THE DAILY EVENING TELEGRAPH. PHILADELPHIA, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 3, 1807. plaintiff, because the "Mtnilor "cm id not ilecroc solution," and that b h?llj; clauao did not apply to cVr i?Tad lien Charnpd tbni "the partnership d. broken through." Tb compl inant belutf clearly entitled to a hearing In tots court. I ahU proceed to consider the avcruimU ot his The first four sections have been already i IIIV 111 llllll'IIIV control of the irpdT disposed of, and the phrairraplis mini brVed from 7 t 17, Inclusive, contain ctanjea of pi allesed to have been committed by the U j'ndant Vankir "in fraud" ot complMnants. The eighteenth section aver that the com plainant haa been intormed, and believes 'that, Ulws the business ot the 8-d tirra i Is at once nouud up, and the n.anaacmcnt of taken from the said Joseph T. Vankirk, it will in a nUort time become In-olvent." Tue nineteenth pariigraph contain the prajtis for fwi account, i mwti, u u I will conpider thee different parts of the bill In their proper order, tirt disposing of thoe sec'ions as to which no evidence has been ollered. The fifth section, as already stated, charges tbat defendant Vankirk has "the exclusive con trol of the BnHUcial business of siud firm." If by this averment it Is meant to allege that the complainant has been excluded from what ban been called a partner's ' full chare in the inauanenicnt of tne concern" (2 Ashm, 2H), tben it must be regarded a unsuKtaincd by the cvtdrnce. . , , , Ko witucs fpaks of any act of exclusion. The evidence, it Is triie, f-hoa that the tie leudnnt Vankirk had the "general mauase menf of the finances, tint some divwton of duty is generally observed tn nil copartnerships. In ttu case it uo more proves an exclusion ot the complninant tlinn the fact that he faithfully superintended his dcpaitment establishes an etc-laMon by con-plftinant of his copartners. Py exclusion the hiw does not understand a quiet, unopposed monopoly by one partner ot all the labor in a certain department, or Indeed of all the departments, but some act or word in denial of the riRhts of his copartner. Many examples mitrbt be cited to illustrate this position, but one will suffice. In Gowan vs. Jeffries (2 Ashm. 300), the complaiunnts charged that the defendant had Instructed the servants "not to DOia communication witn hiin," and further, that the defendant had "re fused to give the complainants information of Ibe state ol the concern." These were acts of exclusion, and were so rearded by Judge King, who always grappled with the heart ot a case. Other illustrations miuht be addd, but it Is trusted that what has been said will suffice to demonstrate that bavin? the "general manage ment'' of a business or of a department thereof is not of iff elf an exclusion of a copartner. There is no testimonybeyond this, and I am therefore compelled to regard this section of the bill as unsupported by proof. The same remark applies to all the averments contained In the paragraphs numbered from 9 to 17 Inclusive. The only attempt at proof under any of these sections applied to transactions ot the year preceding the formation of this copartnership, and were admitted to be insuffi cient to sustain this bill. The eighteenth averment of anticipated insol vency is also unsustaincd by the evidence, and our inquiry is thus limited to the allegations contained In the seventh and eighth paragraphs of the bilL The complainant, at the hearing, reMed almost exclusively upon these branches of his case, and they present matters lor grave inquiry and consideration. The evidence, which in great part bore upon these points, has tuken a wide range, and is presented to us in upwards Of Dinety paces. I will endeavor to apply it to the charges. The sections of the bill now under considera tion allege that the defendant Vankirk has "used the funds of the firm," and has "given the firm's notes" In payment of his private debts a ed in fraud or complainant. This is d n ecily denied by the answer of the defendant charged. His co-deteudant answers each article specifi cally that he does not admit, and doesjnot be lieve it to be true as therein charged. TLe Examiner's Report establishes very clearly the following points: I. That the defendant Vankirk has given the firm notes and used the funds of the partner ship In payment of his individual debts. II. That the notes thus issued and the funds thus used lareelv exceed in amount the salary which each partner was allowed by the articles lo draw. III. That all these transactions were regularly entered upon the books, and the properdebits charged to defendant Yankirk on the day .of each occurrence. IV. That the capital which defendant Yau kirk was required by the partnership articles to contribute, was at no time impaired by theee operations, but after deducting the debits re ferred to, it has always been and till is largely in excess ot the sum named in the agreement. V. That the complainant knew of Yanklrk's standing oblieations when the present partner ship was tormed; for they existed during tne lite of a former partnership, and were then, as now, met by Vanhirk's use of the firm's checks, and as those transactions, like the present mat ters ot complaint, are all regularly entered upon the books, It is fairly to be presumed that tiie complainant knew oi them at the time of their occurrence. VI. Thai the complainant ha a'.o drawn more than the salary allowed by the artieles, and has slightly reduced his share ot the capital as esta blished by the partnership agreement. The legal question of the case is, whether these facts justify or require the dissolution of an existing partnership, and the thereupon inevitable consequence ol the appointment of u jeceiverf The use by a partner of the moneys or credit of the firm for his private purpose h, perhaps, of too frequent occurrence. It should always be condemned. Uberrima Fides should bo re quired from each member of a firm, und he should ever remember that he is a trustee, for .his copartners, and under the highest obliga tions of honor to protect the co'tmion property from a diversion lor hU iudi iduul use or pei' tonal profit. While this is undoubtedly true as a general principle, care must be tuken here as iu every case, to apply It so that no injustice shall be worked. That which nii"lit be a gross wrong if done secretly, may be stripped of all its tppear ance of cricue by circumstances of apparent i'airtiess op nnes-s and Lotlce to, aud consent of, the party complamiug. The legal principles to be applied to a case like the present t)nve been lonsr established and tire well lecoguized. Mr. Justice Story, lu treating of the power of h Court of Equity "to dissolve a partnership during the term for which it is stipulated," says (Storv'a Eq. Juris., tj 673): "Such a dissolution may be grapted in the first place on account of the ImprHCticabillty of carrying on the under taking either at all, or accoidiug to the stipu lations ot the articles." "In the next place, it may be granted on nccount of the insanity or permanent incapacity ot one of the partners." "in the next place, it may be granted on account of the grots misconduct of one or more of the partners." "But trifling faults and misbehavior, 'which do not goto the substance of the contract, do not constitute a Kiifllcient ground to justify a decree for a dissolution." To the same effect is "Adam's Equity" (242, 243): "Oow on Partnership" '114): 2 "Wuter manJs Eoen on In)." (262, 2;3i; "Colljir on fartnei ship" (Book II, Ch. HI, t'l'JD, and the cases there cited. To these may le added our Pennsylvania Btithorlttes, Cowanvs. Jeffries (2 Ahm., iiifti) aud Kan ts. Moore (1 Wright, 217). The case of btockdale vs. Ullery (1 Wright, 485) establishes the rlerht of a partner to enjoin against the use of the partnership onsets lor payment of the private debts tf another mem ber of the firm. . , , L , ' , , , As the acts cbarcol nsamst this tleferd:int are all referable to ,b( ,h,,,(' of fHHt'8 icfreJ to y Mr. Jutic Htoty. 'ii" evict qncs The fifth ftccuo" "";" " v...v.ir "has the cxclimlve . jnAaa 11 f aniH Hrm " financial lion upon which this controversy turns is whether the sovernl rr alters proved in this case amount to "groBs misconduct," and thereioro iequre ft di cte.e for a dissolution, j Upon this poii t a careful review of the oble argument of the counaol on both sides, and of all the authorities I have been referred to, or have been able to find, has Id tny mind to a conclusion adverse to the complainant. The testimony (-bows flint in every instance the defendant Van kirk was debited with the exact nmocnt chnrgeable against him. That bis capital has, notwithstanding these debts, largely in-c-rens'd. Thntthe complainant had notice by the books ot the former firm that Mr. Vanktik was inlng the notes and checks ot that partner ship lor the pnymcnt of his outstanding obliga tions given for the purchase of machinery, etc., and thnt the complainant has not regarded the nnthoiity to draw a salary of $200 as a limita tion, tor hn has himsolf exceeded that amount. The other paitner is here protesting Buinst a dissolution. The complainant can rea J ily secure a winding-up of the firm, if he so desires, by giving the dissolution notice provided for In the articles. A sudden ftoppage of a largo and ap parently flourishing business, requiring a heavy outlay ot capltul, iniitht be attcuded with most disastrous results, and I have felt that this strong arm of equity and Jurisprudence ought not to be extended except lna case clearly falling within the principles laid down by the authori ties I have quoted. The case ot IlarrUon vs. Tennant (21 Boavan, 4S2) aces far bevood all prior decisions in de ciceing a dissolution before the expiration of the partnership artit leg in the absence of any hrench thereof and merely upon the ground of n change of circumstances, forfeiting confidence, und cri nting mistrust. But the tacts in ttmt efts were very peculiar, and it was deemed impossible to carry on the business without injury to all. I have examined the cases referred to by the best writers, r.nder the bead of "gross miscon duct," as a cuuse for a dissolution, and I do not find a single aii'hority for btich a decree upon the present state ot' facts. 'This will appoar the more clearly by the following analysis ot those cases: In Master vs. KiHon 17iG . (3 Vescy, Jr.'s, Kcports, 75, the Master of . .the. Kolfs, Sir Klchard Pepper Arden, decreed ft dissolution of a banking firm, the defendant having allowed a friend, "contrary to the opinion aud desire, and without the consent of the other partuer, to draw upon the partnership to the extent of xouuv." In Norway vs. Rowe 18123 (19 Vesey, Jr.'s, Reports, 1G0, the defendant was a tenant in common, and was charged "with wasting the property, or excluding tiiose who were entitled with him to the benefit of the license." Lord Eldon refused the motion, although there was some appearance of exclusion. In Waters vs. Taylor 113 (2 Yes. and Bearaes, i04. the partnership in the opera house was dissolved by Lord Eldon, "the con duct of the parties making it impossible lo carry it on upon the terms stipulated.'' In Goodman vs. Whitcomb 18201 (1 Jacob and Walker's Ch. Rep., 66!"), the charges against the defendant were that he had "pie vented the plaintitf from inspecting the books, and had sold goods at an under price and ex changed others for household furniture, which he had appropriated to his own use." It was further charged that "he had refused to enter receipts In the books." Lord Eldon called this last charge "a circumstance of great impro priety;" but he lefuaed the motion for an in junction. He asked, with great force, "What right has the Couit to appoint a receiver and make itself the manager ot every trade in the kingdom 2" and added, "Where partners differ.as they sometimes do, when they enter into an other kind of partnership, they should recollect that they enter into it for better and worse, and this Court has no jurisdiction to make a separa tion between them because one is more sullen or lc9s good tempered than the other." As to the case before him, he said that to justify a dissolution "there must be conduct amounting to an en'.ire exclusion of the partner from his interest in the partnership." In Chapman vs. Beach (Ibid, 573), the same Judge said the Court would not appoint a receiver unless "there had been such an abuse of good faith as to entitle the plaintiff to a dissolution." In Marshall vs. Colmun 1820 (2 Jacob & Walker' Kep., 261), the plaintiff applied for an injunction to restrain the firm from omiting his namefto letters, etc., the articles requiring all papeis to be in their ioint names. Lord Eldon refused the injunction without costs, because he doubted his right to enjoin without decreeing a dissolution, and because the neglect had not been "studied, intentional, prolonged, and continued." He also laid stress upon the tact that the complainant had signed his name lor self aud partners Referring to cases in which a partner raises "money for his private use on the credit ot the firm," fie said "the Court interferes then because there is a ground for dissolving the partnership, but then the danger must bo such, there must be that abuse of good faith between the mem bers of the partnership, that the Court will try the question whether the partnership should not be dissolved in consequence." In Loscomb vs. Russell 1830 (4 Simon's Rep. 11). viee-Chanceiior tsnadweit said: i. With respect to occasional breaches of agree ments between partners, when they are not of so grievous a nature as to make it impossible that the partnership should continue, the Court stands neuter.'' In Hall vs. Hall risr.o (3 Macnnughten and Cordon's Rep. 7!), Lrd Truro dismissed the motion lor a receiver. The charge npa'.tist the defendant was, that he had "Interfered with the plain tiff exercising his lights as a partner, and had in several particu lars acted coutinry to the articles, specifying among such particular & refusal by defendant to open a joint banking account according to the terms of the articles." It uas ruled that a receiver would be ap pointed where "the conduct of tho defendant endangers the exls.lence ot the partnership concern' In Smith vs. Mal:s 1P51 (J.IIare's Rep., 556), one of the defendants wa charged, amongst other thing, with an omission to enter receipts. The Vice-thnncePor lild that this was not of itself sufficient, but that it should bo shown "that the omission w as knowinnly and wilfully made." The dissolution wa decreed ou other grounds. These cases are referred to by the test writers. In addition thereto maybe cited the recent decision in Anderson vs. Anderson (25 Beavan, 190), as of posed to the doctrine of dissolving partnerships vpon slight grounds. There the defendant vas clearly guilty of a breach of the partnership article, for he had given a guarantee without his partner's consent, and the agree ment exprcf sly prohibited this under the penalty ol a dissolution. But the dect ee was refused because ot the trifling amount of the guarantee. Our Pennsvlvania cases have already been referred to. 'In Sloan vs. Moore (1 Wr., 217), the partnership had expired at the date of tiling the supplemental bill, and the defendaut had attempted to sell out the whole concern, in Uowau vs. Jeffrie (2 Ashm., 800), there was a clear case of ecclusion aud insolvency. Apply ing to the present case the principles thus elimi nated from these decl.-ious, I fall to find in the evidence any proof Bpuinst the defendant Yan kirk of "exclusion,"' "ot conOuct making it im possible to carry on the partnership upon the terms stipulated," "of knowing and wilful omis sions to enter receipts," or "of abuse of good faith, requiring a dissolution." Ihe complaii ant's co itructlon of the evi dence charge- that the defendant Vankirk drew neur'.y $7000 beyond his sulary. This is dented, find the deffn.innt's calculuiinu reduces the debits to H23QO. But charging him with the $7000, this is (.largely overbalanced bv the credito to which he U entitled according to the books and ba'anee-eheet, in excess of his capi tal. Deducting the whole of the alleged over draft, the books still show that the defendant Vankirk is largely In udvauce of his quota of capital. There bus been uo evidence ollered to impeach the entries to his credit. 1 nm bound, therefore, tc accept them. Dfductinir from them the $ 7000 of which the plaintiff complains, it would Btl'l iippeur that the defendant Vau kirk bus put in, over t'nd abov hW capital, up warda of frM.CiOO more thou thai bo has witn-cfjawn. 1 he articles contain no clausQ prohibiting a piitnrr from drawing in excess of the salary, lho coxriplalnant himself Interpreted the agree ment as allowing the partners to draw more than the ralsry, and so long as the defendant Van kirk maintained his capita! not only Intact, but in advance of what the articles required, it Is difficult to convict bim of "fraud,'' or to con clude tnat "it is impossible to carry on the part nership upon the teims stipulated." Where this "impotsibility" does not exist, It seems to be the dutv of a Court of Equity "to stand neuter." Beofdes, if the defendant acted Improperly, the coroplainaut Is also In lnult, and can I bnlnnce w rong acainst wrong to Bee who com mitted the greater error, and then grant relief to one w bo, sharing the culpability, was only less in fault upon the column of dollars t I would not hesitate in a proper cae to rcf train the use ot the firm nam for private purposes, but the fact that the complainant ban impaired his capital, although slightly, and that bo had knowledge of the transactions ot the de lenrttnt Yankirk in the prior firm of the same character as those complained of here, wou d seem to deprive him of even the right to an injunction, 1 have not considered the argument urged Bgnlnst the compluinaut, that his interest was only one-tenth; for however small his invest ment it is enti led to the protection of the law. I have also disregarded the accusations against the defendant Vankirk in reference to the re moval of certain castings in the year 1805, as to the alleged error in the balance-sheet of June, 18(16, and the omission ot the brok-keeper to enter an item of $21,000 on the proper day, or until months after the occurrence. The removal ot the castings took place several months before the lormatron of the partnership of July, 1865. We are now dealing w ith a partnership lormed January 8, 1816. I sec no fraud In the deduction of 5 per cent, from the valuation of the finished stock. The complainant says that It is proper to deduct 15 per cent., and that the lower deduction exhibits a larger amount of profits than the truth war ranted. Granting all this, it cannot affect the rial points in controversy; it is no evidence of fraud; and is In no way imputable to the defend ant Yankirk. So, too, an entry made June 30, 1806, contains this memorandum: "This e ntry was omitted on January 5, 1800, on which day the transaction occurred." The defendant Vankirk was not the book keeper. There was no evidence that he had ordered the clerk to withhold this entry, or that he was in any way chargeable with the omission to put it upon the books in its proper place. Nor was there any testimony offered to dis prove the fact stated in the books, that the de fendant Vankirk had by "mutual consent" withdrawn machinery, etc., to the value of $21,000, and had also by "mutual consent"' re placed It and contributed that amount to the fiim.- On this point, the entry is the only item ot proof, und it is impossible to infer fraud from it. A full consideration of the case, and a review of the able and learned arguments on both sides, has led me to the conclusion that this bill should be dismissed, but without costs. It may be proper to add that this Court may In' future cases be compelled to follow the prac tice recently adopted by the Supreme Court, of referring cases, after the closing of the testi mony, to a master, to report an abstract ot the pleadings, the material facts in dispute, and his opinion thereon. The case then comes before the Court pre pared for brief argument and speedy decision. In the present instance the discussion of the testimony occupied over two sessions of the Couit, and, in the absence of a master's report, it has been no light task to dispose of the cause in time for the approaching session of the Supreme Court, in order that any error into which I may have faJen may find its speedy correction. Ktw Hampshire Republican Convention. ( oncobti Jan. 8. The Bepublicao 8Ute Conven tion met her to d7 to nominate Htktcoltioeri. An unusual degree (f iu'ereat km felt In the renult, M it was enppored the delegate were nearly diT'dtxi be tween Hum, atearni aud Harriman, the two leading candidate! for the nomination. There were about 700 Fiieseut, General Orlllin presided. A letter was read rum Governor Bmythe deoliuiua a renomlnatlon. The Oc nveutlon then proceeded to hallot for a candidate, with the following result: Mr. Onslow titearni, 818 General Walter Harriman, - 819 Scattering. - - - - - S The nomination was made unanimous. General Harriman waa then in trounced to the Con vention, and lu a speech accepting the nomination, thanked fjeaen that the country was comparatively at peace. lie hoped the security for the faiure won'a le demanded on the basis of reconstruction, and that traitors should take bark seats, and loyal men, black and white, should be called to the tront. The following is an abstract of the resolutions adopt ed : The lirst renews the pledge of fidelity to the prin clples of liberty. 0 he secoud compliments Congress. The third recognizes the struggle of the Irish for lil.ftrtv. The fourth notices the prostration of the Cemocratio party m d i's causes. The fifth declares in favor of aiding disabled soldiers. Tlie sixth recognizes the services of 4en. bmytlie. The seventh expresses confidence in the nominee. The lesoiutlons were uuauluiou-lT adopted, and aiter the appointment of a btate Ueutral Committee the Convtntiun sojourned. The Ohio State Democratic Convention. Columbus, O., January 8. The Ohio Btate Democratic Convention met to-day. The riis tiicts were well represented. Dr. i J. M. Chris tian was appointed temporary Chairman, and A. J. Williams temporary Secretary. The usual committees were appointed, one lrom each dis trict. A Committee on Resolutions was ap pointed, on which was C. L. Vallandigbam. A motion was then made to refer all resolutions to ihe Committee without debate. This was referred to the Committee on Rules. A communication from the Kentucky State Central Committee, asking the co-operation of the 1 emocracy of Ohio to call a National Con vention next summer at Louisville, was referred to the Committee on Resolutions. The Convention then took a recess. George H. Pendleton will be the permanent President. Judge Thomas will probably be the nominee for Governor. A prand Jiicksonian banquet takes place to night at the Neil House. Railroad Accidenj. Chicago, Jannary 8. A passenger car on the Illinois Central Railroad, point? North on Sun day atlem' on, ran oil' the track near Munster. Wrs. W. Wilson, of Akron, was instantly killed, and several other passengers were injured. CURTAINS, SHADES, ETC. fJICH LACE CURTAINS. Ihe Subscribers have now in Stock, and are iu tclvlng from the late AUCTION SALES IN NEW YORK, Nottingham Lace Curtains, From Ordinary to Eich Style. Trench Lace Curtains, From the Lowest to the Highest Quality, tome of them the RICHEST MADE. ALSO, Vestibule Lace, Embroidered Muslin Curtains, Jacquard Hualia Curtains, and Curtain Muslins in great variety SKP?ARD,VANKARUKCEN&ARR1SQN 0 11 i!a'-.Uurii No. 1 OSCHESKUr Wreet. INSURANCE COMPANIES. TSTORTH AMERICAN TRANSIT IHSURANCE COUP ANY, . No. 33 Couth FOURTH 8treet rUlLAUKIJllll. Annasirolfcles Isfi.C1 ht General Accident) 11 description at exceedb g1 .ow lte lncurine efiected ior one yesr fn n,rn from tits) to Hi.O'iO. at ft premlutr ef only one-half pei cent secnrlns the mil aniOKBt Insured la eaaeot onatn, end a comtiensatloD eaon week egual to the whole pre mium paid r-Uurt iinit Tfcletsfot. t. 0,7, or in days, or I, , oi 6 n.oiithn, at )0 cental l, nsorim in the sum of3u0fl, or nivliiu 1B pr eim .Ufalilwi to b bad at tne General Oll.ce, Ko. 1MH.JOUKTH Btreet, hi adel phia. or at tl.e various Kallioad Ticket enices. Pssore to pnre base tne ticket ol th fcorth Auerloaa Transl iBKuraticeConipsny. . , or eircnisrs and rartneY Information aorlr At th ttsnera Otlice, or of ny ol the autawilied Agents of the fompW. lryrm u BoTjrt. PreMde. 4 ' ' JAlstrS U CONRAD, Treasurer IJKNKT V. BRUWNi Becre err, rfOUJi C. Bin, LITT, Solicitor. IsIKfcl'IOKM. h. L. Hoopt, late Ot Pennsylvania Bailrotd Oomnanv 1. E. Klnnsley, Continental Bolel. v r Pamnei V. Palmer. ashler ot Cora. Nation.! Bank. B.C. l.eisenrtn, K on. 191 and 33 Dock street. James M. Courad, firm of Conrad & Walton, So. 62 Maiket street 1 noon he win, late Gen. Bnp'tPenna R. R. Andrew Mehtfler, B. W. corner otlhird and Walnut reeis. O. C. Franciaens Gen. Agent Penna. R. R. Co. Thomas K. Peterson, ho. SWW Maiket street. W. w. Kurtz, firm ot Ktutr; bowaru, No 25 a Third street. Illy 1829C1IAIlTER TERrETUAL. Franklin Fire Insurance Co. PHILADELPHIA. Assets on January 1, 18 GO, Capital (Mi) .moos Acciueu Surplus IM4M3IJ Premiums . UB8ETTLKD CLAIMS, 11,101 fit. ' INCOME FOR 1866 vuv.vuv. LOSSES PAID SINCE OVER Ferpetnal and Tern porary 1'cUcics on Liberal Teima. mtUCOTORA. vnaries m Jncer, Tobias W'apner, Paniuel (Irunt, tieome W.HIchardi. Kdnard O. Dale. George Felee, aiirvu ruier, Franvla W. Lewis, at. B. IsaaeLea. , l'eter AloOall. ClTART.tS V. WANOKl lf PndMn.l . m KDWAM) C. DALE, Vloe-l'reeldenU JA8. W. MCALL18TEB. Secretary protem. 1 1J E F.I O V A L. The Girard Fire and Marine Insurance Company HAVE REMOVED TO THEIR NEW OFFICE, NORTHEAST CORNER CHESKUT and SEYINTII Slrccts, 1 185 PHILADELPHIA. LIVElirOOL AND LONDOU AMD GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY. Capital and Assets, $16,000,000. Invested in United States, $1,500,000. Total Premiums Iteceived by the Company in 1805, Si,917,l75. Total Losses Paid in 1865, $4,018,250 All Losses promptly adjusted without roleience t ErivlaDd. ATWOOD SMITH, miv General Agent lor Pennsylvania. Or I1 lOJii, No. O Merchants' Exchange FUlLAlfcU MlA. IB U6m TjHOVlDfiNT LIFE AND TRUST XT OF PHILADELPHIA WI 50. Ill bo u til FuUHTH Htreet. INCOllPUKA'i JO 3u Mo&'l U, ittd.. 1865. CAPITAL, KIM (MW, 1-AllJ IX.' Jmuranceou Lives, by Yearly Premiums: oi by 8 10 or -0 year Ptenilunis, Aon-loneiture. ' ' LiiUonmeius, payable at a juture age, or on prior dictate, by Yearly Premiums, or 1U year Premiums both c a aee iou torelcure. Annuities giauted on favorable terms. 'Icrm Po Kies. Children's t-udowments Ibis Company, wblie giving the Insured the secnrin r. u 1.1 i. t. I . It n will .lit,,. .a .n " Li t business among Its Policy holders. Siones tcceivta at Interest, an j paid on demand. Authorized by charier tu execute Irusis, and to actn Fxucu tor or AomlnlKtrator, Assignee or liutudlan, an iu oilier lluuclary capucitli-a, uuuei appointment o aoj Court ol thiii Commonwealth, or ol any person ait er 8ou:, or bodies poUUo or corporate. DlltECTOliti. BAMUEL R.8HIPLK1, ,Hl(jlIABD CADBTJBT, JlliEillAH HAliKhH," JO.-HUA H. MOKK1S, iiii.ii . in. n.iii, " Hk'VUV llULu P. WlSTAKUKofoj. MWUAfti IT WWi 1 V WAI. C. LOAUblJtaiB. CHARLES l lll'liv BAM7EL 8H1P1 ET, BOW LAND PARRT, President. Actuary THOMA8 WISTAH, U. 1)., J. B. TOWSSl!.l, 1 7 -Is Heuka Kieniluer. Lentil Adviser, TT1BE INSURANCE EXCLUSIVELY. THB JJ PESABYLVAMA F1BK IJiHUKAbcB COM PANY Incorporated 1B25 charter Perpetual fio. Sit Yt aLNU I blietit, opposite Independence Squire. 'this Company , favorably known to the community for over lort.v years, contmue to Insure against loss or (linage by tire on Pubiio or Private llulldlnge. either ptiuiunently or ior a limited time. Also on Furniture btttksol liuoUs, and Uerchaudlne geueraiiy, on liberal Itnis. 1 beir Capital, together vri'h a large Snrplos Fund.1 invtsied In the most careiul manner, which enable ihcui to oiler to the insured ud uudoubied tevuxity tn th cue ol lobn. Daniel (rnith, Jr., VUGUTOIts. John Tievereix, 1 homos Smith, Henry Lewis, J. Uirilnuhiim Fnll. AiCJtani.cr Hcuiton, ibuttc lla?Uhursi, l nomas koouius, Aamci nitimucK, ur. DAMfcL SMITH, J., President. W illiam O. Cbowdll, Secretary. . H9uS V HCENIX INSURANCE COMPANY OF X PblLADLLPfalA. IJiCOlifOllAlLlJ 1 Wil C If A r.TE B PERPETUAL. i.o. VH VV aLM'T Sneet, opponlte the Ezchausc. In addition to MAK1.NK and IXLAS U INSURANCE, tlilf Company insures lrom loss or dumage by F1UK, or liberal terms on buildings, merchandise, furniture, etc., lor limited perlodj, and permanently on buildings, by deposit ol premium. Joe Company Lu been In active operation for more ihhil IX' during which ail lodses have beeu promptly adjustid and paid. UlMECTOnS. John L. Ilodge, , i.awience Lewis, Jr. . 11. A) ahonv . TlHvld IawIh. John T. Lewis. Villhtm b. Grant. Hubert W. Lea nhig, It. c'aik Wliarlou, Suuiutl Wilcox, ltenjamin tiling. TLuuirt. II. 1'ovtrs, . K. McUenrv. Kdmund t atttlon, Lull's ('. Kotris. ilUtlH WL i'liEKlCB, President. Samuel Wilcox, Secretary. tii TMTED feTATE-? RBVKXUK STAMPS. I J Principal Depot. No. 3114 CUKSUT Street. 1 ,'iiiral Luoot ho. 103 Fl K 1 11 . "tree, cue door below le r Cteenut. Established ldu Bevenuefitamps of every description constantly on Lund in any amount. 9 . Orders b Mull or Kxpress prompt'y attenJed t. I nited States hotcs lra ts ou Philadelphia or ew YrV or current Ittiids received Inpayment. Particular attention paid to small orders. Hi decinli'ns oi tho Cowmlsskin can be consultoa, and any mloimatlou regarding the lasr cheeriuliy given ' 1 yd1 (Bc - rillL.AUrJljl'lllA nununauna srllAi? H AMI AlilL lNHII'lTUTK. ijrr P AM) At. i, lMttft lTUTK. wo. It 0. k I Mil Kirt. above Market. B. O iVi unt, a 1 1 1 1 thirty yesra' practical experienoe, fiiaraiitees U. skl.iul adiustment ol bis Premluir Hu ul tiraduatlng Preuie Iruss, and a variety o others, hupporleia, Elastic Stocklugs.HUouIoer Hraoes lliutches, r-uen6iles, ate. Ladles' aparlweuU ron ui ted by a I ady. WATCHES, JEWELRY ETC. VWlSLyDOMUS& CO. DIAMOND DEAIKRS A JEWKIKRS. W ATCHKH, iKWKLRT HIM WAR. .WAT0HE3 and JEWELRY EEFAIEED. 08Chetnnt St-PMlfcy. CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY . AND ' ' URIDAL PRESKKTS. Dare on band a large and beautiful assortment of Watches. jewelry, and silverware, suitable lor Christ n as Holiday and Bridal Presents. '- Particular attention solicited to our large assortment of Diamonds and Watches, flold Chains tor ladles' and gentlemen's wear. Also, Sleeve Buttons, Studs, and seal Binge, in great variety, all ot the newest sty lot. - FANCY SUYVKR-WAIllS, ESPECIALLY BVITED FOB BRIDAL OIFT3. We are dPy receiving new goods, selected eipressly for the holiday sali a. Our prices will be found as low, if not lower, than the same quality can be purchased 1st where Pucbaers Invited to call Diamond? and all pteclons stnnM. also, Old Cold and 81 ver, purchased or taken in exchange. 6i&4p WAWUES, JEWELRY, gjx Tio. 19 SOI TII SECOND STREET Of ers an entitely new and most carefully selected stock ot i : AMERICAN ASD GENEVA WATCHES, JEWELRY, SILVERWATtE, and FAKCY ABTICLE3 OF EVEBY DESCRIPTION, suitable for BRIDAI, OR HOLIDAY PRESENTS. An examination will show my stock to be unanr passed tn quality and cheapness. Particular attention paid to repairing. 61Sf BOWMAN & LE0N1CD, MABCFACTUKEB8 OF AKO WHOLESALE AND RETAIL DZ&LEB - IN Silver and Sllver-Platcd Goods, No 704 ARCH STREET, PHILADELPHIA. Those In want ol SILVER or PrLVXR-rT.ATF.D WA1IK will find It much to their advantage to visit ourB'lOKi. beiore niaktiig their purohaaea. Our loag experience in the msnuiaotnre ot the above kind ol got us enaDK s ns to aery competition. n e kei aa kjkodi l.nt thna wlilr.n am nf the TTR8T- Ci,AHS,ull t Xiui own make, and will be told at reduced V rice; e itti 0 3. Latge and small sizes, playing lrom 1 to 13 airs, and coating from tS to 1300. Our assortment comprises such choice melodies aa "Home, Bwset Home "The Last Bose of Bummer. "Auld Lang Syne." Star Spangled Banner." 'My Old Kentucky Bome,"etc. etc., Besides beantiinl i elections from the various Operas Imported direct, and for sale at moderate prioes, by FARR & BROTHER, Importers ol Watches, etc , 11 lUmthSrp No. 821 CHEHNl'T Bt. below Fourth. HOLIDAI PRESEHS. JACOB HARLEY, I SUCCESSOR TO STAUFFES & HiELET), No. G2 MARKET ST. A fine assortment ol Watches, Diamonds, Jewelry, Bilver and Bllver-plated Wate, suitable forHoUday and Bildal Presents. 11 tatbsim S I LV ER-WARE FOR- 15 II I D A L PRESENTS. G. RUSSELL & CO., No. 23 North SIXTH St., Invite attention to their Choice Stock of SOLID SILVER W AIMS, suitable lor C U1UHXM A and B It I OA L, UENRY HARPER, JNo. CSO AUCII Street, Id snuiscturet and Dealorin WatcVies Fine Jevrelry, Bilvex'-Plated Ware, AKD 6I Solid Silver-Wura. RICH JEWELRY. JOHN BRENNAN, DEALRR Q( DUH0ND8, FINE WATCEES, JEWEIEI Etc Etc. Etc. 9 5 13 B. EIGHTH ST., PIIILADA. JJOUSE-FUKNISIIING GOODS. EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE BARGAINS. To close the estate ol tbe Into JOHN A. MUHPIiEY, Importer and Dealer tn UOLSK-FURKlStUKa GOODS, No. 029 CHESNUT STREET, Between Mnth and Tentb.Soutb Fide, Polls, His Administrators now offer the whole stock at prices le ow the ori'inuiy rates chargi d. 'Ibis aloca embraces en ry thing wanted 111 a weil-ordi-red household s Plain '1 In Ware. Brusbea, w ooilen Ware, Uaeu. Plated are. t'utltr. Iron War. Jspauued VYtue, and tooa loi' I'tena'is of evert detrription. A K.ieat variety of Bll Kt U UOOD, BIBD-CAOES, et- etc . can be obtained on the most lenxonable tnrius ( tM'l.SE AtltllC lUit'lllOLK a'l'OBa aud WA1KR CO 'LEK8 A tine asortment of TAPIER MACHE GOOD. ' hi Is tua largest retail Obtablixliuieut in thia line In T lillbdelphia audcitizi us auu stxaiiKers will Und It to tlielr advamai e to examine our stork beiore purcbasini. lote Uur Irleuils In tliecountr? may order by mail and prompt atttntlou win ba aiveiu CU 1 ttistu, UNITED STATES REVENUE STAMPS Principal Depot No 8M CUKSNUT btreot. Central Dct ut. No. lui S. sIETIJ Htreet, cue door below t'littuut. FBtablldhed Ulil. )venne Plauws ot every Uescrii viou constantly on t.a l In anf nmmnt ' , t'n'ersb) ii all or Eiorets promptlr attended to. shirts, Funr;o coops, & SHIRT XIAJn7PACTUE22n4 IAKD tBXBBS IK MEN'S FURNISUINO QOOD3 Ko. 814 CHESNUT Street, FOrB DOOB8 BIL0W THE "OONTIHEWTAL. , 67 rp . rBILADELTULA. PATENT SHOULDER-SEAM BIIIRT MANUFACTORY, AKD GENTLEMEN'S FL'EXI8IIIKaBTOaa; PERFECT FITTING B111HT8 1M) DEAWES made lrom measurement at vrn short nstioe. All other mtlelnanf UKNTl.lt MLS U liui.nl Cfllnl In lull variety. WlTsCJlIL.STER ft CO, 11 IS No. 109 CHESNUT Bureott 3T!XTS' PTTnNTSTTTVrt nnonci F. HOFFMAN. JIl.. ' (Late O. A. Hoffman, successor to W. W. Kniglit,i , FIE 81111118, AM WBAFPEE8. HOBIEBX AM) GLOTJW, $iik, Lambs' M'ool, a Merino ' " ' UNDERCLOTHING. lOOtutfcsMn No. 8-5 ARCH s)fet. LUMBER. 1RA7-9Kr'RCT HITE PINE BOAJlDI XOJ I . AM 1-LANh. 4-4, 6-4, 6-4, a, and 4 nv-h. C1101C1. 1AMCL AM) 1st COMMON, iXfeetloua 4-4. -4, (M . 2i, and 4 InrH. WHITS I'lNf ,1'ANKl. PAT1KHN 1-I.AHK I.AkU AM t'PLUiOM bXOCK. Ol HAND 1867 B U 1 1. D I N G 1 BUILDINQ in ildinui LVMBfcHI 1.UMBEB1 I.tTMBERII 6-4 CAKOLINA KLwOKlNU. 4-4 DtLAW AliE KLOORLNO. f-4 DhLAWAUE H.OOHINO. WHITK tlSK FLOOB1HO ASH FLOOK1MU. WALNUT 'i.OOttIKO. BfKl'tE KI.OOhlAO. hTEP HOAKDU. BAIL PLANK.. PLa.fclfcmW LAIO. LOK I'RDiS HRrworj'j 1861 BiiOKT CEXAH BHINuLJCa. , COOPKK hHlNOLKa. rLXB AS80KTMEKT OK 84LB LOIT. Ko. 1 CKDAK LOOS AND POST. .. No. 1 CU AR LOOS ASD POST. ' 1867 -LUMBER FOR UNDERTAKERS t . LDalHRR VOU. IT. HFRTlt vum i BED CEDAU. WALHUT, AMD PINK. BED CEDAB WAIAPT, AJD PINH, 1867, ALBANY LUMBER OP AIX KWM . Aiimai iiuanin or KXtsV'a ptAOUsr.u W41JNDT. BKASOSKD WALNUT. DE1 . .V1! t'UI.BMT, AND ABU. &U1 ILANK AMD B0A&D3. MAHOOANT ROSEWOOD AN1 WALNUT VEBTEgEg. i Q PS7 CIGAR-BOX MANUFACTUREI6S. lOO I CIGAU-ROX MAN OFACTD RSBs). SPANISH CEDAB BOX BOABDH. i Q(V7 SPRUCE JOIST! SPRUCE JOISTl 00 I e BPKUCE JOIST BPBDCU JOIST, . FIIOM 14 TO 32 FEET LOKO. ' FROM 14 TO 2 FEET LONO. . :i. 6UPEBIOB aOBWIY BOANTLISO. MAI LK, BHOl tftt O').. Mo. im HUlTB STKESiT. Illiemrp pm H. WILL I A LUMBER, Seveuleeiith aa tijriirig Grdeav nilMmUPHIA. fl!2 thsfiisa Jt C. PERKINS, " LUMBER MERCHANT. Successor to B. Claik, Jr., NO. 324 CHRISTIAN STREET. Constantly on hand, a lais and varied aasortmeat m Bui ding Lumber. 6 4f CUTLERY, ETC. O U T Li E R Y. A fine assortmene of POOKRT aad TABLE CUTLEKY, BAZOaS, HA ZOK hl'ROl'H. LADIKH' HfUMftDHM L . i . i ii .vi.rr.fi.iDCi l. III. .n. . . . . " L. V. HELM OLD'S ' . Cutlerf Btore, So. front TENTH Ht.eet, S16S T aree doors above Walatftt' FIRE AND BURGLAR PBOOFSAFES gVANS & WATSON MAKCFACTTJBEr.9 Of FIUE AND BtrSOLARSOOir S A. F1 E 8 Bank, IIcrcautIle,or OweLfHa .iStunuM t j BstabliBheJ Over 24 Vsor Over 24,000 Safes u V Tb.8 only Safes wich InnrA-i fl-w.-x Never Lose tieir Fire-Proof $i al. Guaranteed free froai Dampa.ua Soli at Prices Lower thia oiiur aa,i&Kn tVAREKOO.'SIS i No. 811 CHESNUT Street. PUILADELPHIA. Hj Jt II. BURDSALL'S CONFECTIONERY, ICE CREAM AND DININ'O 8 iLOOSB, No. 11Q1 CHESNUT Ht.fc GIUAHD ROW. FEU1T AKD POUND CAKF.S of all sizes, with a lame assortment of OOSfEOHOKtUV, etc, lor the UOLIDAYH l18liirp vvV ft JIXV BESTi, if I)' Srsr II sixth stN 11 1
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers