Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1853-12-22

Gains, ihe delendsnt and FelHrnea served per-
sOnay on the isth day Of septsubeE Da
ring session otthe Court on the evening d
the e4.h Of October the case was taken Up aad
A Pierce Esq. appointed SasrhiOa edl'ss@ u
defendant B. F.. Litter. Esq. counsel ~
petitioner then introduced tbs following sss'i-
mony:-
JoHx B. TuLoE ia pauPer sestiffd th~s shs
defend an, was an inmate Of The poor hSass.
snd was insane. that one James HamHoa'
pauper. had told him several 6TssFsAt tnes
.hal he couh do with defendant as he Wshed'
eould get anything of.her be wanted, and that
ID bad done 90 That, defendant snd H@ahIi-
tss appeared to be on pretty good 'er"'s' snd
that witness had seen them going ss1oss ibs
fields toward the woods accompanied b one or
Two children. also insane, and psuPeFs.
DGvTp'w kksHAx. Testimony essentially NE
same as Taylors.
Isaac WrAvDr. Am approximations OF tne
County In6rmarv. Oace saw Mr.. DtTbtr sit
,iar ON Hamilton's knee she got OF when APP
proached Defendants insane; have never
observed anything in her conduct towards nam
il.on or any other person that led me 10 susPee
improper intimacy or that thought would
warrant me in con6ning Der or separating her
from the male intimstes.
Petitioners attorney then offered in evidence
an Indictment pending in said court asslnss
said Hamilton charging him with having hao
i esrnal kuowedge uf Mary a. Dunbar an In
sane woman.
Tbs above was all the testimony offered
after the second witness was examined o.
. Never ESQ, arose and stated to the OOuf'
tbstbe had been retained as counsel Tor 'he
dsrence-,hat he was not aware this case was
/ to be heard that evening nor that term and
Y wss taken'by surprise. lie had looked tne
IS ,,o,k., and found that the bill Ewas not hlea
J. two month before ths present term and suppO-
l. sed the case wonld be tried at the next sPrlng
term when defence would be made' he nao
! no testimony then in; Court for the defence ahO
\ l.
vss not prepared for hearing, but should Oh
e isct to the testimony alreadysofEered as ciear
N " incompetent that the inlictmsnt sg ans
Hamilton was a farce and he never eouiu "
convicted. The Court intimated that as 'n'
t. stinony was addressed,,to the Court 1t Wou''
:. discriminate betwcea competent andlnoo npe1''
te stimony. :, a.
+, Mr. Letter did not understand why Mr. hey
:. er'was in the case and wished. TO KnO" -"H
had employed him
,o The case was then infOrmerly passed over
:; and it was supposed would not again
brought to the notice Of the court Inc e0u
10 without again calling up the.case, pronounce
-, decree for complainant gr.ntings dIVOre
nd in so doing, barely remarked that tue 'e
.or timony was not very satisfactory. that II "
a. true Hamilton might be callsdlas WisHes
7; hu. it would be somewhat indeIlcate' as
stood indicted for the offence, and might n
+, be expected to testify against himself In
- pnon the whole divorce would be grSn'e
the ease being even stronger than one IN Wn
:. one Of his colleagues had entered a similar :
cree. H..
;. It.may be proper to add. that immedlA''
: afterwards, the case of Ohio vs. hamilton
wos continued and the defendant set at l'Oef
..;d O on his own recognizance; although from til
to time during the term, and when 'ne g
,.r. came up in its regular order he had insisted
had . regular trial. and although the prO'eeu
rn.da no motion for continuance, and all !
witnesses were in court.
IT. Canton, 0. Nov. 18th, 1853
r. "a
T:.Ln.r Who was buslly