Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-06-01
MILITARY EXECUTIONS.

lished AN article. entitled, Direfa t6eeis of
example" in which we stated that reports were
Florida, and the Alabama territory, had ven-
tnred upon arbitrary and alarming asurpations
OF power over the civil authority. That the
commanding officer at he former place had
issued his orders to put deserters TO infant
death, wherever found, without allowing even
a summary hearing by court martial; that
such orders were actually carried into execu-
ton and that i'm the latter place, the horrid
punishment OF pcksting had been inflicted
on the inha bitants i'm defiance of the laws and
consultation. We gave them as report Gully,
and some OF the newspapers censured US for
II, saving, that prudence did not justify the
publication.
Certainly. to have done so without first TAX
tnx pains to ascertain, whether or not they
were well founded. would have heen little less
than a wanton sport with the public creduiity.
We VIII then, now say, that IL may he relied
on, that the report comes short OF the facts
III VIII turn out, not only that in Florida mill
tafy executions, contrary TO law, have been
committed by command of col. King, but that
his conduct has been formally approved by
Gen. Gaines, and it will have been we'll it this
daring state of the civil authority stopped here.
In the Alabama territory, we are not able 10
trace the outrage committed upon the citi-
Gems To any officer by name, hut the facts STA
TED TO us, ore, that the barbarous military pu-
nishinent OF picketing, was inflicted OH a citi-
zen who had been ii resident more than 40
years that he was then banished aud his pro.
perty seized and divided among the soldiery.
Ii seems almost Incredible, that in this country,
such an outrage should have been committed,
Dut our Information is of d nature not TO he
uouDted.-lhe occasion calls for prompt and
decisive measures, or farewell to our boosted
liberties. IN " Ere Post
The case Of Eliza McDonald VS.. Thomas
NJ Cam. for breach of promise Of marriage,
and same VS.. same, for money had aud receive
ed. The facts given in evidence were these
On the evening of the 3ist of December,
lS'Z, he plaintiff, having considerable SUM
or money, on a treaty for an expected marriage
on the following day with the defendant, adj
vanced him the sum of S207. He agreed to
go with her the next day TO Harlam, about
eisht miles from this city, and marry heI. At
ms request, several witnesses TO the contem-
Pia,e6 marriage, accompanied the plaintiff
anu the defendant to that place. After their
arrival there, and after having dined together,
the defendant said that he was engaged to
lady IN Ireland, and that he could not then
marry the plaintiff; but that in about five
weeks his premise weuld be out when he
would marry her He desired that il should
not he known but that the marriage had taken
pace, and requested those present, it asked,
10 say that the marriage had been consumma-
ted. The plaintiff agreed 10 this arrangement.
and The parties returned TO this city. After
wards the defendant distributed the wedding
,a'ofs: took the plaintiff 10 his house,
nus wife, aud lived wirh her as such, about
SIX weeks, but has since refused to marry her.
On the trial of the action for breach >of
PROMISE OF marriage. on the production of this
testimony Except as respected the payment
or the money! the counsel for the defendant
moved for non-suit. The Judge thereupon
stated, that he thought the defendant justifia-
Die IN refusing tomarry the plaintiff and that,
notwith landing any further proof she might
olfer, he. the judge, should feel himself bound
TO charge the july that she was not entitled TO
recover any damages.
The plaintiff, in this action, therefore, SUBJ
mItied to uon-suit
In the progress of the other trial, some
additional facts in relation TO the receipt of
The money, we're proved. 1t appeared that
previous TO the time the money was paid, the
defendant Inquired of one of the witnesses
introduced on the trial, a woman, how much
money she thought the plaintiff had 4; and on
being told by the witness, that she thought
the plaintiff had about thousand or twelve
hundred dollars, he said that he ,rould marry
any CONAN Jor her money; aud that he WAS TO be
married to the plaintiff, and said, that the wit
ness should be present at the marriage.
Ii was further proved that several wears
ago, and after the receipt OF the money! the
defendant lett this city, and OF his return in
tho year one thousand eight hundred and six
teen, person having said to him. Why, Tho
mas. what are you going to do with Eliza,
Wohid you rob her, and then turn her CIT ?
he replied that he would pay the plaintiff the
money he had Of her, but he would not marry
her.
Ike defendants counsel moved for nom
sHit, on the arOnud that the money which had
been advanced by the plaintiff was but free
ght' In expectation of contemplated narri-
age {; and that the declaration to the witness,
before mentioned, did not amount TO a pro-
mise TO pay the plaintiff the money.
The nudge having over ruled the motion for
a non-snt, the defendants counsel then of
tered to prove, that the plaintiff had hus-
band living in Ireland, at the time of the pay
ment OF this money, and at the time of the
commencement of this SUIT The mode of
Proot being objected TO by the counsel for the
plaintiff, the judge inquired, whether the wit
ness was present at the wedding, and being
answered by the counsel for the defendant in
the negative, but that they expected to prove
the coverture OF the plaintiff with her husband
lh ireland by general reputation; he, the
Judge, decided, that such evidence of cover
ture would not be sufficient. Under his di-
re"tioGs, the jury rendered a verdict in favor
OF the plaintiff for S3OS -.
" In each cause case was made by the res
pectiye counsel, to be argued before the court
at the following term 10
From the Bew York Ryenjng PoSt.l
Extract Of letter from an officer on board
tie Lautaro, giving an account OF the bat
tie between that ship aud the Spanish con-
vOy, dated
"VALPARAIso. DEC. 20.
" shall just give you small sketch OF the
battle. We sailed from his port on the iOih
September, with the San Martin, of so guns ;
the ChdcObHco, OF 20 the Anaconda of i6
formerly the Columbus our ship the Lantdro,
mounting 80 gnns, with about so Europeans
~ Americans, and 200 green ChilianS, from the
sod but our officers were good men, mostly
English, whe preferred going with ms to their
own countryman, cap tain wilkinson, who COM
mamded the San Martin, which ship had about
| 100 Europeans and 80 Chilians. Our inteH-
| ton was to enirap the Spanish convoy from
| Cadiz bound TO Lima, consisting of The Maria
| Isabella and ten transports, with $500 troops
| on board. The 5th day after leaving port, we
| lest The Chacobuco on the 25th, lost company
| with the Anaconda on the 18th off the Island
| of - Mays boarded British whaling ship,
| which informed Us that the frigate Maria Isa-
| bella had gone into Ialcuha with four Of the
| Transports which determined us 10 make all
| sail for the said port, and OH the 10Th we en-