every direction. As before seen, the trial opened on the 23d of February, 1859. The indictments were for libel in three cases as the defendant understood the same. The prosecutors, first, G. Y. Overall; second, C. F. Moulton, and the third, G. A. Cleveland. As it had been previously arranged by them on the State docket, the defendant had first to answer the charge of G. Y. Overall. Had he been placed the last on the docket, the prosecution would have, in all probability, signally failed in every case; and even this first case, with all the deep-laid designs in connection, would have been a failure but for the extraordinary resources for the forcing of a verdict by foul means. The design here contemplated is only to give a brief abstract of the more momentous features of the trial, because the whole given, would be inopportune in a condensed work of this nature. SHOEMAKE AND B. TAYLOR IN COURT. As before noticed in another part of this work, S. S. Shoemake will again be introduced as playing a very conspicuous part, not only on trial, but also before the Grand Jury, which was organized for the then present term of the City Court. Notwithstanding the “records” to the contrary, the following information was given to the defendant, at the time of his trial, by one of the jurors himself. Shoemake, although an old resident of Mississippi, the defendant also a resident of the same State, and the work complained of published in New Orleans, Louisiana, yet he, with audacity enough, went before the said Grand Jury to get another bill for libel in favor of himself and against the defendant, but was sadly disappointed. This Grand Jury had had more time for thought and reflection than the preceding one, and peremptorily refused his application. Had he been unjustly injured, his redress would have been from the juries of Mississippi; but he had penetration enough not to make any efforts of this nature in Mississippi, well knowing that his character was too well-known here to succeed in making juries subservient to his dark purposes of crime and dissimulation. On the day of trial, the counsel for the defence availed himself of the earliest opportunity to make application for further time, on the grounds of absence of material testimony, but without the desired effect; the Court over-ruled the application, and both sides were ordered to proceed to trial instanter. While the Sheriff of this court was calling in witnesses for the prosecution, the name of Bentonville Taylor was particularly noticed by the defendant. This man, as was afterward learnt, had been conveyed by the clan from Williamsburg, Mississippi, and appeared quite unexpected on the part of the defence. His knowledge about the case then pending, could have been but very little or nothing at all, and was evident to all who were more conversant with the facts, that his presence there was not in behalf of justice, but for sordid objects of pecuniary gain.