Litchfield enquirer., 1842-11-24

HE MART ko0ERs MYSTERY EXPLAINED. | The tsrribls mystery which for more than . yeAf hRa hung over the fate of Mary RO. RcTa whose body was found, as our readers | der circumsfancee such as convinced every | one that she was the victim of hellish lust | and then of murder, is at last explained-to the satisfaction. we doubt not of all. It may be recollected that associated with the tale ! of her disappearance was the name of Mrs. Loss, the woman whe kept the refreShmeut house nearest tfhe scene of her death. About "a fortnight since this woman was accident ally wounded by the premature discharge of gun in the hands of her sen the wouD1 proved fatal but before she died sue Fsent for Justice Merritt, of New Jersey, ord told. him the following facts. On the Sunday of Miss Rogers disappearance, sps came 10 , her house from this city, in cJnlrnny with young physician, who U.!slr .rtook to pro- cure for her Q premature 1.eliverv While in the hands of the phye elan, she died and a consultation was the fl held as ttI the dis posal of her body. 1t was finally taken at night, by the son Jf Mrs Loss, end sunk in the river where it was found. Her clothes were f1st tied up in bundle and sunk in iH poud on the land of Mir. James G. King in that neigh ghborhood; :; but it was afterwards thought they were not safe there, and they
 
 the woods as they were found. The name of the physician is unknown to us, nor do we know whether it was divulged or not The Mayor has been made acquainted with these facts by Mir. Merritt, and we doubt not an immediate inquiry afler the guilty wretch will be made. The son of Mrs. Loss, as an accessary after the fact, we suppose will be--if he has not already been-ar- rested. No doubt, we apprehend. can be entertained of the truth of this confession. Nexplains many things connected with the affair which before were wrapped in myste- ry-especially the apathy of the mother of Miss Rogers upon the discovery of her body. It will be remembered that she did not even 20 to identify it and made no enquiries con- cerning the affair.
 Thus has this fearful mystery, which has struck fear and terror to so many hearts, been at last explained by circumstances in which none can fail to perceive Provi- dential agency. Besides the guilty mur- derer, the secret rested with two persons One of these, through the involuntary agen- cy of the other. is laid upon her doath- bed
 -and then Conscience, no longer able to keep silence, breathes its accusations in the ear of Justice. We rejoice most deeply at this revelation, and that the scene of the un- happy victims death is relieved of some of the horrors with which conjecture, appa- rently we'll founded, had surrounded it. If we recollect alright, some physicians of this city testified with great professional coni- dence as to the manner of her death-de- scribing very minutely the kind and degree ofpersonal violence to which she had been subjected Their statements are now shown to be baseless. Should not this tend to diminish somewhat the implicit reliance often placed upon the testimony of physi- clans in similar cases !-N. Y. Tribune.
 AUTHORITY OF PARENrs-We find in the Lycoming (Pa.) Gazette the report of sin gular case, which calls forth judicial ex- pression of opinion on one of the most inte l resting and important relations known in society. The facts are briefly as follows:
 A young lady of seventeen, brought up in the Presbyterian doctrine had become convinced by the preaching of Baptist | clergyman, and desired to be received into | the Baptist church by immersion. To this ] her father was inexorably opposed, as she ] had been baptized in the Presbyterian ] church-propably when an infant The father forbade the Baptist clergyman to ad- minister the rite, threatening him with per sonal injury if he did-and at one time de- elaring that he would shoot him. The clergyman however, conceiving his duty toward the girl to be of higher authority Mou tAC PTOuiOILlOu Ol llo IuluSTs uIu Tc- ceive her into the church by immersion, without her fathers knowledge.
 When he heard of it the father was very much incensed, and follow ed the clergyman through the street, uttering such threats as induced the latter to apply to the coun- ty court for m order requiring the father tog give security for preserving the peace, ,&c.
 In the way of granting this order there was of course no difficulty, as the defend ant had no right to take the law into his own hands, however much he had reason to complain of the Rev. gcntleman's proceed ingS. But another question then arose, the solution of which involved the necessity of considering the relation above referred to namely that of parent and child, with re- ference to the power and authority of the former to control the religious feelings and actions of the latter.
 This question was, whether the complai- nant, the county or the defendant should mulcted in the costs of the application-thc court being required by the statute to make order in the premises. Hence it became necessary to inquire into inc conduct of the parties and ascertain whose wrongful act originated the difficulty.
 The opinion of the presiding judge; the Hon. Ellis Lewis, is published at length in the paper from which we obtain the facts and it is against the Rev. clergyman. The presiding judge discusses at great length, and with signal ability, the foundation and extent of parental authority to educate his child, to regulate her conscience, and do all that has conscience prescribes to him as es- sential for her bodily and spiritual welfare, until she has arrived at the proper age to