The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1847-12-11
DrisLelI Va. PnrI.h.

DftSActf w.
Jarles in the Free, do more for shareholders,
sometimes, than iuries in tie slave States would
This case tried before Judge McLEAs, at Colum-
bus, Ohio at the late criminal term of the Circuit
Court, is a striking instance in point. We have
yet to meet the Kentucky lawyer who does not
declare unhestatingly, that il the evidence be as
reported, no Kentucky Jury would have found
a verdict for the Plaintiff. The Court charged
for the defendant. The law and evidence were
with him. We subjOin report of the case:
DriskeH us. Parish.-We gather from the Ohio
State Journal the following statemento of this in
teresting case, tried at the Criminal Term Of the
Circuit Court Of the United States al Columbus.
The action was brought by Peter Drlskell of
Mason county, Kentucky, against Francis ID.
Parish, highly respectable lawyer OF Sandusky,
in this State, to recover several penalties, unoer
the act of Congress of February IL, 1893, for
harboring certain alleged slaves of the plaintiff
and obstructing their arrest.
The testimony was conflicting. For the plain
tiff, two men, Mitchell and Driskell, the latter
son Of the plaintiff, testified that in October,
lS44, a woman and her FIVE children, slaves of
the plaintiff escaped from his service in Ken
lucky, and that the witnesses were dispatched in
pursuit-that on the 2sth Of February, IS45,
they arrested two Of the boys in Sandusky, and
then called at the house Of Mr.. Parish, with
whom they had learned that the woman and
her youngest boy, lad Of four years old, were
living-that an interview took place in front Of
the house between them and Mr. Parish and the
woman and little boy; that the woman and
boy attempted TO approach them but
prevented by Parish; that Mitchell told Parrish
he had a warrant Of attorney to take them, but
Parish replied that il would not do, he must have
judicial authority; that Mitchell then demanded
the privilege Of Grresting them there, but Parish
refused il and directed or waived the servants
into the house and shuttle door. This was the
statement of Mitchell. Driskell cOncurred en-
cept that he said Mitchell attempted to enter
the gate to arrest the servants, whereupon Par
ish pushed them into the house. Mitchell said
he had made no statement or admissions variant
from this at the Court House in Sandusky, where
he was examined ON a charge Of riot committed
n arresting the two boys, nor at any other
time.
On the other hand Judge Ssdler, the Pres
ident Judge Of the 18th Circuit, Justice Barker,
the Examining Magistrate, Mr.. Beecher, the
lawyer for the prosecution on the riot charge,
Col. Stone, the lawyer who defended Mitchell on
that charge, aud Msssrs Barber ana Mackay.
two respectable citizens, all concufred it testify
ing that on the first Of March, 1916, the day
after the translctien at Parsh's gate, during the
| examination Of Mitchell and Driskell on the
charge for riot, Parish was called 10 the stand as
| witness for the defendants, and was called upon
/ 10 state the circumstances which tranBpired in
| front of his house and did, accordingly, make a
full statement, to which, after being corrected in
some trifling particulars, Mitchell gave his full
assent and repeated himself, the entire statement
| In this statement there was no pretence on the
| Ill ebaf IL A
| Of judicial autho rity, or interfered ia any way
to prevent either OF the servants from approach
| ing Mitchell and Drskell or that Mitchell made
| any attempt to arrest them or that Parish re-
fused to permit such arrest, directed or pushed
| the servants into the house. On the contrary,
both Mitchell and Parish then agreed in saying
that when Mitchell stated he had come for the
slaves, Parish said he should see that they had Il
fair trial, but would oppose no obstruction to the
execution of the law, and they separated after
some conversation, as TO the justice Of the Peace
before whom the trial Of the claim 10 the ser
wants should take place.
Miss Dastin, a witness for the defendant, who
was present at the interview between Mitchell
and Parish, also testified that there was de-
mand for arrest, no pushing Of the servants
into the house, no attempt by Mitchell to seize
and no prevention Of seizure by Parish.
The Court charged the Jury at length, re-
captivating fully all the evidence, with great
ability. The leading points Of the charges are
| thus:
The act under which the suit was brought
has been held TO be constitutional; but it is a
penal statute and must be construed strictly.
Harboring and concealing, in the acts are sy-
nonymous, and TO make out case Of harbor-
| ing there must be proof of concealment with in
tent to defeat the claims Of the master
/ Obstruction and hindrance, under the act are
! also synonymous, and TO make out case of OBJ
struction there must be proof of an attempt to
seize and an interpositon by the defendant in a
way calculated and intended to prevent the
seizure.
To see that persons claimed as fugitves from
justice have fair trials, and to insist upon their
having such trials is lsudable, but these must be
in good faith towards the claimant.
l The same act of harboring or obstruction can
subject the party charged to but one penalty,
whatever may be the number OF the alleged fu-
gitives subjects of the act, and so the same act
cannot constitute both harboring aud obstruc-
ton SO as TO subject the actor 10 two penalties.
To subject the defendant in the present case,
there must be proof Of separate acts Of harbor-
ing and obstruction.
In the present case, the plaintiff must make
out his right to recover by strict proof; but II
this proof is furnished he is entitled to a ver-
dict.
The Jury, after being out seven hours, found
a verdict for the plaintiff on the two counts in
the declaration, which charged the defendant
with harboring Jane Garrison and obsiructing
her arrest, and for the defendant on the other
two counts which charged the harboring and
obstruction 10 the arrest of her son.
A motion for a new trial was made and argu-
sd, but we are not advised what disposition has
been made of IL.
Messrs Henry Stanburv and ]. III. Thompson
appeared for the plaintiff. Messrs. S. p. Chase
and ]. w. Andrews for the defendant.
/ Ono LEGISLATURE met last Monday-God
dard, President of the Senate--Hawkins, Speak