The Constitutional. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1860-1861, 1861-06-01
Advertisement.
\ { ard.

to h,. con p,l.rd 20 go before iho publ" with
uriyp.. ptirvnncrs even when Il 'corp"s nec"s-
spry IN drf,ncc of ones self undrr ordinary cir
cum. taucrs but this Is no Ordinary Instehcc-It
is an in,tnttcc p,cHiaT hud unprecedented IN ih"
annals of either party OF individual STIFF. II is
mn instance SO unnatural that The victor would be
hut a detected and mouinlul loser. know the
uufiir can fed no interest whatever, IN The qurs-
lions involved, but ~ the one party has seen
poper 60 pres, mt BIS side of trn 10 H. Judgment.
without intending to- sanction that couIsr on my
palt t,ci Tint * due slike io mysrH mud {, th"
icaucci have for the opinions OF my friends and
,ssocia,cs here and elsewhere to mak; hl.ci
and rrrncctfu statcmcnt Of tn Other aloo.
I extract from the publication rrfcrfcd To, ia"
following pasSAgrs
"Thc Petition Of Monif,r Wells, Of the Parish
aud STAT aforesaid, w,'h respect. shows that IA"
Is the Owner aud proprietor ot tfr following Dc
sc. ibrd property, 20 wit:
"G,ay colt wei, wood about fnur years old,
by imported Yorkshire, dam tiri'c;r'
"GIay Colt, about th.e years uld, ny imported
Sovereign, dam GIiscttc.
Bay tilly, about two ycali old, by imported
Sovereign, dam Grisctic.'
Your Petitioner alleges that said 1komag J
Wells keeps said horses IN has possession without
any shadow Uf title or right whatever, aud fUICi
bly, and Illegally dctains them against the viii
and consent of your PctiuOncr-iurthcr repre-
scnts that h. fears aud yc,ily believes, that said
Thoma, J Wells will tcntl said hoises ont of IA"
jurisdiction of the Cont during the prndrncy Of
this suit, and that hr is preparing 80 To do
In speaking of Nj Eigrcs Intervention. thu
writrr agnn says:
"Eigrc siyrs my suit an Illegal and uuwar-
rauiahir Interference with hiS Iights Of ownership
to this stock If hc has 50 long owned tits
stock why have continued ~ the quiet posses
SION and enjoyment Of the sane ~
al. H.. 81 .ssf IL H..
yraI Is.}- there were purchased from Nj James
Jackson If Alabama, three blOnd'd irs at thu
price Of two thousand dollars ior each. received
said hiiirs and paid iur thuu. One Of tncIu, Fan
daugr, hrclmr the dam of Grisrttr, III mar" now
in dispute GIiscttr was bred by me- and wholly
- my ,Aprusr. She is uuw thntccii years old,
b.ug iualcd in ~. She was oalcd in Ken
lucky, and brought home VIII II u year old and
has been in my possession ever since, either at
NV usl,.,urr hrIr or iu Kentucky. with III cN-
ccpiiuri of about ycar when she was kept on the
plantation owurd by VI Wells, aud the under.
signed. For the last seven years GiiSr;to has
been AMI ~ now iH kcrturky, wholly 1T my TX
pcnsr, breeding at cost oi 500 year
She has bred the three colts, all OF which
have always been aud are stiil in my possession
It home. la all TIA, long p'Ijnd 81 - Yrais The
hf.tim, of Grscttc, Montiurt Wells has never in
any way claimed amy ownership in her. nor n.ycI
Offered to pay any portion "i III" purchase money
nor expenses incurred, Hoi assumed ta direct The
management of said ma;c - hen produce, unit
W thin the last ~ or \ months.
In yirw of thrsc facts Moutlnrt Wells after
chalactcrilur the cniut set up by Nj E!gcc IL
language | hall not repeat, says: " Il Ia, ha. So
long owned this stock, why hay, | (Mouttori
Wrils) conHnn,d IN hc qu,,i posscssiop and rnJoy-
n,cRf fhr same ?" Aud IL the wit of srpurs-
tIaiIuu which Moutfart Wells issue, p.a,llst me-
he maLey oah that | (T. j Wcll,) an IN posses
sion of the samri
Now this claiming ownership AMI quiet pos
scS sion an enjoyment oi thu >rmc,' aud mdhiHg
an cHIari 10 be put in quiet possession. shove,
at least 81 fu thus controversy is concerned
that neither lawyers nor cIcntS mean all they
say in p,ti,inus-Monlfort Wells is no more in
the "qur; pu,,cs,i"u ct the Same than is Nj
Elgcr. nor has he ever been, uruhrr could h.
identify these bor-c- Ny sight, so .ittl" dors he
know about them.
1t is, no doubt, known to the pubic generally
thlt have ben culrayotIug bv legal provrcd
ng> and by amicHl' ptopo-rfi"u, to separate my
mtrlr-ts from tho-, of Moujrrt Well In sch
ng these rights It would have been much NOR,
consistent with my nature AMI wishes To have
adjusted them SIMILARLY, but | have been lei
into the inirIuruablr notifications, mtiicarirs.
and delays of the law, aud the wit ut
qurstraliun rtyJshrd in Noutluyt Wells ad
Nrrti,cmcnt last week, and in which tins StDck
. claimed, Is but sprCim ~ oi the litigation ui
my affairs To which am Invited s"rt ut foe
taste oi what i, to follow Proclamation IS WA
Ny Attorneys, Mcs.rs Manning and RYAN ca
tered plea Of g"ncrnl denial to AL tho allegation,
OF MouttoIt Wells IN this suit, aud that plea
believe viii sustain. My statement above is a
truthful narration If my ownership Of the hor,rs
and the manner in which il wa, acquired
In the course of this narrative a!,u, has
necessarily been made 30 my hi.nd III J. X
IT,. 4 4 ..I
uni, r.tood. that no at'uupt al yuiicalion Is
made at +im-hr needs no defence from amy on'--
in career Of u>"illnrs, and distinction iog III
last twenty-five ar thirty year, he has not only
achieved a position in hi, profession where b,
stands among The Gr,t men of the State but by
his Pr"bty and HauliHr,s ia private lie he Ia,
rendered himself udcp"ndout "t all indication.
It's long established reputation places him as iU
above any mere cphcmcral praise of his friend, q,
At H'm!y 81 cures nan against al ntti'toirHt at
tacks of his foes
Mr. Elgcc is certainly lawyer enough 10 know
whether or no. the Slrrlif SALE to him of March,
ISi3, gave him lien for his Judgment upou the
horses therein enumerated. 1t was upon this H.
tie he saw proper 10 intervene, not that he cy,
claimed any personal interest in the horses a
has been shown both bv tho extract published
from his letter dated l-I,, and by recent and rc-
p'atod Il, cluaions. by intervening with hi,
claim, Nr. EiEce, ikR0tr, simply mt, ndcd to put
an end To an unpleasant suit pending between
brothers, and adopted that mode aS The sprrdrsi
way of cifrctiuT what every right thinking man
ought to wish accomplished
The tanSuaG' so much complained Of in the
petition of intervention Is q mere formula II is
alleged that Mr.. Elgcc accused Moutfort We'll,
thIchy with direct and deliberate fasrhood. and
these allegations roUM not hare bccn obccftd to-.
had he lMluntio,t WrllS) not have mute affdarH
| to the fact Of ownership. This ccrtualy affords
very It'll" grounds upon which TO base n vitu-
prraiive assault upon any man The distinction
between having staicT0cnt denied that has been
sworn Ia and one that has not. is rather refined
If this rule of Interpretation Of the language of
the petition Cor Intervention is admitted it woul.
be equally admissible in Interpreting the allrga-
tons Of IN" ahdavn on which the writ Of scqucs-
! tration was issued and in which it is alleged that
tn petitioner fears and verify believes that the
,.L lLn..,. ] A.-. .:..L q