th
Of October 1857 At the ra before Recorder Smith Mr. Mo
Mslon the Of the defendant requested the Court 70
charge oertsu points, which refused
TIE Then carried by bill o ptons 70 this Court
the Hon John Mokoon aIPesrrs for the STATE and hT Nc
MsLoI for the appellant The argued G great length
Decision reserved
IN CHAsEERs-SEPT 25-Before Judge DAVIES
The EsGIISp TMBEZZLENkSI CASE.
Jonathan Peel sg Sutton Elliot.
. On his motion to discharge defendant from arrest
Nj Hal this argued that defendant could be- held
under thu, section of The code relating defauns public o
this because efendat not public officer in
that Of the be, and other British otcn did
not derive their authority from the people They derived II
from the Crown, and hence they gVas officer
trusted with Neither the ak the
might be successful claim still the mad committed
ofeut and this wAer the liberty the
is regarded he canno, b. lawfully held under
MI Whitaker his associate who appeaeo Tor the plain
said th,y did claim detention the decudau;
charge Of tm,zzcmout They claimed that he held
action of for cg.ect ard official gisoOndsc om
which the plaintiffs had not suffered.
Judge Davies SAID that the question would then
whether and hold Ia daance vie foreign ohce
| for neglect ofciti uiscos,dWct
Mr. Nhitsker replied a. length and the Judge reserved hin
| decision
! COURT OF COMMON PLEAS-SrEcIAL TEsSs--SEPT IS
Before Judge BRADY.
GSofsl AIT. DenIoT-st.
BRADY, J.lf there has been eXanlina-io ION OF the
judgment debtor and the creditor seeks further
ehclvit which the asked sho1i
I me