Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-08-13

iered from him in several other particulars
lie did not remember that the boy was brought
TO the door, he did remember that something
was said about a fair trial, and he swore pos
ilivoly that Parish yushed by physical strength
the " Oman and child into his house at the
close of the conversation. Young Drskrll
also stated that he had been sent by his IA
thcr TO assist Mitchell in %recapturlng the
slaves.
Sarah Eustis, a witness examined for the
defendant. but whose testimony was read By
the plaintiff, deposed that she was in the house
when Parish came in TO ask Jane to 20 to the
door, that Jane went unwillingly at the re-
quest Of Parish, that witness heard part of
the conversation, that she heard Parish saw
they could not take Jane without lawful au-
thority, but she heard no angry words pass
nothing which was not pleasant and ami
cable.
Alter this testimony the defendants coun-
sci moved to c%yerrule the evidence, claiming
first, that az the power of attorney was moi
proved, there was no competent evidence OF
agency, and Of course there was no proof OF
obstruction TO the plaintiff; sccondly, that the
case made did not amount to harboring or con-
cealmentwilhin the purview Of the act of Con-
gress. This motion was argued by Messrs.
Andrews & Chase for the defendant, and by
Mr.. Stanbury for the plaintiff.
Judge M'Lean intimated his opinion that
authority could not be conferred by a master
on an agent TO pursue a fugitive servant into
another State and arrest him there, otherwise
than by writing such authority being in the
nature of process; but he did not decide this
point. He held, however, that in order to
make a case OF obstruction, there must be
proof that the plaintiff or his duly authorized
agents were attempting to arrest, and that
they were obstructed in such attempt; that,
In this case, as the agent professed to act un-
der a power Of attorney it must be produced,
or It's loss must be shewn and its contents
proved that as neither of these things had
been done the case stood without any compe-
tent proof OF agency, and the charge OF OBJ
structlon must consequently fail. In regard
to the charge of haIboring, the Judge held
that the presence or pursuit Of the master or
his agent assisting and endoavoring to enforce
a claim was not necessary to constitute the
offence. TWAS enough If the defendant know
ing from Whatever source, that the person en-
pIoyed by him was a fugitive from labor, did
any act intended and calculated to evade the
vigilance of the master and defeat his efforts
TO recover the servant. There was some evil
dence tending to establish such facts as could
make a case of harboTing, and he could there
lore permit the case to go to the Jury.
The defendant thereupon proceeded to en-
anime his witnesses; Messrs. A. II. Butcher,
Lucas S. Barber, and A. w. Hendry, of San
dusky; all Intelligent gentlemen of high cha
racler and standing in Sandusky.
Mr.. Barker stated that he was present al
the Court House at Sandusky, at one of the
growing out of the seizure of
the boys, when the defendant made a detailed
of the facts which transpired in
front of his house, that the witness, Mitchell,
was present, and being requested to confirm
or contradict ii, corrected the statement where
he thought it inaccurate, and fully assented
TO its truth when so corrected and then went
on TO make his own corresponding statement
of the transaction, in which he never claimed
that he made any demand of permission to ar
rest the woman, or that any thing was said
about "iudicial authority or that Parish d-
rected the woman and child 10 90 back into
the house, and shut the door on her; but adj
mltted that Parish said he only wanted to Sc
cure TO the woman and child a fair trial, and
would offer no resistance to the execution of
the law. Mr.. Barker further stated that after
the boys were discharged on habeus corpus
he came down to Columbus in the stage with
the witness Mitchell, who said that he had
nothing to complain of in the treatment of
Parish towards him, that he manifested
considerable zeal as an abolitionist, but he
had discovered nothing in his conduct not
conscientious and correct.
Mr.. Butcher stated that he was present at
The statement of Parish referred to by Mr..
that his attention was particularly
drawn TO it, and his memory of it was dis
linct. He then detailed the particulars of the
statemen and of MitcheIl's admissions, sup
Mr.. Barker in every point. He sta
ted further that the statement was repeated
one or two days after and that Mitchell auain
fully a~sseated to it.
MIR. Hendry said he was present when Mr..
Parish made a statement of what occurred
before his door and that Mitchell assented
to 1t; but he could not r~ecollect the ~particu-
lars Of it.
The defendant having closed his tes,imo-
ny, Mitchell was recalled, who denied in
general having made any such admissions or
that any statements were made of transact
tions at Parish's house to which he assented.
but upon cross-eXamination he made several
statements at variance with the general de-
The charge to the Jury was delivered by
Judge MLean. He held that the plaintiff
could at most recover but one penalty for the
act Of harboring, though more than one
person might be harbored. He held, also,
that proof of notice to the party charged, that
The person harbored was a fugitive from labor,
Indispensable to the plaintiffs right to
and that in addition to proof of such
notice, there must be proof that the defendant
intended to shelter or withdraw the servant
from the pursuit of the master and thereby
defeat his efforts to reclaim the fugitive, but
that such proof, if made, could not be over
come by proof on the part Of the defendant.
that he honestly believed the law warranted
him in his acts. If for example, the defend
ant believed that he could not be made liable
unless the claimant or his attorney should
produce a judicial warrant to take the fugi-
tive, such belief would not protect him, for
such judicial warrant was necessary. 1t
Anas nncnesar.r thni tkn n.L;.a -I-II- = |