The Nevada Democrat., 1859-08-31
cuARLEs wENr.

nave contaaneo y nulnoer OF mancious IaisenoOos
against Mr.. Kent, the Democratic candidate for
Sheriff. The articles were written with the evil
dent intention Of making the public believe that Mr.
Kent was arrested and tried for stealing OK, in
this place, in 1855. The Lecomps Of this county
must regard their chances as desperate, when they
have to resort to such despcable ISLANDERS in order
to bolster up a rotten cause.
The following paragraph, copied from the last is
sue of the National including italics, contains the
substance Of the malciouly false charge:
We are informed that the trial Of Kent for taking
Reys in Nevada, 1855, witness introduced for
the prosecution. (who still resides in Nevada testified
that the hide Of the unfortunate or was burnt at Kents
slaughter house. witness then introduced by de-
ndan to prove that it the custom Ofbutchers in that
place to burn hides.
AS this matter may be harped on throughout the
county day two before the election, for the pur-
pose of prejudicing voters against Mr.. Kent we
shall now give some OF the facts upon which the
above vile insinuations are founded. In the sum-
mer of 1856 the firms OF Middleton & Riley and Nc
Allister & Kent, 1--WE use the names by which the
firms were then known) who were engaged in the
butchering business had their cattle herded togeth
er, and slaughtered in the same yard. Mr.. Dins-
more, the herdsman, was one day thrown from his
mule and seriously injured. He was brought into
town for medical treatment, and the cattle conse-
quently become scattered Towards evening, the
butchers, learning of the accident to DinsmUre,
got on their horses and hunted up number Of the
animals and three or four were killed that evening,
neither of the partners of the two firms being pres
ent. The cattle we're not branded so as to be dis
tinguished, and the butchers had always depended
on Dinsmore to tell them which belonged to either
firm but he was not present it is not at all I'M
probable that mistake may have been made.
Some two or three months after this, Middleton &
Riley ascertained that one of their animals mis-
sing and alleged that it had been killed by mistake
for McAllister Kent, and brought civil suit for
the value Of an OK. The case was first tried before
a Justice Of the Peace, and the plaintiffs obtained
Judgment for sxty-two dollars, being the average
value of beef animal. The defendants being dis
satisfied with this judgment appealed the case to the
County Court, and in the meantime sent men over
the country to hunt up the missing animal, but 1t
was not found and the judgment in the Justices
Court was affirmed. During one of the trials wit
ness was introduced to prove that hide had been
burnt at the slaughter yard The witness testified
that he riding along near the yard one day, and
saw man pull hide from the fence and lay it
down near fire which had been kinded to burn the
offal, bones, &c., that had accumulated about the
yard. The same witness informedus the other day,
that this was what he saw, and the substance Of
what he testified. To counteract the impression
which this evidence might have on the minds of the
Jury the defendants proved that the hide which was
supposed to have been burned had been sold to the
propretors of the Excelsior mill, for betting pur
poses that the man took it from the fence to delv
er il to the person who to receive it for the mill
owners and laid it down for the purpose Of stirring
up the fire. A witness was also introduced by the
defendants who testified "that it the custom Of
butchers" in this place. to burn the bones and oal
that accumulated about the slaughter yards but no
witness was introduced to prove that it custom
ary for butchers "to burn hides"
Mr.. Stewart, the attorney of Middleton Riley,
stated in his speech to the jury, that all the plaintiffs
claimed was, that the butchers had, through mis-
take, killed Of the plaintiffs animals, supposing
it to belong to McAllister & Kent
We get the above information from jurors who
tried the case, from witnesses who were examined,
and from the attorneys. There may be some tri-
fling naccuracy in the statement, the affair hap
pened severa! years ago, and would never have been
thought Of had not Kent been candidate for Office;
but the circumstances as related are substantially
correct.
We are not in the habit Of heaping fulsome fat
terry upon candidates for oice but the vilest means
have been resorted to for the purpose OF preudcng
the voters against nominee for Sheriff, and we
take this occasion to say word in his behalf.
Charles Kent has resided in Nevada six years,
and during this time has been actively engaged in
business. He is esteemed as one of our best and
most energetic citizens, liberal to fault, and his
integrity and honesty have never been questioned
here where he is best known. In this precinct,
where both the candidates for Sheriff reside, Kent
will receive majority Of from four to five hundred
votes.