The Alexandria herald. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1811-1826, 1823-05-16
Trial Of Revolutionary Pensioners for

Il
interesting nature were tried before the
circuit cour, OF the United States in this
town last week, the leading points Of \
which are as follows
The FIRST case was the trial OF Jedcdiah |
Elliott, of Wipdham, on an. indictment !
for perjury. He had been on the revolu-
tionary pcpsioniist under the act ofCon
gress, passed in 1918, and after the adj
ditional act OF 1890, he took the oath
which was necessary in order to be retain. |
ed en- the list. The amount Of his oath
was that he had no real estate, and no
personal estate, except few articles
enumerated in schedule that no had
not, nor had any person in trust for him.
any notes. contracts, or property whaIev,
er, and that he had no income.
II appeared In evidence on the part OF
the government, that previous to his Ia
king this oath he had given deed OF his
farm TO one OF his sons and had taken a
| mortgage OF the same back the conditions
OF which were that the son should main
tain the father and mother, pay out some
small dividends tothe other children, and
the farm should be his. On the par, OF
the Gefendantit was proved that The father
had given the son his time al the age OF 10
aud that previous 10 this agreement and
conve, ance Of the farm to the son, the
ION had iabored on the farm Tor the faith
er between and 6 years, for which he
mad received no compensation. On this
point the council Tor Elliot principally
,estcd his defence. 1t was argued that
| Elliot had received full compensation
for the farm, previous 10 his giving the
deed, and that that the support from the
son was IN reality, gratuitous. The ex-
piana,ion of the mortgage deeds which
| had never been on record, vi as, that as the
| father was infirm both IN mind and body,
frequently subject to mental arrangement
the son had given this mortgage merely
| to calm and pacify the mind of the parent.
On the part of government 1t was urged,
that whether Elliot had received full
| compensation for his farm previous 10
giving his son the deed, or not, was alto
gcther i,nmaterial. The mortgage gave
| him entire control over it, and il was his
property to all intebts and purposes dur
ling his life time. 1t was property 1t was
support, il was income, and this he must
have known when he took the oath.-
After lucid and interesting charge
from judge Story, the jury retired and
brough, in a verdict Of guilty.
The sentence of the court was, that he
should stand one hour IN the pillory, be
imprisoned 60 DAYS. pay the costs Of pros
ecution, and fine Of 10 dollars.
The judge remarked, in giving the
sentence, that in consideration CT the age
OF the prisoner, his iBiirinities, both men,
tai and corPoreaI, the unfortunate situa-
ton of his family, the Testimony which
had been given as 10 the general correct
ness of his life and morals, and his revo-
iutlonary services, which ought TO be
remembered with gratitude, the court
had seen fl to infict as light punish
ment as would possibly satisfy the de-
manos OF justice. and come within the
limits vt the law. The law required the
court TO sentence the prisoner 10 stand
one hour in the pillory, bur the nudge
remarked that he hoped this part of the
sentence would be RENTED oy the go
yernmept.
TIE other was the trial of Jonah Aus
tin, o! Windham, on an Indictment Tor
perjury, and in most of its points similar
To- the preceding case. He was ON the
pension list III the same manner as Elliot
anu required 10 take the same oath Under
the second act of congress. lie had Civ.
en- his tar m 20 his son, upon condition that
he should Rlaintain himself and wife du-
ring their lives aud pay out something TO
the other children ; and, as security, the
father had taken back life.l lease of the
farm. The oath, on account Of which
he had been indicted, was the same as in
the case of Elliot. But in the schedule of
personal property, was this phrase, few
articles OF household stuff, which are IN
the house where live, (which stands ON |
leased land. Here the council for Aus. |
tin pinned his defence. He contepded |
that there here was sufficient disclo- |
sure Of the lease TO prove that there was |
no design to suppress it. The lease had !
also been put on public record. And |
had austin been disposed TO swear cor
ruPtly, and keep the lease out of sight,
he could not have referred to it in the
schedule The verde; of the jury was,
NOT guilty. -
Punlshments in England are more Sc.
we're, and more vigorously executed.
than in this country. On the Goth Of
February last, the following execution.
took place in London -
"Ehe. wreiched criminals were ~
Watts. aged o. vearo w @