The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1868-12-22

to Ihe STATE vs.. Met edith II Radical.
We beg the States pardon for omit
ting TO mention its name in tie above
case; as itrcal!y vas not done wiifuily;
IL itscl. VIC were ic.. into the error by
hearing .iat our distinguished IL. {. WAS
husily engaged ia icrrct.ng out the
guilty party who had the case tti5nis-
ael, and he hal went 50 far a - charge
corruption on the Court, tor erasing the
case from the dockes without tue con-
sent OF his attorneys. We take it all
back, for it was the State that rcceiv
cd a COW -hiling-'twas the State that
WAS assaulted-the 'sState' whose feel
ings We're lacerased and injured the
State" that brought the suit; the
State that got mad and was going to
play the very duse with the Criminal
Court for striking the case from the
docket, and our distinguished NJ. Z.
merely interposed his transparent corpo-
rosty between the State ani the assault
ing instrument used. apd he, like Daniel
in the lions den, escaped harm, whilst
the estate" was cut up and done for in
manner and form severe, Hence we
make the amende, by correcting the
statement a. suggested "1Hs State vs..
Meredith
THE CONTEMPT OF PAYNE.
Connected closely with the above case
-Ju-(we beg don)-sThe State VS..
Meredith comes the termination Of the
Payne contempt. We noticed the post
ponement until last Monday week-it
was then resumed. Folr witnesses tc s.
tify that Mr.. Julian's attorney, Payne,
gave consent to have thc case stricken
from the docket-thc time was not des-
ignated by either Of them; the time on
the record, however, was the 25th of
May, and Mr.. Payne brought indubita
BILE evidence to prove that he was not
present on that particu ar day and hence
could not have given his consent as al
legged. Judge johnson corroborated, in
his statement, the testimony Of the wit
nesses, that :'he knew of his own knowl
CJgC Gudb GiC lus cISC0s NiA
not occur on the 25th, but some days
before-his idea was ut that time, that it
was with the knowledge and by the con-
sent Of Mr. Julian aud that his wishes
in the matter were fully expressed. =
The ease was dismissed, the 5udy re
marking in substance, that the powers of
the court in such proceedings was st
least questionable, AMI that he could
never Justify himself in assuming to
,,unisll an offensa IN any case in which
he was in any way party.
In his ch rye TO the Grand Jury, the
Judge suggested, as q difference of opin-
ION existed among the members of the
bar as to how far absence from the State
acted upon the limitation of an indict
1nent, that they take up the case and II
they saw fit bring in II new indictm ent,
which should set forth the tim, Of tae
arrest, and Of the defendants leaving
the State, the date of the dismissal Of
the indictment, ami any other matter
necessary to full history of the case,
SO that upon future trial these 1acts
might be set up. upon motion TO quas Il
the indictment, and thus determine the
sufficiency of the former proceedings
SO endeth the contempt of Payne,
the 'tinis' of which We CLEAN from our
contemporary of the Bird. Were we not
fearful of being misunderstood, and
hon lioI lo TO /, f.;t oI Mt
before His Honor, Judge johnson, we
would venture to give our erudite opin
ion that this case Of ''contempt" is q
muddle very Payne full to contemplate
and following the action Of the Judge,
We also dismiss it.
THE YOUNG MURDER.-After q pro
tracted trial of three weeks of Mrs
Glem for the murder of Mr. YounO tbf