"The judgment of the court in this case is, that the plaintiff choose one man, the defendant another, and the two, a third, or, if there be any disagreement about the choice of a third man, that the Provost-Marshal act as such third man. That the three thus selected constitute a commission, authorized and directed by this court to set apart, of the goods left by Mr. S., so much as will pay in full, at a fair valuation, the claim due from Mr. S. to Mr. G.; that this commission shall fix the price of every article transferred to Mr. G., and, where there is a disagreement as to value between the two, the judgment of the third shall be final; that the gross amount of goods to be transferred shall include the amount of Mr. G.'s claim, the estimated cost of transportation from this city to Philadelphia, and five dollars to each of the commissioners for the services they will render; that the commissioners make a written report to this court so soon as the goods have been selected and set apart; but that the goods be not taken from the store-room, until the report of the commissioners be approved by this court, and an order for their shipment obtained. The Provost-Marshal will see to the execution of this order in all its parts." The court then adjourned. On the afternoon of the same day each party chose their man, and the Provost-Marshal consented to act as the third. Next morning the three went to the store-room, accompanied by Mr. G. and Mr. T., and before noon had a sufficient amount of goods selected and set apart to cover Mr. G.'s claim. In the afternoon they presented their written report to the Provost-judge; he examined and approved it, and at once gave an order for the delivery and shipment of the goods. Next day they were shipped, and probably a better pleased man never left Alexandria than Mr. G. The only other case of this character to which we can give place, occurred between a large wholesale dry-goods firm of New York and one of the largest retail dry-goods houses in Alexandria, and differed from the first case only in the fact that here the store was securely locked up, and had been ever since the owners left. There was no agent in this case left to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods, though it came out, in the course of the evidence, that the clerk, with whom the keys had been left, had frequently been seen to take large packages of goods from the store, and he acknowledged that he had sent some across the lines to his former employers.