Weekly Messenger, Volume 1, Number 41, Vevay, Switzerland County, 26 June 1832 — Page 4
TO THE PUBLIC o wrim icHtio-i has appeared i; 'be iljiiit jr. j-rintt si at Vcvay , concerning a tri;tl
at ( tv look p ce la kentut KV, against Jc;s Dukoxt, for Perjury vhci rendeis U r.ecesary that a history of the transaf iron ahould lrt given, in order to show that the vhargo of malice against the persons who made, (he eomplanit against Dumont, is false cm tinfuVrAcd.
la O.tober last, a suit was brought against
se 5--:f. end uaid vv ttiO tomey for fcarlls. suffered a con-Sv.;'-tp' diiKuargs of r-s
pearing 10 nave accompusnea ms omecw ;.;: ct -mnnacn 01 iv.m. . ...
"hide the ever-1
paitv losing the same
A. C. FORBES, JOHN GRAY, ABRAHAM KIRTLEY. May 14th, 1832. We do hereby certify, that we were pre sent in April last, at a trial before Samuel Sanders, junior, Esq. at Ghent, in Kentucky . and Richard Sarlls was plaintiff", and Johr Dunvmt was defendant; and we heard John Dinont declare under oath, that he never CTiade an agreement as above certified to;
Va.... Ir,ujvr. i it fittAii f Piruinn finite
before A.vdrew C Forbes. Eso. a Justice nj Everon and Forbes had both sworn (o
the Pea.e nt Vevay, Indiana, in which a vrr-
dict was obtained, by a jury, for eight dol I lars in fav r of Sarlls. Dumont eppU'ed to 6ai I Nslice for. a new trial, which wa? fefu-j Bed. unless Dumont would pay or secure the payment of the costs this Dammit declined doing. It was then agreed between JacoO R. Evertson, who acted for Richard Sarlls. and Dumont, that there should be a new tri al-grafted in this case, and also in a suit before paid Justice, in which Dumont as plain tiff. obtained a verdict, before the said jut !-. tgainl Jacob R Evertson defendant, for fiv. daihrs: and it was then expressly a greed ne:wei Evertson and Dumont, th all the costs that had accrued, or should ther after antra ia either suit, should abide ' event of the nit, and be paid by the pan losing the same. After a new trial was granted, as aforesaid, in the suit of SirlU against D"im'H. Oumoo' i ..k i riianae of venue, and he ai wa; s-.it to Saicel Beal, Eq. .f'l-tice i tile Pvice near Vevav; a id Ruhard Sarlls 6.1'Ti'v obtained tecond d a third verdic against D im""tt, for eiit Julians. And, crithstv -it te s.iid agreement, ar, ie. -i l:ors was issued against Sarils for two jm
fee?,'at th t.ista ic-', request, and by direr-
tion of John Dumont, as I am informed and believe. Richard Sarlls being informed that
an execution was issued against him by Bal,
for the jury fees, utd John Dumont n Ken
tucky, before S&mocl Sanbkrs, Esq. for the
breach of his agreement- Oa the trial of
the cause, John Dumont was called upon o
ftwear whether he had not made the gree men as stated; and he then and thei
lctifi Mv -wore that he never had made such an
avrecmrnt; that orbes and tvertsu had
.i 5 it. but that thej both $xorn
bo' t slV
it, but had both sworn false.
JOHN P. f ANDY. THO?. JOHNSON. May !4lh, 1832. I ;ts preterit at a triafhad before Samuel
Sand rs. jr. Eq , between Richard Sarlls,
iaintitf. ai d Jonn Uumont, defendant whet
John Ditrhont was sw.vtt to answer, Under
- aUi, and was ai'ki-d bv .Jarob R. Eve'lson,
actit.g as attorney ( r Sarlls, whether ther-
was not an agreem mei made between Lv-
rtson and Dum-nt, before A. C. Forbes,
E"q. on motion for a new tiial in case which
A -"en tried before satd J orbei. a'td Krh-
. S-tI!" was plaintiff, and J-.h. Dmont
. . that all ) costs hmild ahid.
u v-m of she suit itid nr prd by toe party sir-g t e same. And J. In- Durnont did
the.', and thfefe declare under .ath, thnt he
never made uch an agrennen'; that Evert-
'n and Forbes had o,n there wasfruthan
tffreeTsent, hot had t"th snra fab ,
judgment, but for the express purpose of jury do find the within nuneil John DunroiiB
May 21, 1 832.
VVM. CARPEHTKR.
TO THOM IT MAY CONCERN.
We the uoderMgned, uttx -ns .if Qalla'in
cc.uaty, Kei tuck, were members of a jury
who tried John DitTvn.l the lth da) of
April last, m tin: (J Wiatiii Circuit Court, on
an indctine f.r perjury. And we hae
latel seen a puMiiratioa, ijned by Jacob R. Evei tsoo, pr i. i Jng to give a history of that
trial, in whic h he ) it was only the form
of a 'rial, and "a perfect burlesque.
It was a burlesque, ti is true, upon Evert. son and some others, who were themselves a burlesque upon common honesty. It was evidently a m il.cious, premeditated plot, to destr y h ii u terot no innocent man-
to tear h:n iron his family, and doom him to
Mr. Carpenter, a witness for the pro-ecu-concert, i.;g the premises on the milittirtt.r.
tioi , also unfolded much iniquiU, b) Du spcctucc a,-d l.atg d upon bur., row lit niont's examinalion and the cxaminaiion of r.t qnii hin.self lie sajs that he is not di'. part of the jury. Mr. Carpenter detailed,. and of i! i- lie puis himself upon tl;t tuui.tn, 'hat Evertson, in the early part of March, jand the ait... i.ey for tbe cemmon wealth like, went to Madison, in the stale of Indiana, loiwise. Tht rc-fore, let a iiiM ort ; ;ird a
I,, (ji-3.
lit.
me
it.
employ counsel to prosecute Damon! for per- jni v come. Jo wit: John M
jury, which periurv was not then cornmilted. &tf, Sanders John Ci'Sen.ai., Jol.i
zeasto be about a month therayierf and that t,v-1 Jacobs, W. u. ij.ioKgc, Jolm rJ. iu ert son said he would have lour or five witnesj VVilliam Wilson, Tlumas Canute, J.i
Sutterficld, Peter C. Adam?, kmI V :n tc indritt; who being t leded, tiled ami m.,rn tu
ses by whom he would prove Dumont guilty.
Mr. Carpenter aUo detailed, that be. as well
as Evertson, was coansel for Sarlls against
Dumont; and that the suit of Sarlls against
Dumont, about these jury fees or costs, was rot bronght for the our nose of cltin a
speak the hath of aud conctrning l!ie pr n.ises upon their oath do ssy, at the Miriam. e of the attorney for the commonwealth, ai. without rctirii.g from the box We ol tisc
false.
i.. . .... .nj;n it ii t ... .r
III i lit" 5mr "i iiiuiri'io ii uc imw, tigt ilv it t'. tho nli:r;fT r .ilU the iurv and reenvar less. '
than t venty dollars, he must pay the ex Dumont was indicted on a charge eubat
penso9 ..f the jury, l-i this case Searlls call-:l,". a- o"w: mat ne hart oa oath, on tne ed the jury, and it was particularly on a. -of April last, befora S mue faltuVr., couat nt jury fees, and to accommoda e Dj 1 mi 'rial in which Ri, hard SarlW was mo-it wiih ;i new trial, that the aireem nt pontiff, and said Dumoni a defendant
wh- made. And he afterwards meanly atid'de'"e frik'ig atr?emi t with Jtcob R. baeU attempted to pervert the agreement,!Evertson. attorney for Sirlh, before A. C. iroTd,r to cheat Sarll out of the etpwi! Forbes, Esq. in V vay, respecttng a trial of t-v. in: ves. after ue had been for some imrt',,1,n Hn'- tnerp pending between the me
J .. - . . . .1... !..! J I
tryi e hat htm out ot a set of law b oks ptrues mai it a new inai was gratuea mm,
compelling Dumont to be a witness and to
charge him with perjury.
It was also reluctantly dragged oat of v-
erlson, that he had decoyed Dumor.t across
the Ohio, river, under a pretence of taking depositions in a case in which Dumont whs interested, in order to ferve the process on
Dumont in the name ol Sarlls; and as we the1
jury tirmlr believe, to lay the foundation i
thi profusion.
A. C. f oibcs and John Gray, were it
ncsses iVr the Commonwealth against Dumont. Mr. Forbes was asked by Dumont whether he I. ad agreed to pay .;hi- jury fees in case he lost the suit? and Forbes denied
any knowledge of any such agreement. Nei ther did he say that Dumont bad agreed that
all the costs which had accrued, or should
thereafter accrue, should abide the event of the suit, and paid by the party oing the Htiir.," Neither did Mr. Foibes say an
ilnng from which such an inference could be
drawn, when it i recolUcted it was proved
that Dnmont did not call for cither of the
juries.
Orav evidence had no point at all. H
could not, with any degree of certainty, tell
who were the parties to the ait, nor what the sait was concerning, abut which he was giving testimony against Dumont. And tho' asked, he did not tell, that Dumont agreed
to pay the jury fees, if he lot the case. Neither did he saj any thing purporting that Dumont bad mad an agreement, "That all the costs which had accrued, or should thereafter accrue, should abide the event of the
t-ait, and paid by the party losing the same." And Evertson himself, when examined to that
point by Dumont at the trial, would rot swear
to it in the positive, bat would evade Du
mont questions by say i g, l think reu did,
I believe so," &c . The.- thiee witnesses,
Evertson, Q ray, and Forbes, were, at the sug gestion of Dumont, separated and kept eepn
rated throughout the trial. r orbei was
nol guilty as chained in ti e within indict
ment -there appears to be no grounds for this prosecution Therefore it is considered by the court that the said John Dugout hr discharged, and g hence without daw , N. 6. Geo. Jacobs is the name on tho record; but I am ceMarn, from the veuiro and other e irrumstahces, that Ge; Roberts was the man intended, and who actuallf served as a juryman. Gallatin Circuit CVcrt. set.
April Term, lb 32. I. Wm. Winslow, elerk e-i said mint, di-
h ere by certify, that the above i a true inpy
ol the judgment in llu i h'p abe ve named
Witness mv hand th dat.- .beve tiatre'. ' WM W IN SLOW . C G C a GAttATHI ClRCt'lT C urt. set. d- d Term. 18S2. Wm. Corrrell, pn. . . rfai : T rr.as Fur fish, Hugh Jaek'on, Frank l!-d. . J. hn M(Cormatk. Jarr.ps Wyalt, Wm. M D Ab hett, Wm. Burrows Zatbati. ' f . gt,i: . Ja.
Nowell, Fairon B"smai , Jchi. C- uwa,Go Carpenter, Mason Witgiiigtim, J. -se Cole
man, Wm. II. Harrison, WesUt P. Mat er
son, John Gardner, and Jame;. Lester, were
impanneled and sworn as a Grai d Inquest for the body of this Circuit, and having received
a charge from the court, withdrew to cotisid
er of presentments . .
A copy . Attest, WM. WINSLOW, C G. C C There is no injunction of secrecy on r.fmember of a grand jun ofourcmirt. WM. WINSLOW.
Snored by the sheriff, with an upper cham-itakcn by chaeee of venue to S -muel Real.
ber. This may be the burlesque which Kv- Esq. and appealed from his do k t, to th
ertson speaks of. We cannot think the evi- Switzerland Circuit Court.
S;arl- nad lent him, and for which ths suit
wa brought. D ."n it had positively denied under rth en --g. -t-mtit that he well knew was made priniipetly for his own accommodation, arid
in the pre m-ik i: of several witnesses. I congide ed h m guilty of perjury I till thiok AO. An.l Evertson, Forbes, Job . Gray, Sa mu' 5 i ..lers, jr. Jobn P. Tandy , and me oibei-, - f befoie the gtand jur) forGail.t tm c "ti- , K'.tueky, i.nd made a complaint agai -! l tn- D imont; and the. grand jui foa ift bill aiost him for perjury. It i
tru' . Duio-nt went through the form of a trial; but it as evident to those who had any knowledge of the case, that Dumont owed his acquittal more to the malice ot
Le is Sambim, jr. against mc, and Sanders'
influence over Brows, the prosecuting attor . : ' - 1
rey , man 10 ma innocence, aanuers anu
Dro'n nau lormea an loea tnu i was ine
pri iial .rosccutor against Dumont, whicl
was not the f.icl, however.) but that formed a Ter imp irtatit reason wh Djsnont shouhl
be cl-a ed, any how. And Brown, the pro secu.i .4 rt rney, di?missed the prosecution becau a, (as h- stated.) that a plaintiff in In
li i.i ., . oin: lor a jury,a:id recovering L.:?v th . ie tv dollars, wa liable to pay Mit
cx e.iBi o: tb- iurv. I disclaim all malice
I am glid Du nont was cleared, hut his tria
was a ..enect burlesque. Some of the prin
Cipel w tnessoi against him weie never call
ed on. I was o'ie of those who maue ih
Comphint, mid woull do it agin under si mi
tar circumstances. JACOB R. EVERTSON. Ghent, Mty 14, 1332.
rr.R.TiyicATEir.
We, the Uiidcrtigin d, da hereby certify
that we were present at the same time in
NoVPOiSer last, at Andrew C. Forbes' olf e in t; f-iwn of Vevay ; and th it Jacob R
Everlse.n, whf acted f.,r himself and Richar
Sarll;, and John D'imant, did then and ther
rjir-e that new trials should be granted it
tw suits which U id been tiled before A
di-w C. F Tbes, E.q. in one of which Job
D i r. nt ; plaintiff, and Jacob R. Ever
so- iVfiv.d tot ; uid i.i the other, Ric
g--t!U w.i- ;iai Mf, and John Damnl d
fcnd.in.. A-d iiat ?. the costs which had
he would, if he lost the suit, pay all the costs
that had acc:ued or that would acrue; and
also, the jury fees, which, by ihe law of Indi ana, he would not be liable to pay
We ware sworn to render a true verdict
ive witnesses were sworn and examined for
the prosecution, and instead of a burlesque.
or a sham, the Commonwealth s attornry
pressed the prosecution till he was compelled
to stop he could go no further. As an hon.
t man, and a man of sense, it was his duty
to abandon a prosecution, when he and every
by ftander were fully cot.vinced that the- de
:ndant was totallv innocent and that f
wicked combination had been formed to des
troy him
We consider this publication of Evertson
romes, iray, c. an irairec cnarpe on
is for acquitting Datrtont. True, we ac
luilted him without leaving our box Was
this a burlesque when nil the testimony
which was not a little, conduced to ronhem
his innocence, and to show the orroptio
U'd malice of his prosecutors? What nee
lad we to retire, to 6ay on tur oaths whe'b
er he was guilty orinnocen? when Everton
iivl Forbes, and Gray the only witnesses
who attempted to fix guilt upon him did
not utter any thing that could bear again
;un
Under the scrutii.izng examination of
Dumont, Evsrtson's own testimony unfolded
STATX Of INDIANA, SWITZERLAND C VKTT.
Richard Sai,
John Dumont.
This case was insiitutec1 betr.te AnircW
C Forbes, Esquire; a new trial granted, and
Trover For a net of law looks.
dence detailed before us, could have been
the same before the grand j'iry ; else it would seem to us impossible thai any tirar.d jury could ever have found a bill. We publish
this statement, because it is our duty to shake off the suspicion of wrong from ourselves.
and to contradict, as far a is in our power,
false statesmeuts made against others.
Will. ScahdritTt Th t Carraco,
Peter C. Adams, George Roizrti, Wh Was . Lewis Sakirs, w tt, R. Scrvoss,
Iambs Scttirfizld, J"H1I L. Ct'LtMAir, John B. Shxlt. n. Joh.x M. Bac K, J an H. Fasht.
At the March term of the 9wiiZ ;ard Cir cuit, on Thursday, the fourth day of th errri, the following order was made, to wit.
Richard Sarlls.
Trover. Appeal from Esq. Beat.
TS.
John Dumon
Come the parties by theii attornies, r.3 on motion of the plantifT, this cauae is coa tinued until the next term of this court; and it is ordered by the court that the depositions taken by Sarlls in this case be suppressed. Jacob R. Evertson arted as attorney fc the plaintiff in this case, and it U w ell knowu
to saicf plaintiff and his attt-riicy , that said
We t:o underMnened. were members of 9n,t is pending and undeteimii ed, and
the gra .d jnrv for the county of Calla-Ithat lt 8 not yet known who will be tbe pa tin, state . f Kentucky , in the April term,!' lo,,ine he suit. 1831. Said grand jury found a bill of in.j h Edward Patton, Clerk of th Swi'ter dirtment again?! Jo'.n Dumont, for Perjury. i';l,u' Circuit, certify the foregoing to be thv
A. C. torbes and Joan Gray were witnesses ,rut Ma'e 01 '"'S case at tne present time.
they were both in the grand jury rorn at
the same time; Forbes gave his testimony 61st, and Gray afterwards. They both swore positively that Dumcnt had agreed to
pay all the cost that had acrued, and that night accrue in the cae. of Sarlls vs. Dumont, if a new trial was granted, and be lost the case. And neither of them liiowed any ignorant e concerning who were the parties to the suit, or what the suit was about; tliey seemed to k now all about it. We have seen a statement, signed by William Scandritt and o'hers, m. mbers of the jury who tried Duuvmt; and we say, that it the same evi-
a m iss of com upt ion on his part, (though be dence had been given before us by Forbes
EDWARD PATTON. Clerk.
J Cue, 1 832. (See ncond pngt.)
told it reluctantly.) clearly shewing that the
utt which Sarlls had brought against Du-
moot in which Dumont was a witness on the 7th d ry of April was managed and con
ducted by hveftson, and was not hi ought for the purpose of obtaining a judgment, but for the purpose of Compelling Dumont to be. a
witness, and trren to get him indicted. It was dragged out of Evertson, also, that he
wrs a witness for Sarlls in the same case,
and knew the whole agreement, if ever one
had been made ; that he was sw oru to tel' the whole truth; but thjt he,F.vertson,on that trial, either withheld f tie truth then, w hen sw orn 10 tell it or told more thaw the truth m Dumont's trial. Oa the trial before Sanders, Evertson did not fell o- word about this agreement. r pay costs, though that was the principal tl.ing that Dumont wasujed about. And 'so' Soon a' Dimoot had been
and Gray, which the petty jury certify was
given before them, we would never hae agreed to find a bill against Dum-n. WM. H. HARRISON, MASON WIGGENTON. W. P. MASTERSON.
I was one of the grand jury, but was not
A barefaced Jo.--The facetious f ' "h '
Ki n, one of the legal agents of the late Duko
of B li. Laving on a certain ocasioo request to nnke to bis Grace, posted out on1 morning to D b house in such h borr that
he neglected ta undergo the tonsortal operatio&.
I lie duke, surprizeu 4t the nneeDiiy ;ml slovenly appearance of the man of law, said to hixj.
"Good heavens, J h, what a pickle yt
are 10: I don't believe the razor and you have been acquainted for a week . ' My lord Uoke, replied the witty amd wily lawyer. "I have & favor to ask of your Grace; and I never in my life could undertake to a&k a Civor m a iartfv iti Gutmsr." One Alfred Lathao a(.lrerrie in the Proidence (It. I.) American, that he lus been ap
pointed by the 'Honorable Court of Probate of
in the room when Forbes and Grav gave, theii !' lawn of Burrillville, guardian to the pertont.
evidence against Dumont; but I was inform-jc- f Matilda, George, and Joseph Newell, ed by part of tire grand jury, thaf they sworej''a'aji;' This is to u nn enlire new trust
that Dumont had agreed to pay all the cot renuerert ncctsiry, proliahiy, by some recent that had accrued, or that might accrue, ifaes ot body snatching within the precincts of
he lost the case atid that the case had been lost by Dumont. FRANK BLEDSOE. June lty 1832.
Commonwealth of Kci.tuck,
J. HN Di m AT.
ri!;?. d ay came as the attorney for the
t Iaiii liner:!
lor i'eijar.
tliat intle iiiuiit tt.t sitate. We should like I fee Mr L. Gt aocouut of guardianship :t Biust be a rate document! Eu'.ir . And it came to pas om the moi few. tht l.e i tla.eU took a thu k ninth .l.J.
' ' r
nui pread it oq bio tlim U.
ped it in
Jad tare. Uiat l.e ditd; a&d Hazel teiuv4
. . . J .j ...... ... Ilu, 11 ui.u f auu lsJ, or shoe!: Srauer accrue, thculi txammed Evertscr, acting a3 eger.t end at- Copsjccwcahbg ai the gaid Jcba Daxcu! is Lis rcd,r-: fa ..-e, Vi:i. it.