gels and his crew recovered the trunks from the sunken flat-boat and placed them upon the bank of the River Chagres, there had been no fraud or gross negligence by the defendants or their agents--consequently, the defendants are not liable for any damage that had occurred up to that period. The only remaining question is whether, according to the spirit and letter of the defendants' agreement with the plaintiffs under the facts proved, they or their agents were guilty of gross negligence in not delivering the trunks and contents in their damaged condition to Mr. Burnett, at San Francisco. The defendants' contract must be construed with reference to the rights and obligations of other persons engaged in the transportation of these trunks to and with the plaintiffs. Capt. Angels, of the flat-boat on the River Chagres, was a common carrier, and during the time he was in possession of the goods was responsible to the plaintiffs to the full value of the trunks and contents, $2,025 09, for the faithful performance of his duty, and as an insurer, and for all his legal liability as common carrier; and he has a right, for the purpose of saving himself harmless of legal responsibility, to do with these trunks and contents whatever the law, under similar circumstances authorized common carriers to do; and the defendants under the authority contained in their agreement had no power to prevent him. In addition to this, the defendants and their agents had no knowledge of what Capt. Angels was doing. The first information they received upon the subject was after he had sold the trunks and goods. The defendants, therefore, had not been guilty of negligence. DECISION. There must be judgment for plaintiffs for $567 75, being the amount for which the defendants offered that plaintiffs might take judgment, (and which offer must control,) with costs to the defendants, since the offer of judgment. THE BOOK TRADE-INJUNCTION PERPETUATED-DECISION OF JUDGE NELSON. In United States Circuit Court. In Equity, before Judge Nelson. Josephine M. Bunkley vs. Robert M. De Witt, James Davenport, William S. Tisdale, aud Charles H. Beale. MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION. JUDGE NELSON, J. This is a bill filed by the complainant against the defendants for the purpose of restraining them from the publication of certain manuscripts of a work entitled "My Book, or the Veil Uplifted," of which she claims to be the proprietor and authoress, and for which she has taken out a copyright. The motion is now for a preliminary injunction, and involves the merits of the controversy only so far as may be necessary to ascertain whether or not the cese presented is such as to require the court to interfere and restrain the publication till the final hearing. The defendants set up two main grounds of defense: 1, that the complainant is not the proprietor or authoress of the manuscripts: and 2, that admitting her to be the proprietor and authoress, Beale, one of the defendants, was duly authorized to contract, on her behalf, for the printing and publication of the work, and did, in pursuance thereof, contract with De Witt & Davenport, two of the other defendants, for such publication. As to the first ground--the book has already been printed, and a copy handed up with the papers on this motion, and is now before me. It is entitled" My Book, or the Veil Uplifted; a Tale of Popish Intrigue and Policy. By Josephine M. Bunkley, late Novice at St. Joseph's, Maryland. Including a Narrative of her Residence at, and Escape from that Institution." There is also on one of the fly-leaves the following: "To American parents and daughters, as an affectionate warning against error; and to those unselfish patriots who have nobly dared to free, and to preserve the public from the dangers of Jesuitical influence, this volume is respectfully dedicated by the author." And in address to the reader on another leaf, it is remarked, "that the writer would have preferred to remain unnoticed, and to enjoy the quiet repose of do mestic life, without being forced to assume a position to which she is totally unaccustomed. After having effected her escape from the institution in which she was confined, and which she entered with pure intentions and bright anticipa tions, she would willingly have suffered the veil of oblivion and pardon to have fallen over the transaction. But as her assertions have been denied, her motives misrepresented, and her good name threatened, she has no alternative, in justice to herself and friends, but to speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth,' in order to vindicate her action. Her statement' will be found in the following pages; as she earnestly desires to impress the American people with a sense of their danger from the controling influence of a religion which tends to degrade the mind, and subject the will to the sway of a wily priesthood, a simple story, founded on facts, is added, for which the author requests the indulgence of her readers." We have referred to these extracts as evidence of the authorship of the work contained in the book itself; and whom, as it respects the complainant and these defendants, has a very material bearing upon the issue between them. Their position is, as respects this branch of the defense to her bill, that she is not the authoress, but, on the contrary, that the work is the joint production of Beale, one of the defendants, and Miss Upshur; and, being the authors, they, or any one representing them, had a right to contract for the publication, and to take out a copyright. The book itself, as we have seen, refutes this position, unless, indeed, we adopt the conclusion that the complainant's name has been most unwarrantably used. It is said, however, that she consented to the use of her name, although not in point of fact, as the authoress. This defense sounds harshly in a court of equity from parties who deny her authorship, and at the same time are seeking to realize to themselves great profits, which it is supposed will result in the sale of the work from the use of her name. If the fact of consent was shown, it would indeed turn the complainant out of court, but it would be upon the defect of her own case as presented, rather than any merit in the defense. A complete answer, however, is that the consent claimed is not sustained upon the proof before me. We will simply add, upon this branch of the case, that there is considerable evidence of the authorship of the complainant to a large portion of the book, as the case stands, besides that derived from the work itself, and which, taken together, overcomes the contrary evidence relied on. The next question is, admitting the complainant to be the author, was Beale, one of the defendants, authorized to contract for the publication of the book with the publishers? There is certainly some conflict in the evidence on this point. As this branch of the defense assumes the complainant to be the proprietor, and are charges, the burden is upon the defendants to establish the authority. We have looked into the papers with some care upon this question, and with a view to its proper determination, and must say that the weight of the proof, as it stands, is against it. The defendants, De Witt & Davenport, the publishers under the contract with Beale, have already printed the book, and of course have been subjected to a considerable expense, and an appeal has been made on this ground in their favor, as distinguishing the case from that simply between one complainant and Beale. But the proofs showed that these defendants not only had notice of complainant's rights, but were expressly forbidden by her to print or publish the books-she complaining that Beale had no authority to make the contract before they had entered upon this expense. They are, therefore, chargeable with notice of the want of authority on the part of Beale, if, in point of fact, no such authority existed, and are in no better situation than Beale himself in this issue with the complainant. Indeed, the proofs show that these defendants, after they were forbidden to print and publish, and before they entered upon the business, sought a negotiation themselves, through their friend and agent, with her, to procure her consent, and failed, the complainant insisting that the manuscripts belonged to her, and had been improperly withheld, and that Beale had no authority to make the contract. The case is a peculiar one. The defendants are seeking to print and put into circulation a work in the name of an authoress, which name, as is obvious, is supposed to give to it its chief interest and attraction in the public estimation, against her remonstrance, and, as she claims, not only in violation of her rights, but also in some respects, as printed and sought to be published, in disparagement of her character, and one, and the principal answer to her complaint is that she is not the authoress, and that the work is the production of other minds. Another ground is, that although not the authoress, she consented, in consideration of receiving a portion of the profits of the work, that her name should be used as the authoress of it. A third, that being the authoress and proprietor, and therefore having a right to control the printing and publication, she authorized Beale, one of the defendants, to contract for the same with De Witt & Davenport, two of the other defendants. There is no pretense that he had any written authority. It is sought to be made out by verbal statements and corroborating circumstances. This is met by the denial of authority in any form by the complainant, supported by the deposition of her father and sister. If they are to be credited, Beale has repeatedly admitted that he had no authority, had done wrong, and expressed his regret at his conduct in the business. The deposition of the father, who naturally must have taken a deep interest in the matter, is very full and particular, both as to the relation on which Beale stood in respect to the manuscripts of his daughter, the terms and conditions of it, and also as to his admissions since the difficulty has arisen, repeatedly made to the father, that he had acted without authority in entering into the contract for publication. The book itself contains a certificate of the mayor, and other public men of Norfolk, of the character of the father as "a gentleman of probity and honor," and entitled, therefore, to the highest confidence. We are satisfied, therefore, that neither of these grounds of defense has been sustained, and that in the present posture of the case, the preliminary injunction heretofore granted must be continued till the final hearing. LIABILITY OF A LODGING-HOUSE KEEPER. In the American Law Register, for March, is an essay on the "Liability of Lodging-House Keepers," with which it would be well for such persons to be acquainted. A case came before the Queen's bench in England, where a lady sought to obtain damages, of the woman who kept a boarding-house in which she resided, for the loss of a box, which was taken as follows: The lady being about to leave the house, sent one of the defendant's servants for biscuits. The servant left the door ajar, in consequence of which, during his absence, a thief entered and stole the box from the hall. The plaintiff, as has been said, was a boarder in the house at a weekly payment, upon the terms of being provided with board, lodging, and attendance. The judge, at the trial, instructed the jury that the defendant was not bound to take more care of the house and the things in it than a prudent owner would take, and that she was not liable, if there were no negligence on her part, in hiring and keeping the servant. And he left it to the jury to say, supposing the loss to have been occasioned by the negligence of the servant in leaving the door ajar, whether there was any negligence of the defendant in hiring or keeping the servant. When the case came before the full court of four judges, two of them, (Wightman and Earl J. J.,) held the ruling of the trial to be correct. But the Chief Justice Campbell, and Justice Coleridge, held the contrary, with whose opinion the essayist coincides. Lord Campbell said, "There might be negligence in a servant in leaving the outer door of a boarding-house open, whereby the goods of a guest are stolen, which might render the master liable. I think there is a duty on his part, analogous to that incumbent on every prudent householder, to keep the outer door of the house shut at times when there is a danger that thieves may enter and steal the goods of the guest. If he employs servants to perform this duty, while they are performing it they are acting within the scope of their employment, and he is answerable for their negligence. He is not answerable for the consequences of a felony, or even a willful trespass committed by them; but the general rule is, that the master is answerable for the negligence of his servants while engaged in offices which he employs them to do; and I am not aware how the keeper of a lodging-house should be an exception to the rule. He is by no means bound to the same strict care as an inn-keeper; but within the scope of that which he ought to do, I apprehend that he is equally liable, whether he is to do it by himself or his servants. The doctrine that inquiry is to be made, whether the inister was guilty of negligence in hiring or keeping the servants, is, I believe, quite new." COMMERCIAL CHRONICLE AND REVIEW. ACCOUNTS OF THE GROWING CROPS-SPECULATIONS IN BREADSTUFFS THE BANK MOVEMENT SUPPLY OF SPECIE - DEPOSITS AT THE NEW YORK ASSAY OFFICE DEPOSITS AND COINAGE AT THE PHILADELPHIA AND NEW ORLEANS MINTS — SURPLUS OF SILVER COIN THE STOCK MARKET FOREIGN EXCHANGE-IMPORTS AT NEW YORK FOR MAY, AND FROM JANUARY 1ST-IMPORTS OF DRY GOODS-EXPORTS FROM NEW YORK FOR MAY, AND FROM JANUARY 1ST-IMPORTS AND EXPORTS FOR ELEVEN MONTHS-CASH REVENUE AT NEW YORK, BOSTON, AND PHILADELPHIAEXPORTS OF DOMESTIC PRODUCE-BANKS OF DISCOUNT AND 18SUE, WITH SOME REMARKS ON RECENT CHANGES OF POLICY, ETC. WE stated in our last that the business of the country for the next year depended in a great degree upon the incoming harvest. At the date of writing that statement, there were many fears in regard to the harvest on account of the drouth then prevailing in all parts of the country. These fears are now for the most part happily dissipated. The breadth of ground sown is greater than ever before, and the most cheering accounts reach us from every quarter. There are instances of local damage, but the great portion of the crops are yet uninjured, and we may hope will be safely garnered. The influence of these favorable prospects is every where apparent. Trade is reviving, and business men are renewing their operations with fresh courage. Our caution in regard to speculation in breadstuffs, we are glad to know, saved some of our readers from heavy losses, and our position has been fully sustained by the course of trade. Notwithstanding all the predictions of famine prices, based on estimates of a short supply, flour has come forward freely, and the markets on the seaboard have steadily declined. There may be a temporary reaction before the new wheat shall be threshed, but if the yield is as abundant as now promised, speculators will have the worst of it. Never were the harvest fields in this country so closely watched as during the current season, and the "harvest home" will this year swell into a song of thanksgiving that shall be heard throughout our remotest borders. The deficiency last year was not owing so much to the damage done to the growing grain by the drouth, as to the diversion of labor from agricultural pursuits. For several years the various railroad enterprises, and a growing inclination for trade or speculative projects that promised an easier fortune than could be wrung from the soil, had united in drawing our people from the pursuit of husbandry, so that the production did not increase so rapidly as the hungry consumers. The surplus of old crop was each year relatively less, until a partial failure of the crops in Europe drew off nearly all our stores, and the decreased production of the last year, owing to the want of rain, completed the depletion. Many writers among us became seriously frightened, and, reckoning the home consumption the same as in years of plenty, predicted a serious deficiency that could only have resulted in an absolute famine. Our readers will bear us witness that we steadily opposed these efforts at panic making, and while we gave the writers in question due credit for their sincerity, avowed our belief in a sufficiency for all practical purposes. Comparatively high prices have been maintained, but not within 30 per cent of the rates thus anticipated, and no scarcity has been felt, and no suffering has resulted at any point, or in any market throughout the country. Money is everywhere abundant, and although the demand for it has revived under the increased activity in other business, the rates of interest are unchanged, and at the principal money centers capital is freely offered upon prime security at 6 a 7 per cent. The banks stand very strongly, and notwithstanding the large shipments of specie to Europe, their stock of coin is quite sufficient for all useful purposes. At New York the amount of specie in the vaults of the banks has but slightly varied. We continue our table of the weekly averages since January 1st: We also continue our weekly statements of the Boston banks from the date June 4. ... May 21. May 28. $32,710,000 $32,710.000 $32,710,000 $32,710,000 $32,710,000 52,387,857 52,004,324 51,992,053 52,313,211 3,187,441 3,201,248 3,375,353 3,409,181 7,145,037 8,040,083 8,006,570 5,864,881 5,989,178 June 11. June 18. 52,698,944 3,598,651 8,621,400 8,314,169 6,056,304 6,155,384 6,113.894 Due from other banks Deposits |