Dallas herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1849-1873, 1858-07-24


10, lengthy 70 .lmt % u-frilu IN sur 90 lumfs -
The sfl,ls " the ssrs' nl,~ fair .alpmsry n a
lhs fcI. ,ana %, n ted are fien, he
record. " the court. sni -nnot be eoni,cssrlsd-
We have nal thesu fact. carefully sna without pre-
iallcs ssAin,i Jpdss buckley, and the eopsIetiou.
hrcei on cur mlnd Is that The nominee o. DC cohs
ueuion oi the sih q jan l.'i, stnnds convicted N
fal,s swesrirr. !, nnsi le urds'steed that this
opinion Z Formed on The io'lln9ny, We Hsre loaihta
tslIsss a,aan cscuplag tie rssluon tia, Jaise ~
oceuples, gully a ,ueh crime. His guilt or limo
eeneo ia this respect lo,' ug IN naenee IN voting
As.insi HIN We have hsl no preIlllce whalsyer
.sslnstl but We now Ask those OF bis friends
who are 3, nOi.y IN bis behalf 10 real the testimony
uesiasain.thm, before yotngi ib.fors .sklp q
mote. frOm tho eyes Of others. to remove ihehssw4
lfom their own. before denpnn,nspeu isrsppporllpg
pure sud honest nan 10 know that they iheps-l,es
arc rot supporting sn Infamous and eOrra pt one. y n
DR.. Ksilum,'s Pam billet against Jndgs
Buckley tir
b. the same mail which takes to our rea-
/ der. our p,p.r to-day, we send them Dr.. Kel-
nm's pamphlet, in which he publishes the
facts in the case Of b. J. Smith against Had.
lev and wife and others. in the District Court
for Montgomery county. .t.gr,-t
Dr. Kelum asserts that on thu trial OF that
case Judge Buckley swore falsely. In sup.
port OF his accusation he presents TO the peo-
ple certified copies OF the records of the Dis.
irict Court of Montgomery county, and Of in
slrumenis' Officially authenticated,
| We believe il to be our duty, as public
journalists, TO call the attention of our readers
TO Dr.. Kellums pnmpl let, aud to ask them TO
rend it and To decide for themselves, ether
or not Il sustains the charge which the author
makes, that Judge Buckley is guilty of the
great crime of having made false statements,
under oath, in court of justice This mat
ter is Of too great Importance for the people Of
Texas 10 consent that few politicians, or
that few persons comprising Grand Jury,
shall think for them in relation TO it. IL Is the
! high prerogatve OF freemen 10 think for them.
selves, and the voters Of Texas will not sur.
render their right of thought, norwill they re.
fuse 10 look AT testimony, when the question
10 be seIted is whether or not, a man who is
accused upon record testimony OF a high crime
shall sit on tribunal from which there is no
appeal, clothed with the sacred robes Of JUS
and the lives Of MN.
Oar readers will look carefully 10 the pam.
phlet, and they will see that Judge Buckley
was counsel for b. J. Smith in a suit in Harris
county, against Hadey and wife, and that he
was also counsel for Smith in a suit in Mont
gomery county against Hadley and wife, Me-
Kinney. Allen and Kelum. They will see
that the suit in Harris county was settled and
that the plaintiff, Smith, took non.sui.-
They will see that Kellum's counsel (Col.
Henderson Yonkum) pleaded in III" Monigom-
cry suit, that the settlement of the Harris Co,
suit was settlement in fall with Hadley and
wife of all matters in controversy between
Smith and Hodley and wife, in reference toI
the estate of Ben Fort Smith. They will see
that Col. Yoakum pleaded that the settlement
with Hadlry and wife released them from all
liability in the Montgomery suit, and that
Hadcy and wife being released from liability,
we're no longer real defendants, and that there
fore the NJ ontgomery District Court had no
longer any Jurisdiction over Kel.um and the
other defendants Col. Yoalsam also pleaded
that the settlement with Hadley ard wife ope-l
rated as d release of keum, because the basis
of the demand agains. Kelum was that Had
lev and wife had been guilty OF fraud and
of Ben Fort Smiths es-
tatr. -
Ourr.aders will see that in this state OF
case the terms Of the settlement between
Smith ana fiaai, ,;, and wife, Of the Harris
county suit became very material
They will see from the records contained inl
the pamphlet that Judge Buckley swore that
the settlement Of the Harris county suit did
not embrace the mntters'in controversy in the
MONTGOMERY suit, and vet when the writtenH
settlement is brought TO light, ltappearss that
il was written by. Judge Buckley himself and
that in so many words it purports. ito settle I
and adjust ulldlsputes between the parties in
regard to the estate" TINT is, all disputes be-
tween Smith and Hadley and vile in regard
to the estate Of Ben Fort Smirh. Co n
Our readers will gee that Judge Buckley
swore that "hc had brought no agreement be-
.t,ceen Smith and Hadley in regard 10 The SET
tement of. the suit in Harris District Court,
Nth him, That none such cristed, for he,
Judge Buckley had critten every thing that
ivas ,rr,tien when said settlement acas made,
and no such paper ,cas in existence" and yet
the wri,enagreement is brought to light on
future trial Of the cause and is shown TO have
II been written by Judge Buckley himself
Our readers will see that Judge Buckley
.wors that there was no particular object that
he was aware Of, in terminating the suit in
Harri. District Court by entering non.sult,
instead Of entering the terms of the compro.
mise in the judgement. unless it was the short.
est way to dispose Of the case. Yet is clear
tina. when the suit in Harris county was settled
there was design in not entering decree
embracing the terms of the settlement, for that
would have notified the world what the parties
had actually done, and If their settlement of
the Harris county suit furnished the defendant
in the Montgomery suit with good defence to
that suit, they would have had no trouble in
awaiting themselves OF that defence.