Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1830-12-02
From the Cincinnati american
TERESTING LAW CASE.
State of Ohio
rs. Trial for Perjury.
John l.. Chapman,

John l.. Chapman,
RICHARDS. WHEATLY, Prosecutor.
This was an Indictment against John l.. Chap
man for Perjury, tried last week at the Court
of Common Pleas and General Sessions for Ham
ilton County, now in session IN this city. The
circumstances Ofthc case were as follows: In Au-
gust last, Chapman made what is usually term
ed '.runaway match" with the daughter OF
Wheatly. Wheatly is member ol the Bar, and
resides in Louisville, Kentucky. His daug hter
was on a visit 10 a friend in Kentucky, about five
miles from this city, where Chapman visited her.
and induced her to come to this city and get mar
ried Chapman was student ofmedicine. The
statute of this State requires, (where the consent
of the parents Is not eiven) that the young lady
must be 8 years ofage before she can marry
I; 10 also necessary to get license from the Clerk
of the Court. In Obtaining marriage license,
Chapman swore to the best Of hi. kn0viedge and
beiitt that his intended fe was Gcer s gears II
age and It resident of Hamilton county. On this
Affidavit. " heatly, the father of the young lady,
commenced prosecut on against Chapman for
perjury. This extraordinary and unnatural pro-
ceeding, THAT Of "A father prosecuting his own
son-inlaw for perjury excited great interest in
the public mind and prndnced very general in
dignation against the prosecutor. The daughter
who is quite pretty. and engaging in her man
ners. exhibited the deepest distress at this an
looked for event, and at the examination before
the Mayor, chung with streaming eyes and all the
fondness of devoted and atfectionate wife to the
neck of her husband, protesting his innocence
and the shameless cruelty of her father. The
scene was enough to have melted any heart but
that of the relentless father.
The affidavit, before spoken of, purported TO
have been made before the Clerk of the Court &
signed by him, Whcreas it was in truth made be-
fore the deputy Clerk. but whose name did not
appear. The deputy Clerk had legal authority
to administer the oath. but it was contcndcd by
DEFENDANTS Counsel that the Deputy's name
should have appeared. Various legal objections
were taken BY Deft's. Counsel to the Indictment
which were reserved by the Court for consdcra-
ton.
1t was positively proved on the part of ilc state
that the young lady was but seventeen years of
age. had resided in Kentucky previously to the
day Of her marriage. and that she had n snug pro.
perry of her own held in trust bva FRIEND. Il v Is
also proved that she had stated in presence Of De-
PENDANT that she was bat 7 years of ace. but the
conversation was of a joking character among
some young ladies who were talking of .old maids
1t was proved on the part of the Defendant. that
the Young lady had stated in presence of 'efend-
ant she was over 8 years of age. and that when
the officer went to arrest Defendant IA few hours
after the marriage) she exclaimed $50 soon as the
cause was made known it was not his fault but
lers. 1t WAS also proved that her appearance H.
lcated her to be at least l or 9 years of age
1t was further proved that the defendant. at the
lime of taking the oath. stated to the Dcnuty
Clerk that the young lady had formerly resided
n Kentucky, and had just then arrived in the
;ity !t.was further proved that the Prosecutor
lad made a proposition to Defendant, that if he
yould '.make over" his wife's. property to him.
|. " bcatly1 the prosecution should be dismissed.
It also came out in evidence that WheatIy had
ald. on being urged by the officer not to proceed
WITH the case. because If successful, it would only
lrstrov the happiness of his daughter, and send
us own son-in-law to the penitcntiary, where she