The Mississippi Creole. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1841-1851, 1841-07-03
TO THE PUBLIC.

| am induced by sense of duty and
to protect the public against imposition a
rising from the unfaithfuIness of a pub
lie officer to make known the following
facts.
Attic spring term 1910, Judgment
was obtained in favor of John Hargon, a
gainst Mr.. Westbrook, on which eXecu-
ton was issued and delivered to SAMUEL
HAMBLEN, Sheriff of Madison county, this
execution was held up by said Sherlifuu-
til the defendant removed his property
from this county, and was then falsely re-
turned no PROPERTY FOUND, altho' there
was, when the execution was received
and for long time afterwards, as was
we'll known 10 the Sheriff, ample proper
ty to make the money. Mr. Hamblen be-
inc thus liable for false return to the
payment Of the debt and damages, de-
mand of the money was made by the plain
tiffs attorny at November term 1910, and
Mr.. Hamblen then pledged himself to pay
it by the May term next, If motion was
not entered against him. He failed 10
paw il, altho' it was twice demanded at
The late May term, but promised to pay
it Immediately after Court, either to the
plaintiff or myself, the suit was for the
use of Murray Lloyd Esq. Of Maryland al
though it was in the name Of John Har-
gon, and this was known TO Mr.. Hamblen,
and the attorneys receipt for the claim
was in my possession, as the agent Of Mr.
LLOYD, | called on Mr.. Hamben after
Court for the money and he stated that
he had not time to attend to it, being a.
bout to start for New Orleans, immedi-
ately on his return from New Orleans,
he called on Mr.. Hargon and rendered
him the money as am informed, Hargon,
having previously been alarmed and
made to believe that if he received the
money he would be liable, for certain rea-
sons that had no existence in truth, to the
suit of the defendant in the execution.
Mr.. Hargon, therefore refused the mo-
ney, as soon as | heard this, | called on
Mr.. Hamblen, with the attorneys receipt,
reminded him of his pledges to pay the
money and requested him TO pay It. lie
refused TO do so, on the ground that he
had rendered it to the plaintiff Of record
who had refused it, and that too after he
had repeatedly pledged himself to pay il
to me, and when he was fully aware that
had the attorneys receipt and was au-
thorized to receive payment.
This conduct of public officer will be
Justly appreciated by the community
when it is recollected that he has procu-
red two terms by pledges to pay the mo-
ney which he has wifully falsi6ed, and
when urged to comply with those Pledg-
es he attempts to secure himself behind
matter of form by making tender
which he knew would be refused and af-
forwards refusing to pay the money in
good faith when there was no possibility
of his losing by it. If Mr.. Hamblen had
honestly intended to pay the money tc
Mr.. Hargon, there was no reason Tor his
refusing to pay it TO me the holder ofthe
receipt aside from his repeated promises
to do SO.
But he had managed that Mr.. Hargon
should be alarmed, and not really Inten
ding TO pay the money, the tender was on
ly a prelence TO cheat the owner OF hi:
rights, and thereby avoid the payment o
money for which he had become liable
by gross neglect of his office and on which
he has obtained indulgence by the mos
solemn and repeated pledges.
For proofo the pledges above stated
| would refer to John S. Brien and Frank
lin Smith, Esqr's. and for the refusal Il
pay the money to me on producing tn
receipt of the plaintiffs attorney, refe
Z to S. S. Carroll.
]. Fl McBLAlR.
Canton July !, 1871. Git