Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-02-01


fore spoken of, testified that he was a
practicing lawyer in Tennessee, and tina,
he was well acquainted with Mrs. Far
mer, whom he recognized in the court
room- Witness was shown the power OF
attorney purporting TO have been exc
cuted and ACKNOWLEDGED before him, and
he swore positively to the identity and
authenticity of the psper. It was dated
Oct. 9, 1869, and was full and un.
conditional power of attorney to Mr.. B.
to sign her name, and draw her money
from the Government. ] read the paper
to her, and she executed it in the pre-
sence of Nathan Farmer and wife, Jas.
Smith, Calvin Gilbert, and R. 81. Butler.
Witness was positive in his identiflcatiSn
of Mrs. Farmer as the woman who exc
cuted the power of attorney.
The witnesses TO its execution and &C
knowledgment above named each sever =
orally testified in corroboration OF Dom
nelly's statement; and, IN addition, Mr..
Buffers books of account wereintroduced,
from which it appeared that the prosecu-
trix made from time to time heavy pur-
chases at his store, the bill for one day
exceeding 800, and the checks upon
which Mrs. B. had drawn money had
been credited to Der. 1t appeared in evil
dence that he had charged her no interest
on money or goods advanced, or compen-
sation for his services.
The testimony of the defence became
cumulative and corroborative, and the
court asked if there was any good reason
for continuing 1t.
Mr.. Davidge stated that he was waiting
for suggestion from the counsel for the
Government beforesuspending the further
examination of his witnesses.
Judge Fisher remarked that, in view of
this strong evidence in contradiction Of
Mrs Farmer, who stood alone in her tes-
timony, and coming as 1t does from so
respectable and intelligent an array of
witnesses. he felt obliged to abandon the
first Indictment; whereupon Mr.. Dsvidge
suggested conference with the counsel
and witnesses, from which the prosecu-
ton might determine the expediency of
taking up the case of Mrs. Msddron. A
half hour was allotted for this purpose,
and when they returned in court Judge
Fisher remarked that he felt satisfied
from the statements of these witnesses
that Mrs. Msddron gave Mr.. B. full YER
bal authority to sign for her and collect
the money on her pension certificate, and
that she had received all that was due
her. He had no doubt that these facts
would be conclusively established by the
proof, and he consented to the entry of
q 7soLle pros. in that indictment.
Judge Wylie in dismissiug the case
said:
1t affords me great pleasure TO state
thai in this case there has been no shadow
of reflection upon the conduct or charac-
ter of the defendsn, in a legal sense or
otherwise. No blame, however, attaches
to the grand jury who found these bills,
nor to the District attorney, as it was the
duty of both to act as they did in respect
of the only evidence which came to their
knowledge. But ! must say that it is in
excusable that such prosecutions as these
should be set on foot by the department
of the Government, which possess the
fullest information, or at least the means
of obtaining it. Such prosecutions in
nowise tend to the public interest
and are always a serious damage
to the party accused until an opportunity
of vindication is afforded. In this case
the arraignment of Mr.. Butler is wholly
inexcussble, from the fact that the Pen
sion Office had before it the power of at
torney, sttested by witnesses, and the full
lest opportunity of ascertaining from
them the authenticity of the authority
contained in the power. The instrument
was witnessed, and the true state of facts
could have been ascertained without its
costing the Government single cent.
The Court ordered the travelling ex-
penses and the attendance fees of the
witnesses paid by the Government