, 1863-12-23

causo Of the rebellion. They were opposed to
democracy because The reins of fpower were not in
raj and normal condition Of the hboring man,
| whether black OF white,''
The speaker then read a few extracts from the
speeches ofpEumtnent rebel lcadorn, and from edi-
torials ffom Southern papers, and they wore now
Singing them to the tune OF u Old Virginia never
The speaker closed by saying that slavery aud
| freedom can never be neighbour, one or the other
] muet conquer md the day Is not far dtstAut whom
lhe former will be blotted out Of the American
Uuion forever.
Law INTELLIGENCE.
t An Attorney on Trial for Malpractice Alleged
Betrayal Of Client.
| UNITED STATES CIRCUIT Counr.-Day A. Ke1
| losg, jr. ". Hardenburgh & Williams, and Chase
Munfon j. SaWin.
This was action Of troyer tired At the present
term Of this court.
The facts were these: Geo. D. Kellogg, formerly
Of The firm Of Kellogg Munson, In this city, and
brother Of the plaintiff, was the owner Of 4
quantity Of furniture valued at about b 000 which
he had in use this residence In this city He was.
owing his brother, tho PLAINTIFF about 900 and IN
order to secure the payment Of that amount ~ he
says, made bill Of eale Of the furniture to the
tho bill Of sale was forwarded by the plaintiff to
Mr. Munson, who Was then the partner Of George
D. Kellogg, and boarding In his family, instruct
ing him 10 take possession Of the property and
control the eane for the plaintiffs best interest
The furniture remained In Kelloggs's house for
some time, when he Joined the army, boxed up tho
furniture, and requested Hardenburgh & Williams
to sell portion Of it." Hardenburgh & Williams
received the goode, and several months afterwards,
protested, which they had discounted for him they
sold $1c0 worth OF the furniture, part OF which
was purchased By Chase, and ne balance By
Muneon Afterwards took possession OF the balance
SeS; I 3 Kellogg L "a soassaed thst i ths sins
lii: On this state q. facts, the jury rendered
verdict against a the deIcndants Tor the full value
OF the furniture
Thc acknowledgement for ne,. trial, insisting
that The defendants were The plaintiff
IN order to be entitled to recover joint Judgment
that IN order 10 entitle the piaintia to Recover ]
against all tho defendants In this case, 1t must
appear that In felling the property the defendants
common design that as portion Of the property
iiams 10 psy debt Geo. b, Kellogg owed tbcn,,
other debts which Geo. Kellogg owed otIer r 3D. ns
ties, theso were, u conversions ut all, distinct
and separate in character, without concert of ac-
consequently there was no JOINT liability. That
the delivery BY Hardenburgh & Williams to Nan-
~ sn,a " srs N .nclr aana', asseI
lie property thus delivered. for tbe reasons that
Nunson was then the apent OF the plaintiff, enti-
tie to she possession and control Of the property
nna m tnss sheseioto no "fon& had oee9 committed
mond hed hat he facts id not % esox saoES oiat
foTe sntinst e1idcpce and r.ntc ths 1nniinn H.
new trial.
= e GomiHnl5 ~ ni.1ntfA
49, CO. ~ - -. a t..
cafea Of shop- -hftng' which we spoke Of at some
he Recorde,s' Court The day be,oro resteraax.
~ nj -sarhad .ha ro1c,ns.a, I.s+ ,;nht 49,
a~n+rS ,ath ~ ,,sos..ssan.s ~ .ass asaa* ine
crowd eotn o1 PROFESSIONAL and non-rrofessionM
persons, who gave their attention to the proceed
ings, indicated more Of interest than attaches to
an ordinary criminal investigation. Tie trn.h ia,
the trial was double one ; for while the council
for the State MAS endeavoring to convict the
persons charged with larceny. atto,uc,s On thu
~. "a. .-e-. -.a.a.,t.nn :. -..,- 49,
ctnef e1oo were prosecuting 10 CONVICTION OF
shame and Disgrace, At least, II not Of technical
connsct1on m xf11 .5is c,ina mnese
smoke Of at Length. In Yesterday naorninc,s Tn1.
which the charges brought against this man, have
s~rttAts ,,orr hFs hrsthraI ~ .hnh.. H., ~
honor Of ths profession, b. ts,a, that not soil.
even, that in their eageiness to purge the protes
sun " -. "1s,s, u"' 10 'e.ss s,s .a' " u'eaon-
degree to jump at conclusious and
defence and e1tanuation, This Feiker may haTe to
sge in h,s ox1 y esaaf sgfh
itut~ h1.$ $.V Va1b
ha7o before stated, when accused publicly, II open
eouzt, Of The dlsgraeefal conduct alleged against
e s as as nsss s sap
PIRATE for rcfn&atlon. Under anch circuuatanccs,
can he expect Others to deny tor him, what, ethur
thEoush stodity or guilt he Is unable to deny ioF
bar a1irc, but that which Was evidently adopted
by the judge. that silence meant gullt. :.
largest scope was given to counsel By the court In
anio5taaate pessoas xho T 70 saggsssion q M ths
tntcIests IN bis hands. In this ventilation, 4r.
telkcr, hinscn "a made thu chief INSTRUMENT,
ience, and convicted as 1ar as possible ont Of hia
Ii must However be admitted that Mr. rclkcs,
rsblc, indeed inTaluablc. to IN innocent
Ean, 90 what ever facts necessary to
who % mt him on thc stand, could M huvs be- beeR oljsIs
ted III the cross-examuation to which he via sub-
jected on the part Of the prosecution. We do not
noa sen ss; e. a. hsa
on the subject, that the features OF his
accounted for. Those feaurcs are, that he 4sktn-
neg, H., nus 8, c1isnta @ aiiyc without doing them o.
betraysd them at he exam1naion in Tia Pn,,ce re-
courf, and subsequently 10 that examination ad.
yiscd Nr. Driecol. who had been employed by one
o. otal,, inc Rartles, IA. 70 oetsay tnein also,
he rn17,d nnt of ,he,n a11 1of Than 81 -