Litchfield enquirer., 1871-05-18

of Woodbury, naturally calls out reply iron their friends. However erroneous their decisions may have been. we think all charges against them of corruption or Intentional injustice. unwarrantable, and therefore give space to the following states ment:
 1 l6[4ftA ,fs WooDBURY. l fs q A very gross, outrageous, and ibellous article appeared in the editorial column of the Litchfeld Sentinel, last week, which was evidently written, or inspired by the counsel of Anson S. Knox of this town, who has been some months confined to our county jail limits as fraudulent debtor. A wanton attack is made upon the character for integrity of Josiah G. Miner one of the County Commissioners and Eli sperry, Justice of the Peace, two as upright, judicious, and Iconsci- entious officers as can be found in the State, for the evident purpose, first of influencing the judg
 ment of the last Court of Review, which was sat in this case, but whose decision has not yet been rendered; and secondly, of injuring the political prospects of MT. Miner for reelection The sole ground for the charge is that they have sat three times as a court of review between the parties. 4au sj .ff l A brief statement of the facts will show how wlfu1ly malicious and unjust is this gross attack -an attack which is, perhaps, sufficiently neu- tralized by it's own malignity. Knox was com mitted to jail on proper execution, by which his body was attached. He, therefore, applied to Charles B. Andrews, Esq, for the administration of the poor debtors oath That oath is in the following words, to wit ''You, A. B., solemnly swear that you have not any estate, real or per- sonal, in possession, reversion, or remainder, of the value of seventeen dollars in the whole, or sufficient to pay the demand for which you are imprisoned, except what is by law exempted from being taken on execution, and haat you haye not directly. nor indirectly, sold or otheraoise disposed of dN or any part o your estate thereby to secure
 the same, or to receiue, or expect ory profit, ad
 uantage herefrona, or to defrassd or deceiue yous creditors; so help you God" | Knox made his statement before MT. Andrews
 No evidence offered on the part off the credi- tor, and the oath was administered to Knox: The creditor, thereupon, took the case before Messrs
 Miner and Sperry, sitting court of review, pursuant to Statute A full hearing was had on both sides, and it was fully proved by numerous good and reliable witnesses and in large measure by Knox's own confessions on oath, that he had sold and disposed of his property for the express purpose of concealing the same, and to derive ad- vantage therefrom, and to deprive his creditors. I The Court, therefore, found these facts in the language of the Statute, and refused to give Knox 1 the benefit of the oath. n -s i=s 5..ss5 4 | Court of Review may be held either by Judge of the Superior Court, or by County Com statute provides, that if any application, made 'to said Judge, or to said Commissioner and Justice of the Peace, shaU be rejected by them, and such person shaN become entitled to take sdsd oath from amy change in has circumstances, subsequent to l satch rejection, be mag again make application therefor, im ate 'nonmer herein 6efore prouided. Commenting upon this section of the Statute, the author of the 'sConnecticut Civil Officer" a highly respectable legal authority, remarks as follows, to wit !" This provision may be consider ed as making the decision of the rn,,rt nf Raview Jn0t, except ln cases where there is chanqe in
 he circumstances of de prisoner ofser the ooth has oeen refused If the oath is refused to the debtor on the ground of his possessing more than seven teen dollars in property, he may subsequently assign his property in payment of bona .fae debts. and thereby entitle himself to the oath; but this must be done in good faith, for if such assignment is made, even to actual debtors, only as cover. and the debtor intends to reclaim the property he cannot be entitled to the oath. # the oath aoas refused oa the ground of the debtor's haci,ag made trGuduIent convegamce, that the fraud might be purged, and the traudulemt debtor entitled to the benefit of the oath, by his afterward assigniag such property in good faith, in payment of bona tide debts." sst 4rs. ..sE.. -f.sr Under this state of the law, Knox again applied for the oath, and the matter came before the same Court of Review to see if there had been a,,y change in the circumstances since the former de- crsion. It was eminently the proper court to try this issue, because it knew the former facts and decision. At this second court, the former de- cision was put in as evidence by the creditor, and no euidence aohateuer was put in by Knox. He did not even offer himself as witness. Did the Court do wrong in affirming it's own decision? Again Knox appeared to justice for the oath and was refused. Then he appealed to Judge Loomis as Court of Review with no better success Then he applied to his oacn counsel as justice and had the oath administered. The creditor again ap- pealed to the first Court of Review to see if there had been any change in the circumstances of this ftGudulent debtor since their first decision. They knew their first decision, and the grounds of it. The creditor was represented by Mir. Webster of Waterbury, and Knox was represented by two counsellors. After the first decision, nothing could legally be in issue but the question of whether Know had purged has Jraud or not. This purging of his fraud, he neither at this meeting, nor at any other, has ever attempted to prove Neither he nor his counsel has ever claimed that Knox has restored one cent of property which he nad IraudulentIy conveyed away, to any creditor His sole claim, first las and always has been that he has not noao any attaeha6le property He has never claimed any legal change in 'shis csrcun.- stamces." Through all these proceedings he has been possessed, as tenant by the curtesy, of pro- perty standing in the name of his wife, amount ing to $1 ,500, or more. No change, therefore in the circustances of Knox having been either al- legged or proved before the third Court of Review, held by Messrs. Minor and sperTy they had no alternative but to affirm their first decision and in so doing they did but over-rule the decision of Knox's own counsel. No honest and intelligent I 51 n. Tl s- 1.- T