Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1868-03-10
CARD.
onARLEsrowN. Nv. W., FEB. Is.

which l wish to notice through the columns
of your paper.
This article is in reply to one in the Spi-
rit of JEFFERSON of late date, and is in the fol-
lowing scurrillous language:
eve are authorized by Hon. Joseph n.
Chapline to say, that he is no aspirant for
the Judgeship of this Circuit, and that the
above assertion is foul falsehood. Mr..
Chapline unlike Mr.. Kennedy, knows he is
unfit for the position; though rebels know
he has brains enough to spare Kennedy some
The Spirit has been harping for some time
about Renehan & Kirwin, why does it not
tell the people the facts-tell that the above
firm are bankrupts, and John W. Kennedy
charged Mr.. Chapline with abstracting from
the papers note, and tell how he lawyered
his case out of Court several times by his own
ignorance, and tell that Kennedy swore the
note was lost, after sscharging Ghapline with
stealing it, and afterwards found the note in
his own green bag"
1t is not my habit to regard attacks couch
ed in language so incorporate; but. in this
instance, perhaps, my failure to do so might
be misconstrued, or taken as a tacit admission
of its truth.
There are two things which will at once
attract attention-the unprovoked nature of
the assault upon me, and the fact that it is
made by the authority of person whom the
editors of the Cnion style the Honorable
Joseph A. Chapline.
With that individual, for reasons which 1
deem satisfactory, mean to have no contro-
versy of this sort.
Any honorable man would have replied to
the Spirits editorial, if there was any reply
necessary, over his own signature, and not
shielded himself by placing the Berkeley
hot l. 7
him to the fit companionship of the editors
of that paper, who think with him, that
she is unfit to be Judge" and Of ''those
rebels who know that he has brains enough
to spare me some"
l propose, briefly, to notice that portion Of
the editorial which alludes to my connection
with, and management of the case of Rene
han e. Kirwin Us Jos. A. Chapline. And l
only do this that the "facts may be told to
the people"
On the 10th day of November, 1864, Jo-
seph A. Chapline gave a check to the firm
of Renehan &Klrwin, merchants in the city
of Baltimore, for S607,25, (for merchandise
purchased by Chapline of them) and paya-
BILE at the Hagerstown Bank. This check
was endorsed by Renehan & Kirwin and
cashed in Baltimore by Nicholson & Sons,
Bankers, and was sent by them to the Hagers-
town Bank for collection. 1t was presented
for payment at the counter of that Bank on
the first day of December following, by NJ.
S. Barber, Notary Public, and the Cashier Of
that Bank replied that "Mr. Jos. A. Chap
line had no funds in Bank to pay the check"
1t was thcreupon protested Tor non>pay-
ment, and notices of protest sent by mail to
the drawers and each of the endorsers. On
the 3rd of January, 1865, Mr.. Chapline paid
on this check S156,28, leaving, at that time, a
balance due the firm of 1888, 10. This check
with notice of protest, was sent to me for col
lection, and suit was brought Joseph y.
Chaplne to February rules 1866.
1t was plain action Of debt on protested
check.
Mr.. Chapline was represented by able
counsel who applied all the usual devices to
put the case off from term to term, until at
last it became evident that a trial must be
had. Then, when all the honorable pleas
were unavaiing, Mr.. Chapline filed an oath
under the provisions Of an act passed Febru
airy 2Sth 1S65-known as the ''Suitors Oath"
claiming that he was loyal, and asking an Or
der dismissing the suit against him if, in thir-
ty days thereafter, the firm of Renehan &
kirwin failed to file the oath required by the
act of February II, 1865. The effect of this
oath, on the part of Mr.. Chapline, was to
charge Renehan & Kirwin with being disloy-
al. If they could not file the oath required
by that act, Mr.. ChaplinG would thus get rid
OF the payment of his honest debt.
At the April term, 1867, the case was
ready for trial; but, when l came to exam
inc the papers, the check and notice Of pro-
test ,oere missing. The Clerk, Mr.. William
A. Chapline made affidavit in writing, that
L had filed the missing papers with the pa
pcrs Of the case at the preceding term. Like
affidavit was made by me, stating that l had
made diligent search among my own papers
and the Court papers for the check and no.
tice of protest, and, failing to find them, be-
ieved they were lost.
The object of these affidavits, as any law
yer will see, was to lay the foundation for
the introduction of secondary evidence to
prove their contents.
Upon the reading of these papers to the
Court, Mr. Chapline Immediately sprang up
and said "that lie had not taken these papers
and had nothing to do with their loss" To
which I replied "that had not charged Mr.
Chapline, or any one else, with the taking
or loss of the papers" and expressed my ut
ter,surprise that he should deny the taking
before charge to that effect had been made,
and remarked that sit looked suspicious in
view Of his denial"
determined to go to the jury upon secon-
Diary evidence of the contents of the lost check
and notice of protest, and when the jury was
sworn offered a witness to prove their contents.
To the introduction of this evidence, Mr..
Stanton objected, arguing that twas mad
missible. replied submitting authorities
The matter was finally submitted to the Judge,
who, contrary to my expectations, decided
that secondary evidence of the contents of
the lost ctccA: might be given in evidence to
the jury, but not that of the notice Of protest.
Under this ruling l was obliged to suffer
non-suit, in order not to lose the case finally.
1t was thus the case went out of Court. Not
by my ignorance as the Union, by authority
of Hon. Jos. A. Chapline, asserts, but by the
r,nl;ncr Of Tho I11Hcrn