The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-01-17
CIRCUIT COURT.

CIRcUIr CouRr, ID. C., WAsHISoroN Co-Case for
Libd--CHAs. MURRAY rs. RIcHARp g. MA.oN.
This was action for libel contained ia a letter
from the defendant, who was of the superinten-
dents of the election held at Man's precinct in the
county of Fairfax, the spring of lS40 for dele
gate to represent that county in the Legislature of
Virginia The charge contained in the letter was
that the plaintiff had sworn falsely, and guilty of
perjury in taking the prescribed OATH upon which he
was admitted to vote at that election viz Z" DO so
iemniy srear thu do in my conscience believe that
entHedto roie Jor," &c.
The letter. as forth in the plaintiffs affidavit is
dated 23d April, lS4l. 1t subsequen ly lodged
in the Treasury Department at Washington, with
certain letters OF recommendation of applicant
for Office, mot the defendant and alleged in
the declaration procured the removal of the plaintiff
from his clcrkshp in the land office, which took
place on the 26ih of July, l6il. The question made
at the polls as to the right of the plaintiff TO vote at
the election in Fairfax, appears by the libel was,
whether he domitiled in that county at the time
he actually received his ap, ointment, which depend
ed upon his intention at the time' The charge pur
ports to have been made by the defendant upon in
formation received by him subsequently 10 the
eection) in Alexandria " from gentleman of that
town." where the plaintiff, having brought his fami-
ly thilh from Fa rlax for temporary occasion,
at the time he received his appointment; which
temporary inhabilancy may have led TO the inference
that he had abandoned taco 81 mo his domlcil in
Fairfax, where he has always been Tor many years,
and still is reehoder, and where his place stu
ated sufficiently near the town Of Alexandria, TO
able him. other circumstances being convenient,
tually to keep his family, and to return thither daily
aitrr the discharge of his duties in Washington,
others in the same circumstances have done, and as
he has done during a SUNNI when he held office.
The came on TO be tried before jury
Tuesday, which was occupied by preliminary ques-
ton. Nearly fifty witnesses were in Attendance
The counsel for the plaintiff were Mr.. F. S. Key and
Mr.. Carlisle and for the defendant General Jones
and Mr.. Bradley. Yesterday "wednesday the
Court being about to pronounce It's opinion upon the
preliminary question which had been raised and
gued the day before, was requested to suspend its
decision and, at about IL o'clock, the counsel on
both sides having had consultation between them
selves and their clients out Of court, returned into
the courtroom and Mr. Carlisle, of the plain
ts counsel, read TO the court and jury the original
paper now filed of record, of which certified copy
is annexed pr facing and following it with the Ian.
happy and magnanimous reconciliation which IT an
nounced. This reconciliation is understood to have
been the fruit of accidental meeting upon other
business between the senior counsel on both sides
(Aessrs. Jones and Key on Tuesday evening; and,
upon consultation with their colleagues on Wednes-
day, and the coincidence OF a generous spirit in the
parties, has resulted in doing ample and complete
justice TO the character Of man OF Irreproachable
integrity, who, Notwithstanding all that he has suffer
ed and all the substantial losses which he has under
gone has had the noble and Christian spirit promptly
to accept a reparation, which, indeed, few would
have had the magnanimity at such time 10 offer
BY such course Mr.. Murray has secured for himself
title TO the public respect and confidence which the
most exemplary verdict of pecuniary remuneration
could never confer