Mexico weekly ledger., 1877-08-16
THE B~RANsFETTER CASE.

The LouistaIaa Press seems to be
troubled about a passing statement we
made a week ago as to the then status
OF this somewhat notorious case, and
in its last issue it intimates that we
unjustly criticised Judge Fagg and
his connection Herewith.
There is nothing of the sort to be
found in any words of ours; o had
we any sueh purpose in view. The
point We undertook to make. was, that
rs one of our exchanges alleged, Judge
Forrist was discharged from the case,
and, as il seemed from what we saw
i'll the papers chat come to our table,
that there was some feeling be-
tween the B~ranstetters and Judge
Forrist, that there vas not quite that
credit given to him in the case that he
was entitled to under the circnnstan-
ces; a matter for which, we know, he
cares nothing, nor DO the other gen
tlemen connected with him in the
case. But now the Press, in its last
issue, answers back in this language /:
ITO put it mildly, Judge Forrist got
$500 for putting Branstetter into the
penitentiary, while Judge Fagg, only
got about $3.50 for getting him out OF
the penitentiary."
Certainly this is complimentary.
How docs the Press know that, so
much? The fact is, Branstetter, day
after day, and day after day: was de-
Tended before the magistrate in this
city last winter, not by Judge Forrist
only, but associated with him was
Messrs. McFarlane 4 Trimble, also
of this city. These gentlemen de-
Tended him in the circuit court; they
made and argued the motion for
new trial; they made the bill OF en-
ceptions they made an elaborate
printed argument. The opinion o
the supreme court, already published
in some of the papers, shows that TIN
case was argued ONLY on points mad'
and argued by them, and upon TIN
authorities furnished ly them. Ate
the reversal of the Judgment, the rec
ord shows that Judge Forrist went t.
Jefferson City and sued ont Il writ o
habeas corpus and took Branstette
tout of tile pen" had him brough
to Mexico. and in Mexico sued on
another writ and had Branstette
hailed out Of the custody OF our sher
if and discharged. The files in tin
clerks office show that as fees am
! costs in the case. Judge Forrist pai'
| S35; and il is to I've seen by our files
. that Judge Forrist and either MI
Trinil4e or Judge McFarlanc wit
h,n. attended twice or three times tn
assignment for trial Of the case &
Jefferson City; and yet the Pres
ciaims that only about 500 in all b
) Branstettcr has been paid for all thl
, service and expenditures and think
that Judge Fa"g must have stood lik
adMuant in the way of Branstettcr'
serving out his term of siNty-thre
years. to which Judge FCrrist SUI
: cceded i'll having inflicted upon hin
We do not wish to be understood :
: intimating that Judge Fagg did h'
4 do himself great credit and will su
= tain his high reputation, rs Il jurist
the case. for this Is conceded by all
u and by none more cordially than II
lawyers connected With him, III II
: case, who always speak in the highe
q tcrms of his efforts nut what We 1t
undertake To Ito. and still think rigI
J 10 hc done is. that while due cred
! he giycn 10 Judge Fagg, ISJesTI'
{ should not be done To the other alto
news in the ease. either rs to tllei: Sc
VICES or their compensation.
: Certainly, il '.about 500" for tS
= such law firms 10 Judge Forrist III
McFauianr 4 Trimhlr is high con
peusatiun. i'll Il murder csre lastii
= tourt-an alpcal-a iifl, OF exec
/, tions-aml An elaborate printed arg
Il mcnt in The Supreme Court and Il /
vcrsal Of the sentence upon roiN
" MADE in that argument. and two WI
Il of Lal,cas corpus aud discharge oft
r. defendant on hail is high compens
" ton. even M $50 for AN oral arr
- ment of IN hour would seem 10 us,
disproportionatc charge. But
know nothing of what is charged
. either counsel. nor do we care, the on
y point we aim at *, that justice sh
he done all parties.