Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1856-10-23
[For the Chronicle.l
To the Public.

On the morning of our State election cir
culars were distributed over this county,
signed by James F. Charesworth. the can
didate of the American party for Auditor,
continuing grave charges against me. The
reason assigned for their circulation was
the publication of an article in the CHRoN-
IcLE concerning this same candidate
have nothing to say with reference to that
article, except that ] did not write it, as
has been stated, and knew nothing OF its
being written until read it in the CRRoN-
IcLE.
| have been unable to procure copy OF
this circular, but from hasty glance over
the one posted up in St. ClairsviIle on the
dav of the election, and from what | have
learned since Of those who read it, under
stand It's charges to be subs tantially: That
while its author and his brother, Richard
w. Charlesworth. were fighting the bat
ties Of their country in Mexico, /, in con-
nection with my partner. W ithout authority,
brought an unfounded suit in their name
against one of our citizens, and that after
the suit was dismissed, wrongfnlly attempt
ed to make him pay for services thus rem
dered.
These charges are simply untrue. The
suit was brought on the 10th Of June, lS49,
about seventeen months after the war with
Mexico was over, and ten months after these
two brothers had returned home. 1t was
brought in pursuance of the written instruc-
tions of their father (written, as is stated
in his first letter, with the concurrence OF
James F.--the other being minor) con-
tanned in two letters, dated January 6, ls49,
and February 4, lS49, both of which |
have now before me, and James F Charles
worth afterwards in person ratified these
instructions and made an express contr act
with us for fees.
After the case was settled, Richard w.
Charlesworth. the younger brother, paid US
his share Of our fee without word OF com.
plaint or question.
1t is further charged that wrote to the
Charles 1orths that we had brought this
suit, and that my father was Judge, plninly
importing that expected to try the case
before him, and to make something by reason
Of my connection with him. Now my father
had long before, and before he was elected |
Judge, been consulted with and employed
by Charlesworth (the father) in this same
case, ana they knew as well as l., that he
could not and would not sit as Judge on the
trial of the case. His name was doubtless
mentioned in our letters, as we got some
information from him, which he had received
when their attorney, but that he was men,
toned in the way indicated in the circular
is untrue.
1t is also asserted that my partner gener-
ously refused to take any fee from James F.
His reasons are stated by himself in the ap-
pended note. When we sued Mr.. Charles
worth we had good cause for doing all that
was done, but after we obtained judgment
against him and he claimed that he had not
he means to pay, and applied for the bene-
it of the insolvent act, our claim rested for
over FIVE years, and he was never asked for
cent OF it until last summer, fer he had
eceived over S2,4OO 90 as Auditor, besides
lis fees for transfers, &c, and when, as |
hought. he was much better able to pay an
honest debt than was to lose just claim.
! deem it due to myself that a calumDy
10 unfounded should not remain unco contra
!icted, lest some who are strangers to both
is author and myself. should be deceived.
d. d. 7. CowEN.
Sr. GAINESVILLE, Oct. 2lst, 1856.
D. D. T. CowEN, Esq-Dear Sir:
You request me to state what occurred
'etween James F. Charlesworth and my self I
n relation to the payment of fees due our
ate firm for the prosecution of suit in be-
alf OF said Charlesworth. {
Sometime during last summer Mr.. Charles.
worth called upon me and stated that Mr..
;owen was proceeding to collect the fees {
S above stated, and that he did not wish to {
ettle with him, (Mr. Cowen,) but would q
hen pay the amount to me without inter-
never intended to distress him about it, {
ut that had verbally transferred nv in t
crest upon certain conditions, and that ]
'as not, therefore, willing to receive any 4
ortion of the money, and advised Mr. !
to settle with Mr.. Cowen.- 1
he amount of the fee charged in the above
ase was reasonable AMI just for the services g
erformed.
The above is the substance of what oc-