return." One other matter the court explained in this case, which was not explained in the first, namely, why the goods were not sold at public sale, and the money, instead of the goods, turned over to claimants. He said: "It will be observed that by the rules of procedure adopted in these cases, the court is quite as careful to protect the interests of debtors as of claimants. In ordinary actions for debt, in courts of common pleas, the goods, after being attached or levied upon, are put up at public sale and sold to the highest bidder, and the money received at such sales paid to claimants. In such cases it often happens that, even in a market, goods do not bring one-half and sometimes not one-fourth their real value, and the defendant of course has to suffer the loss. If the goods seized here were thus exposed to public sale, at this time, when two-thirds of its ordinary inhabitants have fled from the city, and when there is little or no market for anything outside of army stores, they would not bring one-fourth their cost; whereas the same goods taken to a market, will sell for about their original cost. Hence the rule in the proceedings whereby goods are assessed by three disinterested persons, and turned over to the claimants at the prices fixed by the commissioners. And the court begs to add--though not boastfully, since it only performs a duty in so doing--that, because of the absence of the defendants, doubly the care is taken that the full market value is fixed to each article turned over to the creditor; and that in every case the court carefully supervises the schedules, to see that no mistakes have been made.