Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1856-03-20

ment are marshaling their forces, Let such
a selection Of men fer the officers Of this Bor-
bugh be made as no man whose opinion is
worth having. shall be ashamed Of. See 10
these things in time, Republicans, remember
that day.
Dr.. BOegel VS.. the Ladies of CarrOlltOn.
Since the anti-LiquOr demonstration in this
place, on the a2nd Of January last, our town,
as well as the surrounding country, has been
full Of oil sorts Of stories relative to the matter.
For our part we, after giving fair history o.
the transaction as we had learned it, deemed
il unnecessary to say much about it, feeling
well assured that nothing salutaty would or
could be the result Of such course at pres
ent. But exceedingly high colOred t'les have
been extensively circulated throughout the
country. This was to be expected. And we
are we'll assured exaggerated stories both pro
and con have left town 10 hot haste. Had there
not been a late instance Of this kind, this arti-
Gle would not have made its appearance at this
time. Though we are avOwedly in favor Of the
Temperance Reformation. and would gladly
see all men press into it, yet we think it un-
wise to be constantly harping upon local
matter.
The transactions Of January e2nd, has given
rise to several law suits. The moot at
tractive one is that instituted by DR.. q. A.
Boegel, against the Ladies', for the destruction
of his liquor about which much has been said,
AMI it is the only one Of which we shall speak
in this connection. This We DO that false
report may be corrected. 1t has been puo-
lished that at Justice Stidger's. on Tuesday Of
last week, the defendants "plead that the pre-.
vsiling sentiment Of the citizens of Carrollton
was against them, though it hal been stated
publicly that majority approved Of their pro-
ceedings, confessed judgment for costs, and
thereby stopped proceedings in the case. =
This is falsehood manufactured for specific
end. Defendants stop proceedings by paying
costs Something neV in the practice Of law,
truly. We have looked up the facts so far as
relates the Boegel case, and find them to be as
follows
C. ';;', a: !; s'F,.'' " !, Damages claimed 'pos.
T. ArchJOld, st al.
This case was originally commenced before
H. A. Stidger, Justice OF the Peace, in this
township, last month. The defendants were
summoned to appear. and also about twenty
witnesses subpOenaed by the Justice in behal'
Of the plaintiff on the appearance day, Febru-
sry 18th. The defendants having (asthey say
good reason TO believe, from facts within their
knowledge. that said Justice had prejudged the
case and, had expressed his opinion ard
that said Justice was, as defendants believed,
a material witness for them and from the
swnrm of witnesses in attendance on said ap>
pearance day, it appeared evident to them,
that said Justice intended to harrass and op-
prsss said defendants; they, therefore, made
affidavit under the statute for change Of the
place of trial which said Justice ordered, with
out making any order whatever about COSTS
The defendants left. and after they we've out Of
court, the Justice discovered bis blunder and
refused 10 transfer the papers unless the defen-
dauts would pay the COSTS But the defend
ants not having sued themselves in the first
place, declined now to prosecute themselves,
and there the matter 6zEled.
smartiug under the sore heads that the JUS
lice and plaintiff had given themselves, they
cau,ed said case to be dismissed without pre-
;udise TO anybody" except said Justice and
said Boegel, and the said Boegel 6led a new
bill Of particulars increasing his claim to $3.50,
and the Justice, Notwithstanding former pro-
ceedings, took jurisdiction Of the case and is.
sued second summons for the appearance of
the defendants aud subpOenas for thirteen wit
nesses. Learning that the suit was about to
be galvanized, the defendants went to the Office
Of the Justice and fled another affidavit for a
change Of the place Of trial. before either sum-
mons or subpoenas had been served, and ask-
ed the Justice to make the order for the
change. and recall his process, which he refus-
sd to do, or to entertain the affidavit. This
was done on the 4th inst. On the llth inst.
,be partiss and witnesses appeared The JUS
tIce had perhaps taken counsel wiser than his
own. and made the change as the statute
directed. So the case goes before Justice
Helfrieh.
It's not true that the defendants "Pead that
The prevailing sentiment Of the citizens OF Car
rolltou vac against thsm," nor is il true tha