M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1856-03-13

lSObIu nv pay ~ Hieig fCou'u pal ~ ~
about q month; Meeker neverhad any
other claim against me; read the lettel
of Beck 10 Lilly; Lilly showed it.tc
me, Lilly has been bossing a'shoe shoT
for me for about two years; am imti'
mately acquainted with the people o.
Vlnton county. gll
VIM, p. LiIly-Am acquainted W i'll
lparie'. Have been residing at HAM
den for ayear, Been bossing shoI
for Esq. Dill. Been acquainted with
Beck since November. 1862. Give
Mr., Meeker a note to eolleet-tht
amount was about foureeen dollars
| Dnring the winter sent to Mesker fol
the money. A gentleman advised me
IthatlMeeker had made an assignments
andIapprppriaied nthe money 20 BIS
Town use. Had conversation with Nee.
ker alterthat ia January. Admitted
he had got the money and used it,saId
ne would pay il as soon as he could
wo uld not tell me when he would pay
me. he offered me a note, frs. refus.
ed TO take it, finally took it. On the
last TdeSday,,in February applied for
the money asked 1.-The bouId pay any
thing on the note, he said he could not.
| handed 1t 10 Walker. Walker and
Beck were in partnership. Told him
to haae il sued upon, Did not see
| Beck that day. Meeker never told me
that when | got The money | would
know it, (The letter was shown to
1.-THE witne,s, sent to him by Beck, ide-
nlifed il,) 10 the winter or spring Of
1858, Beck called on Meeker various
liimea. Meeker paid him some. Beck
called on Meeker and asked him for
money. Meeker told him he hadn't
1 any money. Meeker told me imme.
diately afterwards that he had money,
Asked him why he did not pay Beck
said he wanted to look over his book
Told Beck what Meeker had said ate
suit had been brought by Beck vs., Me,
ker Meeksr told me Walker & Becl
had sued HMM 1853 for a balance due
Heard them both speak Of 1t. The
amount was something between twelve
and twenty dollars, ..a4a .sH.'
Lilly continued-Letter was writer
ten to me reference to claim against
Meeker Was member OF society
knows as an American order-previou
to the receipt of letter from Beck
Beck belonged to the same order-tht
general reputation ol Meeker is no
good. Cross examination
! Got Beck's letter through the Pos
Ofice--don't know whether the diff
cullies between Beck and Meeker haC
been arranged previous to the receip
OF letter to my wife and Esq. Dill
never told Meekor that had sho wn lei
ter 10 three different persons Meeke
complained that ii cantained hard cha
Irges against his character -and tina
he wanted the letter TO make Beck tax
back what he had said. The objec
in showing tue letter to Meeker was t
have the matter compromised betwee
him and Beck Meeker told me tina
/ he had arranged the difficulty wit
Beck alter he had read the letter--h
persisted in keeping the leiter-hav
heard great deal more said abou
Meeker's reputation since this su
. commenced than before. Re -examin
alton.
Called Dill in the shop--am n'
certain whether | locked the do c
not showed the letter TO him in conf
dence--kept it secret-don't thin
| | showed the letter 10 Joe Richards -
it must have been cnother letter iroI
2 Beck that | showed to Richards.
Beck-At the time that Meeker au
! myself were Vt law received this mol
F. from Lilly-wrote to Lilly that
0 would make my clai m before ] woul
i proceed 10 collect his--that he ha
/. claimed benefits exemption la~-an
| thai he had broken the most solem
: obligations and consented TO have hin
IS self posted as a perjured man, &C.
6 Intended that letter TO be shown on
'f to members of the order--wrote eth
! letters after that tolLilley. (The wi
is ness then proceeded to narrate all Il
lr dealings that the plaintiff had with hi
% since 1863, at length. This part
1t the evidence not containing anyihiI
}. of general iutsrest is omitted
d Beck--Am member Of the Anne
ot ican order. (Mr. Clark, counsel {
d the defendant, stated that he had
y. word ST explanation to make. Itmlg
e be thought that Mr.. Beck wrs. .viol
ID ing his obligatioDs,to the order and tn
ir some imputation might be cast upC
IN him for tesitiing as 10 The secrets
IS the order. He would state that M
1t Beck and others who would testify
m the progress Of the case as to the S
n crets OF the order, the dispensatioI
when the witness proceeded.) Ha
a permission from the order to testi
lg in reference to its proceedings. lb
v, came a member OF Richmond Coun'
n in 1854. Meeker joined the order t
ch same night that did. The order
er commonly know as Know Nothing
a i IH a 81