Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-08-06
Another Van E1nlt Case.

We fad the following report Of a case.
pend'ng in the Circuit Court, in the Ohio
Statesman:
COLUMBUS, Thursday, July %. 1897.
The Court met pursuant to al ournmen.--
Judge MCLEAN presiding.
The principal case of Importance to-day,
and which excited considerable feeling. was
that Of PETEg DRIsKELL, Us. +. d. PAWisn.
Henry Stanberry, Esq, appeared for the
plaintiff, and Judge Lane, S. p. Chase, and
3. w. Andrews for the defendant. This
was an action Of debt. TO recover from the de-
PENDANT the sum Of fee hundred dollars, the
penalty fixed by the act Of Congress of 1893,
for TIE offence wherein the defendant stood
charged, viz: For preventing and hinderinr
the agent of the plaintiff from re-taking two
escaped slaves, the property of the plaintiff,
and for harboring and concealing tho same.
The counsel for the plaintiff proved that
the slaves were the property of the plaintiff
who resides in Mason county Kentucky
thai they escaped from him on the Goth of
October, 1914, to the Slate Of Ohiu-that
pursuit was Immediately made as far as Del
aware, when, not finding them, his agent re-
turned home. On the Goth Of February,
1915, Driskell employed an agent, under a
written power Of attorney, to go to Sandusky
city in pursuit Of the fugilives-ihat, on ar
irving there, he discovered them TO be in the
house Of the Northumberland he went to his
house and met him coming out of it, and ask
ed him II he could see Jane Garretson, one
of the fugitives, and was told he could if she
chose to see him. The defendant returned
into the house and brought her out. She i'm
mediately recognized the agent, and seemed
glad 10 see him. Her son was also brough
to the door, and knew the agent, who de
manded them as the property Of the plaintiff
and f%ugitives from labor. When asked 70
his authority, said he had a power of attoI
ney, but did not present it; being told that
was useless, and that nothing but judiciC
authority would answer. The agent attempi
ed TO arrest them, but defendant prevented
by putting his hand between them, and send
ing the slaves into the house, and shut iht
door on them.
Here d question as to whether the counse
for the plaintiff, in their REORGANIZATION, coulo
ask the witness whether he acted under YER
bal authority, after preceding under the
written power of attorney, was raised.
The point was argued by the counsel oil
both sides.
The Court held. that the plaintiff mus
prove the loss of this written power Of atlor
ney before he could prove its contents. TIT
question, therefore, could not be asked.
An effort was then made TO prove the los;
of the power of attorney in order to lay {
foundation for introducing parole proof Of it,
contents.
The evidence of the loss was deemed b,
the Court insufficient, and the proof of it
contents was ruled out.
Evidence was then offered and received
subject to exception, 10 show a subsequen
verbal authority to recapture the slaves ; AM
the evidence, as to this point, being closed
the plaintiff rested his case, and the Coul
adjourned until this morning, friday 23d
This morning the defendants counse
moved for a n%onsuit, which motion is ETH
under discussion.