Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-08-13
From The Cincinnati Herald.
COLUMBUS, July %, 1S47.

IO.ihe Editor Of The Morning Herald.
DEAR SIR-The case which has mos, at
tracied attention Thus far in The Circuit Couri,
is that of Peter Driskell against Francis ID.
Parish to recover several penalties for harbor.
ing several fugitive servants and resisting
their master in retaking them under the noto-
rious act Of 1898. Drlskell is a Shareholder
Of Mason county, Kentucky. Parish is a
lawyer Of considerable distinction and high
personal character, from Sandusky,, in this
State.
1t appeared from the evidence that a woman
named Jane Garrison and her five children
the youngest four years old, all held as slaves.
by Driskell, escaped in October, 1874, from
his service, and crossed the river into Ohio.
They made their way to Sandusky, and two
OF the boys went 10 service in different iami-
lies, while the woman went 10 live with Mr..
Parish as a house servant, taking with her
the youngest child. Some weeks after the,
woman commenced her service at Mr.. Par
ish's, Two men, Charles s. Mitchell and A.
]. Driskell arrived in Sandusky in pursuit.
They arrested the two boys, and afterwards
went 10 Mr.. Parish's house 10 see him in re-
lation TO the woman and the child The cir
cumstances Of this interview are relied upon
as the foundation of the action.
Mitchell swore that as he went to the house
he met Parish just in front of il, that he in
quired of him whether Jane Garrison was in
the house that Parish replied she was, that
he asked if he could see her, that Parish re-
piled he could if she wished, that he asked
If he would see whether she wished, telling
him that she was a runaway slave and had
escaped from her master, Peter Driskell, in
kentucky, and he was authorized to take her
back, putting his hand towards a pocket in
which was his letter Of attorney, the produc-
ton of which was waived by Parish that
Parish went into the house and brought her
to the door, that when she saw him she recog-
: nized him, and was advancing towards him
when Parish put his hand before her and pre-
; vented her; that he asked for the boy whom
! the woman thereupOn brought forward, that
: he also was advancing when Parish also put
his hand before him and prevented il that
= he then demanded permission TO arrest them
} that Parish inquired by what authority, that
he answered by authority of his letter Of at
torney that Parish replied that would not
do, he must have judicial authority, that he
asked what was Judicial authority, that Par.
ish merely remarked judicial authority, and
ordered the woman and child to go late tho
house and followed them in, shutting the door
upon Mitchell and Driskell who were left
standing upon the pavement.
Upon cross examination, Mitchell denied
that any thing was said at this time as to a
fair trial, or that he had made in the Court
House at Sandusky any different statement
as to the transaction.
ltappeared from the statements of this wit
ness that upon the seizure of the boys by
Mitchell and DriskeIl, suits for assault and
battery had been commenced against them for
that act, which however, were discontinued I;
that they were also arrested on a charge of ri
OF and required to find bail for their appear
anee, and that a writ Of habeas corpus was
sued out for the boys, who upon hearing,
were discharged from the custody Of their
captoFs. The power Of attorney under which
Mitchelf claimed to act, was not produced
and there being no sufficient evidence Of loss,
is contents were not allowed to be proved