Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1855-11-14


ed and Mr.. GILPIN read answer, but Mr.
VAN DYKE objected to its form, as evasive and
not simple answer <.yea' or ssnayH TO the
query. Judge KANE said the answer was lia-
be to exceptions. but he thought the same
matter might be so expressed as to relieve it
from all objections: that the answer to the
first clause was a distinct negative, bur that
Mr.. WILLIAMSON had perfect right to explain
the answer in such manner as he deemed ne
cessary. The Judge WAS also of opinion that
the answer TO the second clause might likewise
be coupled with an explanation, for if the de-
fendant were TO simply reply ssno" to it, he
might then be charged with contempt in
not seeking to obey the mandate of the Court.
and therefore he had right 10 explain that
he thought it useless to make search after the
negroes. The answer of Mr.. WILLIAMSON was
follows:
81 did not seek to obey the writ by produc-
ing the persons therein mentioned be ore the
Court, because | had not at the time of the
service Of the writ, the power over, the custo-
dy or control OF them, and therefore it was i'm
possible for ME to do | first heard of the
writ of habeas corpas on Friday, July 20. be-
tween and O'Clock, A. NJ. on my return
from Harrisburg. After breakfast about 9
clock, | went from my house to Mr.. Hop
per's Office, when and where the return WAS
prepared
At 10 O'Clock / came into Court, as com
manded by the writ. ] sought TO obey the
writ, by answering it truly; the parties not
being in my possession or control, it was i'm
possible for me TO obey the writ by producing
them. Since the service Of the writ | have
not had the custody, possession or power over
them; nor have kne ~ where they were,
except from common ruiY&r or the newspaper
reports in regard to their public appearance
III the city or elsewhere"
Upon the reception Of this answer, quite an
animated discussion ensued. Mr.. VAN DYKE
objected tp ln-
cause WILLIAMSON was asked to state whether
ut any time since The service Of tho writ and
the return, he had sought to obey its man
dates, and If so. in what manner, and he argu-
ed that the answer was not in the terms of The
query, and therefore not clear, full, and un-
eyasiye answer. lie asked that the interroga-
tory BE again ploponnded to the respondent to
answer it directly, one way or the other, in
the terms of the interrogatory first, whether
he did elk TO obey the mandate of the writ,
and, if So, then state to the Court the manner
in which he sought TO obey its mandates
That there can be no misapprehcnsion as to
the meaning of the terms he had used in the
interrogatoIv, the answer should be yea or
nay; if yea then how; if nay, there is an end
to the question. If the terms of the interroga-
tory were not definite. it the duty of the
defendants counsel to objec. to them and let
them he amended. Mr.. GILpIS said that he
did not understand that where an interrogato-
ry was put to party before the Court, with q
view to purge himself, or elicit further infor-
nation, the contents of the return were to be
answered simply yea or nay, without being
permitted, III connection with the answer, to
give facts explanatory of the yea or nay.
and to inform the Court Of the facts arising
ut Of the terms put in the writ and if, there
fore. d defective form of inquiry be used in the
intcrrogatory, it is not for the respondent,
placed in peculiar position, to correct the
terms Of the ihterrogatory- If the intcrroga-
tory he defective, by the ordinary rule Of
pleading, the party first in default must go
back again and correct his error. Mr. VAN
DYKE offered to alter the form of the interroga-
tory. but Mr.. GILpIN SAID it had not yet been
objected to,and that two questions had been
propounded: First, as To whether the defen-
dant had sought to obey the writ; and second
", hOlc. II the answer was full, il was only
sHch as WAS necessary 20 explanation. If the
reply was not responsive, it not for the
want Of an honest effort to make it So. The
desire not to cv.ldc WAS at least evident.
Judge KANE gave il as his impression that
direct answer could be given thus II did
not, at the time indicated in the first branch of
the question, seek to obey the mandate of the
writ by bringing into Court the persons of the
slaves therein mentioned, b,caus., &c.'' And
II did not seek, because, &c Mr.. MERE-
DITH said the difficulty arose from the ambigUi-
~ aboat The word ..See6,'' and lie could not
see what answer the defendant could make
other than that offered. He had no control
over the slaves. He explains 50, and gives a
direct answer TO the question asked him
Judge KANE said he was as anxious rs any one
to throw no unnecess lry difficulty in the way
of the settlement Of this matter. The District
Attorney had right to explain his meaning
for the-word as he had applied it. Mr.. MERE
DITH said he would suppose a case Of person
commanded to produce the body Of q person
he never saw. How could he reply to the
eek M ve
KANE said the reply proper in such
would be, 81 did not seek, because - &c. Mr..
VAN DYKE said he took the dictionary mean
ing of the word .'seek.' Fit were necess try
to add the definitions of WALKER and other
photographers. he would 90 so. He defined
the word as he understood its meaning. Judge
KANE again repeated the opinion that if there
was anything equivocal abont the interrogatory,
the defendant should say so. II it WIS not
equivocal, he should answer directly in the
Affirmative or negative, and add his reasons for
doing so. The Judge thought the difficulty
could be easily overcome by amending the
answer, and at the suggestion of the Court it
was amended in the following manner:
81 did not seek to obey the writ by producing
the persons in the writ mentioned before this
Court.
| did not seek, because, | verify believed
that it WAS entirely impossible for me to pro-
duce the said persons agreeably to the COM
mand of the Court
The answer in this form was then accepted
by the Court and ordered to be filed, and we
might suppose the difficulty would end here,
but Mr.. VAN DYKE, submitted another inter
rogatory, the effect of which was to enquire OF
Mr.. WILLIAMSON whether or not he had made
any mental reservation in the answer already
made to the interrogatory propounded.
Judge KANE, without waiting Tor any oi,iec-
tion to this interrogdtory. overruled it, saying
he considered it Objectionable, the answer
OF the defendant must be taken as a matter of
course, and no inquiry could be made such as