Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-11-09
A Memorable Gem.

Among the relics of the glorious war of 1872
which were gathered at Cleveland, Ohio on the 10th
of September, in homer of the Inauguration of the
Perry Statute, was the memorable Croghan gun
Its service is thus related by CORRESPONDENT of the
Cleveland Leader:
In the brilliancy of Perrys victory, let US remem
| Der the unexamped defence of Fort Stephenson,
now Fremont just forty days before that naval ex-
| plot. A large quantity OF stores was collected
here. Harrison, with council of war, had declar-
ed that the post should be abandoned-being indie
| tensible against heavy cannon-and gave orders to
| Major Croghan to that effect. CrOghan disObeyed,
or perhaps before could be carried out the British
and the Indians in large body from Maiden, attack
| ed the fort 1t had but one cannOn-a FOUNDER.
| Sir George Provost, in a dispatch to the Home
| Government from Montreal, of the 18th August,
| 1873 states that Gen. Proctor moved forward from
| Maiden. July 18th, with $50 regulars and between
| 800 and 400 Indians and six pieces of artillery.
Fort Stephenson garrisoned with $50 men
under CrOghan, who had just turned his twenty
| first year Proctor demanded surrender, and told
the unvarying story of the danger of provoking
general massacre by the savages unless the fort was
yielded to all of which CrOghan replied that the
| Indians would have none left to massacre if the
British conquered, for every man would have died
! at his post
Croghan's musketry did not prevent the enemy
from advancing to within thirty feet, when under
the darkness of the night the cannon was I'M
masked, and cut down twenty-seyen at single dis
charge. The enemy recoiled aud retreated, losing
ninety men-the Americans one. Thus the supplies
and men were saved to move forward, after Perrys
victory, aiding in the pursuit of the fleeing Proctor
and Tecumseh.
An important question has just been settled by the
n. Y. Court Of Appeals. In q suit brought by HON.
nell against Saxton the latter of whom had obtain
ed a certificate of election as Clerk of Ulster county,
the court decided, in accordance with the court be-
low, that where voter votes a ticket on which he
writes the name of candidate, then that writing is
to be presumed determining the voters choice, even
if he should have ommitted to erase the printed
name of another candidate for the same Office the
ticket. The Judgment of the Court OF Appeals is
given in these words
The intention of the voter is to be inferred, not
from evidence given by him of the meatal purpose
with which he deposited his ballot or his notions
of the legal effect of what it contained or omitted,
but by a reasonable construction of his acts. His
writing name upon a ballot in cOnnexiOn with the
title of an office is such designation of the name for
that office satisfy the statute, although he oms
20 strike out a name printed upon it in connection
with the same Office. The writing is to prevail as
the highest evidence of his intention. The Judge
ought to have charged the jury matter of law,
that they were bound find the fact accordingly
from the face of the ballot ITSELF The jury in this
case having found in accordance with what would !
have been proper direction, the verdict must |
stand