Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-05-05

partisan friends, whose reputation for
truth and honesty (if he ever had oue)
has long since been wrecked by his own
iAfidelity.
II Judge Hunters character had been
as pure and spotless as he would feign
make the public believe, your people,
Mr.. Editor, would have been saved the
humiliation of having thing to sit in
judgment over the rights OF your citi-
sens.
1t is men whose hands are stepped in
crime, and whose sense OF honor knows
no shame, that meet with favor at the
hands of those who are now ruling over
an oppressed and downtrodden people.
But the Judge tries to excuse his de-
falcation, and repel the charge of en-
bezzlement, by claiming that his safe
was broken open and robbed, and that
he publicly denounced some one with
having done the deed. This charge is
like all the rest--void of truth. He never
publicly charged any one, and if be had,
not man in this community would have
believed him. This worse than a poor
defense is but another evidence Of the
total depravity of the man. He is will
ling to make false charges against some
ene-and 1t matters not whom -and, if
possible, blast their reputation, in order
to save himself from the just condemna-
tion of the people.
The public, then and now, believe him
guilty, as charged; and his subsequent
life has only confirmed those who before
may have doubted.
,onorJ - tha INDIGNANT ha cavc
at is true that at the time alleged | was
treasurer of that county, and was charged
with defalcation, and that Judgment
was obtained against me, not in the sum
of $5,l09 78, but IN a much smaller
amount, less than $4,000. But a most
important fact was omitted by your cor
respondent; that is, that an appeal was
taken to the District Court, and that
Judgment was reversed, and no subse-
quent suit or proceedings were ever in
stituted against me or my securities.
Ny only reply to so much of his state
ment as relates to the amount of the
Judgment, may be found in the following
certified copy of the journal entry in the
case:
MERCER COMMON PLEAS. ARIL TERN, 1869.
Commissioners OF mercer county against w III. .
Hunter ct al.-Mercer Common Pleas. Civil
Action:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.
Whereupon it is considered and ad-
Judged that the plaintiffs recover of the
defendants the sum of five thousand one
hundred and seventy-sx dollars and ff.
teen cents and six mills, together with
the costs in this behalf expended to be
taxed; and also that the plaintiffs re-
cover of the defendants the further sum
of five hundred and seventeen dollars
and sixty-one cents and five mills for
the penalty of ten per centum upon the
said sum as provided by the statute in
that case made and provided.
H. F. ISNEMAN, Clerk.
CLERKS 0PF1cE. Mercer County, 0his.
| hereby certify that the above is a
true copy of the records on file in this
office.
Given under my hand and official seal
this 25th day of April, 1868.
JOHN W. DEFoRD, Clerk.
But, he says, omitted to state a most
important fact, that is, THAT an appeal
was taken to the District Court, and that
judgment was reversed, and no subse-
quent suit or proceedings were ever in
stituted against me or my sureties" This
statement is also untrue. The truth is,
no appeal was taken. The case was car
ried to the District Court on error, and
that Court reserved the case for the Su-
preme Court, where it was finally dis
posed of by agreement of parties at their
December session, 1861.
Before any decision was made by the
Supreme Court, the commissioners of
the county and Hunters sureties com
promised the case, for the reasons stated
in the following journal entry, in the
case made at their December session,
1860:
Commissioners Record, Volume 2. Page 294.
Mercer County.
THURSDAY MORNING, December 6, 1860.
Then came the sureties of William Hun
ter, and submitted proposition for COM
promise in the following cause, to-wit;
William Hunter. plaintiff. VS.. Commissioners
OF Mercer county, defendants. Supreme
Court Of Ohio. Petition in Error.
The Commissioners of Mercer county
having commenced suit against William
Hunter, late Treasurer of Mercer county,
Ohio, and his sureties, and at the April
term of the Mercer county Court of Pleas,
1856, obtained Judgment Of $5,693 67
against the said Hunter and his sureties
aforesaid, filed in the District Court of
Mercer county their petition in error,
which was, by said Court, at the August
term, 1851, reserved and taken to the
Supreme Court of Ohio for decision,
where the same is now pending, unde-
cided; the petitioners in error having
made application for compromise of
said cause, the same is entertained, and
the cause compromised for the following
among many reasons that might be as
signed:
First-The Board find that on the 9Th
of June, 1854, the said William Hunter,
Treasurer elect for the county of Mercer,
presented his bond, as such Treasurer,
for approval by the then Board of Com
missioners, which was on the fourth day
of the session of said Commissioners, and
the law provides that said bond shall be
presented and approved on the first day
Of the June session.
Second-That it appears by the record
OF tne june seoslOui loO4, tndt Nucu ealu
Hunter made settlement with the Com
missioners, it was some twenty four hours
before his bond was presented and ac-
cepted, which leaves doubt as to which
bond bis defalcation took place under,
or to what amount
Third-Itis claimed by the sureties Of
said Hunter that said Hunter was de
faulter in the sum Of $500 under his
former bond, and satisfactory evidence
is given establishing that fact, which
creates an equity in favor ofthe sureties