Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1857-08-27
Innsndoes vs. Private Citizens.

&c @ttttIOA uOS TIC OSttISlUIe eltJOr J
e. az article in the last II. c. Democrat.
charges that the REPuBrdcaS has publish
ei ,'ianenaocs pointing at private citizens
'uneonnected with this THAT paper or pol
tics" The object of the writer is to make
it appear, If possible, that the REruBLIcAs
is a seurrilous and licentious scheet. and
thus create prejudice against the paper
and injure it in the estimation of such as
have not seen it. Our readers know the
charge to be false in the sense. in which it
Is made. The only ground he has for ma
king the accusation, that we can imagine
or can now remember, is the following par
o graph which appeared in this paper few
days before we were burned out 10y the
iire on the 22d of March last:
1s.Dr We understand that couple Of Old Line
Leaders IN this place have got themselves into nice
bit OF scrapc in their desire to Cypress Republi-
can, BY Etching money out of his pocket contrary
10 thc Court Records. As the matter viii soon
sdcFgu judicial investigation we forbear mention
ms names or cher particulars, at present"
b No names were mentioned for the reason
stated. We entertained no personal
hostility toward the parties implicated by
madam rurnor in the transaction, and did
not desire to injure them by giving their
names. Had there been no ground for the
rulnor no excitement would have been oc-
casioned by the publication of the para
graph. The shoe would have fit no one,
the arrow would have sped through the air
striking nothing because aimed at moth
ing-snd no one would have noticed it.
A different result was owing entirely to a
different state Of facts. No one could have
been pointed at" aud to say that it was
an inrendo" against any particular person
would have been simply absurd News
papers frequently, every day, indeed, pub
fish paragraphs in which it is stated that
certain persons have been arrested or char
ged with the commission of crimes, with.
ont intending to say they are certainly gull
ty-tha, is a question TIC be tried by the
courts; and TO deny them the right to pub
lish such occurrences would be to greatly
impair their public usefulness. That the
press is and ought to be responsible for
any abuse Of its privileges we freely admit.
We have no desire to infict injury or
do injustice to any one, and in reference to
the parties referred to in connection with
the charge Of altering the court records we
cheerfully state. upon the authority of ru-
NOR, which, however, We believe to be cor
rect. that the grand jury, at the recent
term, investigated the charge but found no
bill against any one
Justice, however, TO the other side, re-
quircs relation of all the facts in regard
to this matter, SO Far as they have become
public property; which duty we shall dis
charge without regard TO consequences.
A motion having Teen made by the At
torney for the County to amead tie Record
OF the last terla so as as to show judgment
for costs against Bennett, brought the mat
Ter up before the Court for investigation.
$. B. CoRBALEY. deputy clerk, was
sworn, and testified that he thought the
Judgment for costs an favor of Bennett was
written Ia the order book after the close of
the last term-tiat believing it to be illegal
uE afterwards ERASED it and ENTER
ED a Judgment for costs ogaiast Bennett
which the Clerk afterwards erased and RE-
ENTERED the FIRST judgment.
JrDsE STAxFIELD testified that his in
tenticn was to reader Judgment for costs
in Benefits fayor; that during last term
he so directed the Clerk, and he remember
ed that the Clerk turned back to max.
suchentry, and he at that time believed
such entry to De according to law
sd We waive any relation of Judge DEAv-
mrs testimony at present, as unnecessary,
nmarking en- PEASANT that il corroborated
Judge STANFIEID's in every particular.
- THE CouRr, Hou, a. J.. OSBORN pre-
siding. by request of Judge DEAvrrr who
had heretofore been Benefits counsel,
.o5erruled the motion to amend-and init
mated an opinion that the Judgment TO
seosts in Bennett's favor was the prope
Judgment required by law, but that tina
question Meet not be decided inasnuch a
the only question Mas, what was the actor
of the court at the last term? The recor'
Z IS IL now stands correctly states that ques
ton. ie 80 Hiesi .sa So - las
- We refrain from making any common
/. at present, in relation to this last matter
the facts Of which are briefly stated. IL
every one make his own comments an
draw his own conclusions. We hope W
have done simple justice to all.
~ Bst.sto return to the original charg
e The amhor ofthe article is guilty of IL
same offence, IN that identical productic
d his mighty pen, he makes against II
s.sRzPURlIcAS. "Egotistical renegade Den