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

The following expose, taken from the
AralaHche, is in answer to the card pub.
lished by our pet criminal dignitary a
short time since, in which he denied being
a defaulter. Facts and figures like these
would have been regarded by one of our
old time judges as rather damaging, es-
pecially in community where three
men out of four believed them true. We
dent know how it will work in this case !:
EDIToRs AVALANCHE: Your issue of
the 10th ultimo contains reply of Judge
Hunter to my communication, published
March 2lst, together with I" to whom it
may concern" from Hon. VIM. Law
renee, in support of the Judges state
ment. | know not which to admire most,
the boldness of the Judge in asserting
that which is without any foundation in
truth, or the readiness of the Honorable
in indorsing it. Perhaps the greatest
credit is due to the indorser, from the fact
that he is voluntary indorser without
pay or interest except so far as it is me-
cessary to sustain every member of the
Jacobin party, both in their private as
well as public life, regardless even of
truth. But to the facts.
/ herewith submit the letter of Hon. +.
C. LeBlond, who was, at the time Judge
Hunter was indicted, Prosecuting Attor-
ney of Mercer county, together with a
certified copy Of the journal entry of the
County Commissioners, directing nolle
prosequi to the indictment, showing their
reasons therefor:
CELrNA. April 2l, 1868.
Judge Blake:
DEAR SIR: | have looked over the let
ter of Hon. VIM. Lawrence, published in
the Avalanche of the 10th inst, and find
his recollection of what said at the time
| entered aolle prosequi to the indict-
ment against VIM. Hunter, to be some
what at fault. did not say that the
Commissioners "were satisfied that Mr.
Hunter had not been guilty of any inten-
tional wrong" for | well knew they en-
tertained very different view. do not
suppose the Judge has Intentionally mis-
represented me.
/ did, however, say that was directed
by the Commissioners of my county to
enter nolle prosequi, for the reason
they doubted whether trial could ever
take place upon the merits, growing out
Of the difficulty in procuring the attend
ance of witnesses in foreign court. The
reasons which governed the Commission.
ers in the action they took may be found
in a journal entry OF their proceedings at
their June session, 1857, and which gov
erned me in entering the nolle prosequi.
With great respect, ] have the honor to
be yours, ETC., +. Z. LEBLoND.
Commissioners Session. juno 5, 1871
And it is ordered by the Board that in
view of the fact that large amount of
money has already been expended "in
the case of the State Of Ohio VS.. William
Hunter" in an indictment for embezzle.
ment; and the probability that the case
never will come to a hearing on its mer-
its; and the great difficulty of prose-
cutting in foreign court to successful
termination cases of its character, in
connection with the fact that in either
event of a conviction or acquittal the
county must pay enormous expenses,
we, the Board Of Commissioners OF Mer-
Ger county, are of the opinion that all
further action ought to cease in the Grim
inal prosecution Of said Hunter, and
hereby recommend that the Prosecuting
Attorney enter a nolle prOsequt in said
case, and order that the Auditor commu-
nicate this to the Prosecuting Attorney.
JOHN MCDONALD,
M. CAST, Com RS.
N. VAN TILBbRG, J
Attest: G. w. Randabaugh, Auditor.
STATE OF OHIO. MIRcER CoUSrr,l
CELIEA, April IL. ls6S. !
1T. G. Towvelle, Auditor Of Mercer
county. Ohio, do hereby certify that the
foregoing is a correct copy Of the order
made by the County Commissioners oi
said county, at their June session, A. ID.
1851, as Transcribed from Commission
ers Record No. 2, page l7S.
T. G. TowTELLE, Auditor.
Thus II viii be seen by the records oi
the Commissioners that they did not
direct the prosecution TO be abandoned
because they believed the Judge 10 be
innocent, but because Of the great din
Guilty in procuring the attendance Of Wit
nesses in a foreign court, and for the
further reason that they wished 10 save
costs 10 the county. In either event, ol
a conviction OF an acquittal, the county
Rad 10 foot the bill, even 70 the payine
of his attorneys, as they bad done. i
l. but reasonable te suppose that Hou
&c IeBlond assigned no other reasonI
J mamI - fkn r~Arr ~ 81