Jeffersonian Republican. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1840-1853, 1851-09-04

Case VS. Cushman, Road Case
Myers VS. Com'th, Wilson VS. Clark,
Kellum VS. Preston, Young VS. Stone.
Dean VS. Newmilford, calder VS. Chapman,
Calder VS. Chapman, Boults VS. Mitchell,
The above list does not include any case
in the Philadelphia District, neither does it
include any case in the Sunbury Districts,
where Jessup's name is not mentioned IN the
record"
So far the allegations of the Herald. Let
us now see how many intentional falsehoods
are contained therein.
Neither of the cases of Case VS. Cushman
were tried by Judge Jessup. Both of them
we've tried by Judge Conyngham, at a spe-
cial court, Judge Jessup having been counsel
to one of the parties before his elevation to
the bench.
No case of Fitch VS. More is contained in
the Reports published during Judge Jessup's
incumbency!
The case of Myers VS. Commonwealth was
decided in 1s16-before Judge Jessup 1as
admitted to The bar land is reported in ID
S. &R., 453.
No such case as More ct al VS. Tayler ex-
lists in the Reports !!
Dickens VS. Parish is misprint for Die
man VS. Parish. This case was tried at
special court by Judge Anthony, whose name
appears in the Report, which will be found
in Barr, p 2l0.
The Road Case was never before Judge
Jessup, and was never heard in court at all.
No case of Wilson VS. Clark is reported
The nearest approach TO such case is that
of Wilson and Clark, which will be found in
Sd Wash. Circuit Coust Reports.
No case of Boults VS. Mitchell can be found
in the Reports Such a case was tried be-
fore Judge Jessup at his last term in this
county, and if his opinion has been reversed
the Report has not been published to our
knowledge.
In the case of Kelum VS. Preston the Su-
preme Court at first reversed Judge Jessup's
opinion, and within two years overruled its
own decision, so that when the case was tried
over again Judge Jessup's original decision
was affirmed
Here, then, are ten distinct, unequivo-
cal, wilful falsehoods, for which there is not
particle of excuse or palliation. 1t was
not the intention to tell the truth. 1t was the
design to make assertions that were known
to be false. How the locofocos of this county
reconcile their countenance and support of
such vehicle of untruth with their self:re-
spect we cannot divine.
i The Herald might have added to the list of
Judge Jessup's reversed opinions that which
/ he gave in the case of Post VS. Adams The
Supreme Court held that a nominal plaintiff,
although he had no interest in the cause,
could not be witness for the real plaintiff,
thus overrulling what had been expressly de-
cided the other way by that very court, and
what had been the rule of law for many
years.
The number of cases in the Herald's list
is twenty-five. Deduct the ten wrongfuly
inserted in it, and there reRain twelve cases
in which Judge Jessups opinions have been
reversed in thirteen years. Now it should
be considered that every year Judge Jessup
has decided about one hundred cases subject
to be taken to the supreme Court, SO that the
comparative number of cases in which his
opinions have been reversed is very small
The only cases taken to the Supreme Court
are those which the counsel, after the trial,
and upon reflection and investigation, be-
lieve to be enormously decided Probably
there is no bar in the state superior to that of
the counties over which Judge Jesssup has
presided, and this affords sufficient guaIan-
/ ty that erroneous decisions have not been
suffered to pass uncorrected.' In Pike and Mon
roe counties, Messrs. Reeder, Porter, Dim
mick and Davis were the leading counsel
when Judge Jessup presided there. In Wayne
county, the late lamented Fullers-Thomas
and Amzi-with Wheeler, Dmmick, Miner,
Crane, Waller, and other keen and sharp
sighted lawyers were'a the bar during Judge
Jessups administration. In his present dis
trict there are-in Luzerne county, Collins,
Conyngham, Kidder, Woodward, the two
Wrghts, and McClintock-in Susquehanna
county, Case, Lusk, Bentley and Richards, and
in Wyoming county, Brisbane, Little and
Peckham. A Judge, with such lawyers to
watch and analyze his decisions, must have
done uncommonly well to have had so few
cases reversed.