The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1847-08-28
NUMBER II.

farish enquireo, by what authority f--,h,, N.
answered, by authority Of his letier of .i,or.
ney; that Perish replied thai would no, DO. b.
must have judicial authority tina, he ssi.d
what was judicial authority that Psi,h
merely repeated, '.juGicial authority" ana or.
dered the woman and child to go into the house
and followed them in, shutting the door uron
Mitchell and Driskell, who were left stsu.ino
upon the pavement.
Upon cross examination, Mitchell denied that
anything was said at this time az 10 = I'll, hi
or that he had made in the Court House at San
dusky any diner~nf statement as TO the transac-
! ton.
IL appeared from the statements Of this vi,.
ness, that upon the seizure Of the boys ly Mirrh-
ell and DrisAell, suits for ASSAULT ana La,,erv
hsd been commenced against them for that act
"hich however were discontinued; that thew
were also arrested a charge e riot, and re.
CURED TO Ind bail for their appearance aud
That a writ of habcas corpus Was sued out Cr
.ne boys, VINO upon hearing, were discharged
from the custody Of their captors. The power
OF attorney, under which Mitchell claimed to
act, Was not pro- ueed, and there being DO suffi-
cient eviience OF loss, its contents were no, al
lowed to be proved.
Young DriskelI's statement. in the par,;cy-
ars Of demand Of permission TO arrest OH the
premises Of Parish, and his refusal Of that per
mission, supported that of Mitchell, Tut eff, red
Hs
not remember that the boy was brought 10 the
ioOr; he cid remember that something WA.
All about fair trial and he sw ore Io,i,iv,,y
That Parish D1sh'd by physical strength the wo-
man and child into his house at the close Of thu
conversation. Young Driskell also stated that
ne had been sent by his fiIher 10 assist Nilcb-u
IN re-capturing the slaves
sarah ''u>tIn a witness examined for the c.
i-hiiht, put whose testimony real bv the
lain al. Il
farlsh Game IN 10 AK Jane TO go 10 the coor;
that Jane went unwiliingly al the REQUEST Of
Tarish ; That witness heard part of the eohver-
'diio1 that she heard Parish saw tnrv coula NOT
lake jane without lawful anihOriiv, but she
hearc no angry w"rds pass-noihiug which was
ho' pleasant and amicdtle-
Af-er tins testimony, the defendants counsel
moved TO override the evidence, claiming, MT.
hat as the power Of attorney Was not provec,
here was no competent evidence Of sg-ucy. ,uI
II course there was no proof of obstruction 10
he plaintiff, secondly, thst the c,se mae iii
iot amount TO harboring or concealmrnt within
ne Purview Of the act If Congress. This mo-
ION was argued BY Nessrs. An.rrw. & Ch..e
Tor tbs Defendant, anu by Mr.. Stanbrrrv. f,r,he
JIainiiff.
Juege VI Lean iniirnoted his opinion tina, an.
,horIiy couli not be coBf-rrrd bl a master ON an
gent 10 pursue figive servant into sno,h.,
writing such authority being in the nature -
.'rocess: but he Gil not ceci-s hi. mint A.
heio, however, that in order 10 make q Case 81
obstruction, there must be proof that the Main.
III OF ms DAILY suthorizrd agents were sitrIort-
'ng 10 arrest, and that they were obstrucle, IN
'"ch attempt; that. in this case, IS the sg-b,
pI0i'ssed 10 act uacer power Of attorney II
must be produced, or its loss must be shown and
IS contents proved, thrt as neiIher of tbesa
ihings had been done, the case s,ooJ wi1Lon,
any competent proof Of agency. ami the charge
"i OBSTRUCTION must consequently fill In rr-
gard 10 The Charge Of barboring, the JuS,e held
hat the presence or pursuit Of the master or Ii.
gent asserting and endeavoring to sIforce .
lain was not necessary 10 Constitute The ef
ieRce IL Was enough il the cef.ndsr,, know.
'ng' rom Whatever source, that the person en-.
Pioyrd by him was fugitive from labor, ciI
any act lhiended ana Calculated 10 elu !e the yiVi
ance Of the master and defeat MS Effort. 10 re-
cover the servant. There Was some ,vil-nca
teh@lng TO establish such f.cts n, wOuli make ,
case Of harboring, aud he woulI therefore u-r.
mit the case TO go to the Jury.
lie dcitndant, thereupoB, proceeded 10 ex-
mine his witnesses: Messr>. A. II. Be-cher.
Lucas ;. Barber, AMI A w. Hendry all intel.
iigent gentlemen OF high character an st.u-ing
IN Sandusky.
MIR. Barber stated that he was presen, ., N.
Court House, al Sln-n>ky, a, one Of the iDves.
lgdtlons growing out of the seizure of the bovs
wnen the d,f-nddnt made detailed s,,t-n.uf If
The facts which iranspirei in font Of hi, house
hat the witness, Mitchell, was present an ~.
ing requested 10 confirm or CONTRADICT in. cor.
recied the statement where he thought il insc-
curaie ana idiIy assenied 10 its trIih when so
corrected AMI then went on 10 make hi, own
corresponding statement Of the trenssction- in
which he never claimed that he m ad. any de-
mand ot permission TO arrest the woman . ar
that any thing was said about '.JuGici,l authors
" :: or that Parish directed the woman ,nd
child TO go back into the house and shut IA.
1907 on him but admitted that Parish sail he
only wanted TO secure TO the woman snt hsr
child fair trial, and woulI off, no resistance
/ 20 the execution of the law. Mr.. Barber fur
ther stated that after the boys were discharged
on hG5sss corpus, lac came Gown to Columbus in
l the stage with the witness, Mitchell. who ssiI
that he had nothing 10 comp,iin Of in the treat
ment of VI. Parish towar! him that ne mani
h f'-tej considerable zeal an aboiiioni-i but a.,
mad discovered nothing in his eOnduct not con-
/ scientious and correct.
Mr. Bcecher stated that he was present at in.
/ statement Of Parish ref .rred 20 by ur Barber,
| that his attention Was particularly drawn to IL,
/ ana his memory Of it was distinct. lie then &C.
| tailed the particulars of the statement, and OF
Nuchelrs admissions. supporting VIZ. Barber a:
I every point lie stated further. that the state-
GI-nt was repeated one or two dsys after, and
| that Mitchell again fdly assenied 10 IT,
Mr Hendry said he was present when NJ
Parish made "a statement Of what occurred be-
fore his door, and that Mitchell asSenisi 10 H.
out he could not r-collect the particulars Of il.
The defendant having eloseI hi testimony
| Mitchell was recalled, who denied in general
having made any such admissions. or ihsr sny
statements were MADE Of transactions at PaTish's
house 10 which he assenieJ. but, upon cross
'xaminaiion. he made several statements at va
rance with the general deniils.
The Case was arg Iei To the Jury by Mr..
Stanbe.ry, for the plaintiff, and By Judge Lane
aud Mr.. Chase, for the defendant.
The charge vas de iyered by Ju ICE NcLYAv.
lie held thai the piainiiif could at most recover
Jut one penslty for the same act Of hsrboring.
laugh more than one person might be h..r-
oorei- He held, also, that proof Of notice 10
the party charged, that the person hdrbors1 wss
fugitive from labor, was Indispensable 10 the
-iisiutiHs right 10 recover ami thit la aiGiiion
% proof Of such notice, there must be proof
nat the d-f.niant iatsudei 10 shelter or with
raw the servant from the pursuit Of ne mat r
,ai thereby def,st hi' efforts 10 reclaim the fu-
,iiiv-: but that such proof. II m.i-, coulJ not
overcome by proof on the part Of tia crf.n-
Isnt, thai he honestly bci,eced that the law WAT
rantei hin q hi> acts
II, for example, the defendant belisvsi that Id
couiI not be made liable unless the cliIlnsnt OF
Ms attorney should pro luce a in -ic 81 warrant
% take the fugitive, such belief woui not pro-
: tsct him, for no such juiicia wa mt . ne.
-essary. TWAS neces ssrs that the noiice SIC !
> oring home k""riedge to the def 'ndsni that the
: ,,crsons harb0rs were figitives from labor. II
the defendant hal SUCH knowledge, no mattel
-.