In this case, as in the one related, the New York merchant went to Alexandria to look after his customers, and found them gone. After considerable inquiry, he found the clerk who had the keys, but the clerk said he had no authority from the owners to do anything, and would not so much as open the store to allow the creditor to look in. The merchant then called upon Judge Freese and told him the facts of the case. The Judge informed him that the court now had a regular course of procedure in these cases, and if he chose to pursue that course he could bring his case before the court. The merchant inquired what was the procedure? The Judge informed him that the first step was, for the party having a claim to make an affidavit as to its amount and its correctness--the same as in cases of attachment in ordinary courts; that thereupon the court issued an order, having the force of an attachment, to the Provost-Marshal, to take charge of the goods of the defendant until such time as the case could be heard--usually in one week from the day the attachment issued; that the plaintiff must then produce his original books of entry, or note, or other evidence of debt, and satisfy the court, beyond any possible doubt, that the debt is due and unpaid; that when this had been done--the defendant meanwhile, or any one for him, having, of course, full opportunity to make any defence within his power, if any he had to make--the court appoints three wholly disinterested persons to fix the value and set apart so much of the defendant's goods as would satisfy the claim of the plaintiff, with cost of transportation to a market, and costs of proceedings; that the three commissioners must then make report, with schedule of goods set apart, to the court; that the court carefully examines said report, and if found correct in all particulars, then issues an order to Provost-Marshal to deliver to plaintiff the goods so set apart; upon receipt of which the plaintiff executes receipt to Provost-Marshal for the goods, as in full liquidation of his claim against the defendant. The proceedings, the Judge said, were so plain that a child could understand them, and so open and straightforward, from first to last, that a mistake was scarcely possible.