The New era. [volume] ([Portsmouth, Va.]) 1845-1847, 1845-08-23


Of stickler for the motto, let Justice he done
though the Heavens should fall,'' we also feel
bound To add our belief that Mr. Walker was in
the habit of endorsing largely with Mr. Bernard.
aud that he would be likely as any one we
know to keep register of his endorsements.
though we are aware that this is not saying much
for him as man of business. Having published
the charge of the Columbia Observer, to avoid
the mputation of wishing to - calumniate," that
journal, we are equally hound to publish the coun-
ter statement of Mr. Walkers solicitors, to avoid
the appearance of wish to injure the private
character of their client by concealment. As to
the differences of the solicitors from the facts, the
Observer consider them for itself. As TO
the character and standing of those gentlemen.
they are too well known to require any endorse
ment from us, here, though for the benefit of our
tennessee contemporary, we will mention that
their veracity is unqnestiOnable.
With the publication Of their card, we hope to
drop the subject; though, by expressing that hope
we do not intend to say that columns are clos
ed against reJolnder from the Observer, if one
Is made and we are requested to publish it,
Southron.
Reputation Of an unfounded charge against
Hon. Robert j. Walker hiding in the South
ron of this date republication of an article in the
Columbia CTenn) Observer. of July Sd, the eff
feet of which is, that Mr. Walker committed per
made by Wilkinson, McNeill s. CO., it occurred
to us that the note described in the Tennessee ma
per was that on which bill had been filed in the
chancery court, in which we were the solicitors
Of MIR. Walker, We, therefore, instantly recur-
red to the case-and have the pleasure to submit
an abstract of the bill and answer which will
show how utterly unfounded have heen the Grim
nations published in the Columbia paper:
On March 2lst. 1872 John l.. Smith, John
hu @,
their solicitors. implicated Thomas Bernard and
Robert j. Walker, by bill in the superior court of
ehancery held at Jackson, alleging in effect
that at Natchez, on January |, 1886, Mcneil,
Wilkinson & Co.. made their note to Walker for
S20Q6 Cd, due at So months. PAYABLE and negota-
BILE at the Planters bank at Nachez; that il was
endorsed by Walker to Bernard, by him to
Sprague. and by him to Henry Smith that at its
maturity it was presented, protested for non-pay-
ment. and notice sent by mail to Walker; that on
March 7, 1910. Fl. Smith brought suit against
Chewing, Gone of the makers) and Walker, and
Bernard which was discontinued as TO Walker
and Bernard, but judgment obtained against
Chewing in the circuit court of Warren county:
that II. Smith withdrew the note and transmitted
it to NatcheZ that it was lost or mislaid but be-
fore knowledge of the loss, he transferred it to
John l.. Smith and John Brown; that Walker
and Bernard endorsed for the accommodation of
the makers, who had afforded them, or one of
them. ample indemnify; and the bill seeks de-
cree for the amount of the note. A transcript of
the suit at law is filled with the bill-which
shows plea of non-assumpsit by Harrison g.
H0lt-which commences IS and the said defendant
X. j. Walker" &c., but is signed " Harrison g.
Holt, for Bernard" 1t shows farther discon-
tinuance of The suit as to Walker and Bernard
and jury and verdict against Chewninp. On
the 18th November, 1843, Mr. Walker himself
demurred to the bill ; and on leaving Jackson for
Washington city requested us to appear in the
case for him. When the demurrer was overruI-
ed, one of US ca. Hutchinson) transmitted to him
an abstract of the bill and requested him to for
ward his answer, which he did by mail His an
swer, verified or the Goth April, 1874, at Wash
lngion. and conntersigned by us as his solicitors,
and hed on the 9th of May following uses this Ian
image: A." That he has no recollection of endorsing
said note of two thousand and six dollars and sixty-
four cents referred to in said bill of complaint and
cannot admit said endorsement. and requires full
and strict proof of said alleged note and of the
loss thereof, and of the endorsement as stated of
this defendant. This defendant has no knowledoe
OF the alleged psesentment of said note for nav
ment, or of the demand thereof or Of the notice of
non-payment, and therefore cannot admit the
same, and requires full and strict proof of said
presentment, demand and notice. and that the
same were in due from and according to aw.''-
The answer concludes with direct denial of
having received any indemnity for such endorse
ment, or of having any effects of the makers, or
OF either Of them
It'll apparent that although the Observer has
been mlsinformed as to the sum named it the note
OF being S2OO6,64, and not 260O, yet the note
otherwise referred to in the article can onlv he
the one which is the subject of the bill and an
swer before MS The first elimination in the ar
tlce Is that the note before the court in the
SUIT at law and Mr.. Walker put in no plea deny-
ing The endorsement The transcript does not
snow whether the note was fled or retained in
'he Sa'chell Of Thomas A. Marshall, the plaintiffs
attorney. The counterpart writ, to summon
walker & Bernard, was to the sheriff of Adams
county-and was returned executed but il does
not appear whether Mr.. Walker ever saw the
note pending the suit. From the plea filed by
Harrison and Holt, it is uncertain whether thew
intended II for Walker, or for Bernard II be-
g'ns Tor Walker and ends for Bernard. IF MIR.
omedes was employed by Walker, as is asserted,
ne seems not to have appeared for him. The
plaintiff discontinued the suit as to Walker and
Bernard and it does not appear to have been dis
/ missed Tor Informally. The ground or cause of
olscontlnuance is not stated. The utmost that
can ne collected from the transcript is that the
"rit from Warren was served on Walker in Adj
ans county: 1t is not charged directly that he