The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1869-08-26
CFor the Jackson Standard
HAMDEN, ONO.
Editor of The Standard.

hAMDhHt Ohto'
Editor Of The Standard:
In your article Of the proceedings of the Pro-
bate Court Of the week ending Aug. 4, 1869 there
appeared some remarks, with reference to my
marriage to J. D. Owen, which are not true. and
Justice 10 my husband, and myself demand the
follow Ing eXpl anatlon =
In tie first lace-I had never left my fathers
house to live with my husband, which does not
agree with the first clause of your article.
In the second pace-the case never had
hearing before the Probate Judge. How could
the parties have denied their interference IN my
leaving home to accompany my husband II THIS
was the case9 They mav have denied in per-
sonal interviews. Anyperson that could invent
such a story as that of the bottle-and Dr.. Evans
advice to tie me down-beg of me to leave that
day for Europe-cautoning me not to leave the
Sheriff, and speak to my husband &C. &c,, can
deny that one thing without blush.
In the third place you stated that the ''physi-,
clans disagreed in regard to the love powders.
This also is false. Dr. A. B. Monahan stated. in
the presence of all parties, and Probate Judge,
that they all agreed that the wonderful lore pro
ducer was nothing but little oil of wintergreen
alcohol, and perhaps little mucilage of some
kind. These are the facts of the case, whatever
may be said contradictory to these can not be
proven. JANE A. OWEN.
August 10, 1869.
The above was received by mail on
last Thursday. We should make no
reply, only to answer all those who are
so ready to take offense where none
was intended, and who are so swift to
accuse an editor of falsehOod, when
they are not so careful about the truth
as they should be. So we will briefly
answer Mrs. Ovens charges.
We go to the Probate Office every
Monday morning to get the proceed
ings for the previous week. On the
cd of August we called in, and when
we commenced copying the marriage
licenses, Judge Longbon said that it
was requested that the license of John
D. Owen and Jane A. Hughes, and one
other license, should not be published,
as the parties were not going to get
married for 8 few days. On the same
day, August I'd, Mr.. Owen made his
application for habeaS corpus, having
been married before that time The
license was issued July 29th. So delay
in getting married was not the cause of
desiring no publication. That excuse
was false. Joseph Jones procured the
license, and he made oath that Mr..
Owen was over 21, and Miss Hughes
over 18, Then why this runaway
match
We were at Portsmouth at the time
the case was heard, Aug. Sd, but here
is an exact copy of the entry in the case,
taken from the journal in the Prob ate
Office:
This day came the Sheriff of this county, and
brought into Court the body of the said Jane A.
Owen and the SAID John Hughes Sr and John
Hughes jr. also appeared, and disclOimed any
right or desire to the custody or contro | of the
said Jane A. Owen and denied that tn ey had
detained or restrained her of her liberty,
as charged In the application of the Rolator,a and
thereupon, on motion OF the said John D. Owen,
this proceeding is dismissed at his costs, taxed
at $14,39."
When we came home, Mr.. DuHad-
way, one of the attorneys in the case,
and DR.. A. B. Monahan, told us about
it, and in reporting the proceedings of
the Court next week, we said:
John D. Owen married Jane A. Hughes.
She went to her fathers house, and refused to
live with her husband. Owen procured writ
Of Hdbeas Corpus alleging that her father, John
Hughes Sr., aud her brother, John Hughes jr.,
detained her. On the hearing the parties denied
detaining her, and the case was dismissed.
There was something in the case about love
powders about which the uoctors disagreed y
Now Mrs. Owen, (or rather some one
for her, because the communication is
not in woman's handwriting, accuses
rs of falsehood. Let us see. She says:
"I never left my fathers house to live
withmy husband, which does not agree
with the first close CLAUSE y of your
article" Who said you did? "Sbe
went to her fathers house." Were
you married at your fathers house If
not, did you not go there after mar
riagei
You say in the second place, that
there was no hearing of the case before
the Judge, and there could have been
no denial of OBTAINING you. The Court
record, above published shows how
sadly yoa are mistaken.
You say it is false that the doctors
disagreed about the love drops. We
got our information from DR.. A, B.
Monahan and Dr. l. T. Monahan. They
both say that DR.. /. 7. Monahan diff
fered from the other doctors. So you
see that this charge of falsehood is like
the other charges.
=-----ss-s---ssss--