Arkansas intelligencer., 1844-09-07

~ Smy position Is materially changed; and
iily acknowledge the right Of the public to be
aed ofthe character and qualifications Of all
JAtes for their favor. Thus, duty, as we'll
I1liation, prompts me to respond to any and
G made against me, by any respectable
or citizen. ! shall confne my response to
'es emanating from respectable sources only.
ta.ac other matters charged against me, I
4, Hotice the-THE REPRESENTATION OF A
Y JuRY OF tag SUPERIOR CousTs in August,
handed into the court, by the Foreman of
Try, among th& Indictments found by them,
ich the following is copy:
"a meeting of the Grand Jury, on the Inst
I Stheir session it was resolved unanimously
from the testimony which has been intro
before the Grand Jury, it is their opinion
hester Ashley has been guilty of the crime
(, nation of Perury.in having Lovely claims
! up at the Land Office, at Little Rock. al.
} such evioence has not been sufficiently ex.
and direct, upon which to found bill Of In.
entE
8 Representation was signed by all the mem-
p Grand Jury, except one. 1t was such
NJ hta,ion as never before emanated from
Wy; and was, manifesty, in direct viola
tbeir duty as Jury.men. 1t was signed at
I q at night, at the close Of a session of four
9 kl<nd Il signed by large portion of the
ae\y ~the view of calling the attention
o seaueEand Jury to the subject; and not
" expeca or belief that the paper would
nh,d 20 'rt, but to subsequent Grand
% Il st-,ss . view and understanding of
g,""Ssagred C. Martin, Jas. Hester,
E,s,cher2tine Brazil, Jesse Bland,
goln lhaichard G.. Hawkins, eight
. .ners,, IN in my possession, their
leclaration, signed by themin 1885.
morning after the representation was
emanded a trial of the matters alleged in
Court decided that there was nothing to
stated that if | chose to move to have
taken from the files, it would be so or
refused 10 make such motion; but desir.
% paper should be filed, aud it was, ac-
done with my consent. w
nj, same term of the Court, the Grand Jury
IN a true bill, for subornation of perjury,
20 onathan Clark, Jr.; and after such find.
anal was called before the Jury to give evil
d upon his statements, alone, the repre-
hS against me was founded! After the tri.
y quit.al, Of said Clark, on the indictment.
d Ibis affidavit, showing what evidence he
to the Grand Jury. la this affidavit,
nov fp,d. he swears that-"he had no
e of my a. = y having procured evi.
establish 90 ,lalion claims, fraudulent
rise; that Ashley had proposed to pur-
i'm, al The cash price at Little Rock, Tor
on shares al! good donation claims, pro-
ven at the Land Office at Lutte Rock; and
shley} had been employed, BY him, as an
/. to attend to the proving some claims, in
office at Little Rock; but that (AshIey)
no more than 10 sec that the evidence
own. by The Land officers, as given by
sses; but that (AshIey) never had any
n the claims proven by Deponent, at the
ceat Little Rock"
ritten statements of the eigh, Jurors, which
'e, ana 10 which, have alluded, show,
Clark 8 evidence was all thar was given
'e. When Clark swore before the G rand
y believed him guilty of suborna,ion of
Else they would not have indicted him:
nvicted Of that crime he would have been
ent to give evidence. Under these cir.
'es, 1t may appear strange that the oath
person, swear what he might, should have
ived or regarded. But this is exclaimed
q mat my friends, on the Jury. were
nd more than willing. that any charge
should be investigated; therefore. solely
he matter before a subsequent Grand
ysigned the paper, which they supposed
~ their oath of secrecy to be handed to
luent Jury.
Mall these circumsta noes, Immediately
a suit. against the members of the Grand
Libel. ! did so, solely for the purpose
the matters judiciaIly and publicly in.
biios While this suit was pending, at the
10, ,equent term Of the Court, in January,
poJ :rand Jury consisting of % members,
it-, anelled. Of this Jury. Is members,
personal enemies, had, at least, taken
des, with myself, in all bitter personal
I the time and tpo of them had been
1the preceding Grand Jury. which bad
representation against me, and were
1ants in the civil suit had instituted.-'
all these disadvantageous circumstan.
y constituted especially for nv case
ntion particularly directed to it, by a
oy me, upon the Foreman,-this jury
;harge against me. Why? Because
20 foundation for charge, nor par
dence, against me.
ycisi suit, against the Grand Jury, was
rial, the defendants, among other mat.
hat the representation made by them,
had been done. by them. while thew
,sas Grand Jury; and filed by them.
the consideration Of the succeeding
p" To this plea, demurred; and the
p Johnson) gave an eIaborate opinion,
Hd in Pulaski Circuit Court, which
follows: "Admiaing that the Grand
dtAcir po,oer and jurisdiction. in ma.
Iiperiag the oriiing or Libel rompioin-
plaintiff, still. in my Judgment.
ne SHIELDED BY the Law. and canno, be
oans,oer in The present action." This
werruling the Demurrer was an ef.