The Grand Haven news. [volume] (Grand Haven, Mich.) 1858-18??, 1860-04-25
THE PEOPLE VS.. RoosT.

The Clarion of April 18th makes
desperate attempt to deceive the public
with regard TO the facts in this case, which
compels us TO publish the history Of the
transaction in full, which we shall do next
week.
We did not desire to spread local
scandal before the world, but the shame
less course Of Roost's friends forces us to
do so in self defence, and upon them the
responsibility of giving it TO the public
must rest. The article in the Clarion
is tissue of falsehoods from beginning
10 end, well worthy of moral reformer
(0 like Mr.. Club.
TO commence with the first one, the
$l49 was not left TO pay interest with,
rs he states; there was no interest due
until April l, 1860, and this was in June
1850.
Secondly, it is insinuated that the pros
ecution against Roost is for money sent
to Dom. Van Raalte, and that the board
refused to allow these moneys in settle
ment. This is malicious lie, as it was
in evidence on the examination that the
offer was made in writing to Roost to al
low every cent of those moneys 10 his
credit, before any legal proceedings were
commenced against him.
Lilo No. 8 is with regard to The nom
nations at the caucus. The theory of
the partisans of Mr. Roost was that his
arrest was simply to get him away from
the caucus, for the purpose CT preventing
his nomination for Supervisor, which is
entirely false. John Roost was nominal
cd at the caucus for Supervisor, ms it was
expected he would be, and no attempt
was made to prevent his nomination. Yet
the piouS editor of the Clarion publish
es to the world that "the regular nom
inees of the township caucus were: For
Supervisor, Henry d. Post, DC" The
democrats did not attend the caucus OK
cept as spectators and but few OF them at
that, and made no attempt to our knowl-
edge 1--WE were not there at ally 10 inhu-
ence the nominations in the least.
An attempt is again made TO carry The
impression that the Board refused to al
low the drafts sent to Worst, and that the
prosecution is based on that refusal, and
that those are the moneys in ISSUE
Roosts written statements which are in
evidence show that "Mr. Ii. ID. Post
agreed to his statements of the moneys
sent" When the learned and highmind-
cd counsel for Mr.. Roost on the very tech
meal cross-examination insisted upon
knowing whether knew of my own
knowledge that certain drafts | received
from Rev. Mr.. Van Raalte, were harbor
money, was compelled to answer that /
did not; l had no recollection of having
received any such positive evidence of the
identity of the money as an affirmative
answer to such q question would demand
though / never doubted that il was har
Dor money, and never expressed such {
doubt.
Another lie is that the Prosecuting
Attorney virtually allowed the money
Notwithstanding Tie denial ofthe Town
ship Board" If this was true and you
whole theory of defence Ito the public
being based on that, why was Roost helC
for trial9 The next paragraph directly
contradicts the statement we have JUS
mentioned
And is this all the defence Mr.. Club
has to offer for Mr. Roost? If so, il woe
have been far better TO have done rs hi
lawyers did, making no attempt at de
Tending him. Ottawa Register.