Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1879-07-30
The GeOrge.HuiG Difficulty.

NIulkt. WIZ @tiC III hlptlDtUH vi
Monday Oh charge Of hcirg about to engage
in duel, were examined before the Polio,
Court yesterday aud discharged, the iDvt s:iss-
ton showing that whatever had occurred BE-
tWecn The two parties had been fully and satis-
factorIiy explained before their arrest, and tho.
thoro was no probability OF breach Of The
peace.
Cspt. Wise, counsel for DR.. George, 1T the
examination, read the iooRines ta!emcut pre-
pared by his Client -
july 90, '79.-lla7iug been arr sad 90 the
charge OF intending to freak the peace, desire
to deny Gny snch Intention and make tho toll
loving brief statement: On tho l2.h Instant
met Mr.. Ould on the Street end demanded au
apology for offensive language used by him in
the case Of PlIohcr VS.. George. He expressed
his Willingness TO apologize and r,qua5tcd re to
state 10 writing the ,tf4n5ivo language. did
so, and delivered tho letter here flied.
The otter is the follnwns:
RICHMOND. July II, 1879.
Slr,--R :terrug 10 our interview of this
morulus, ct your request | herein repeat in
writing what " was tilct yor ioslnualed aud said
ia our two speeches Of plchcr rs. George that [
consider beIuus and loauItlnE TO ne and my
family. First, the lns!nusticD you made in your
speech on the second trial of said cause, viz:
that somo one Of my family 10 interest had de-
stroyed the will and valuable papers Of tho lato
William o. George. Secondly, in your speech
OF the third trial you said that If these de-
PENDANTS put the same construction Gs their
COUNSEL do upon certain letters that vero in
evidence tnat you branded lhou, as most in
tsmous. These two spec;ica,iocs | osist,
shGIl at least DO the basis OF your written spol,
osy 20 me, and Of vhat you say before Judge
tHzhugh scIurt at Its next session in the ri, h
dFa~al CT the objectionable language used by
you upon tho oeG45i0n alluded to.
Very truly. Ec..
a SpIGRs GEORGE.
VhiS vas delivered on first opportunity ia
persOuto Dir. Oud. | received the following
reply -
RICHMOND, Va July %. 1879.
4 Spirs Georgc:
Slr,-lour no,u of the l2,h instant was re-
ceived yesterday. | might, perhaps, take Just
exceptions to its tone, but with desire to cor
reot any miseppreheDson which may tXst |
refrain from doug so. Your first complaint is
that iDsinuated THAT some one Of my family
IN interest had destroyed the will and valuable
papers of tho late William o. George" I 70
ply that made no such charge or iusinua!on.
argued before the Jury to show that will and
| other papers had been destroyed, but so far
irom stating or lnslbuatlng that somn ono of
your family had destroyed them, expressly
Said that did not make the charge, and thst
the evidence would not justify lie in making it.
As TO tho second N ,ttor, there is olesriy q
pprehonSlon. L suppose you refer to tho
erased letter Ct WIN. o. George to Caroline,
in thn oil nj ST< ,,,L;,L
| the phrase. Il hopo there will be no more
before marriage | coute1ded that it could
! oDiy rcfEr 10 iuturo childreo Of Caroline, and
called upon tho opposite counsel to expl.in its
meaning. Mr. Jones c,ntcnded that it did not
roller to future Children Of Caroline, but was
playful aiu,lou TO Adelaide iu connection with
ether Children in tho house, by which, how
| ever, William D: George did not mean 10 state
! shat Adelaide ever ned any chidrou, or would
| have before marriage. conlcLded that this
Xrl%nats0n Vas nclthoT rational nor proper
| AID loSlasGd that tbs phrase referred TO fliurc
children 0! Car0na, though doubtless By way
vi banter. In ouu!nCntlng Oh this matter |
discussed my view, Mr.. mes view, and
third view, which 90 p0e had advanced OF SUI
gestcd. to wit, that the phrase meant that Ada
ialdc vas Impure aud Strumpot. | did dc.
bounce any such conclusion in strong larguagn,
10 The course OF Which ahluk | said that ii
tho Defendants in the suit had Instructed
c3uusc! to press eny such view whioh in fact
lad not hecn done they would have rendered
themselves iDiim,us by such course. Every
| body will sly thoIc was no evidence of impurity
| on the part OF Adelaide, end least OF all will
| any ore say that William q. Goorg, thought so
or Intended to say 50. Sc vas my client, aud it
was my duty 10 protect h:r against iVLry charge,
whether uttered or not. Standing UPON the
record as she did had tho right, Gag, it was
my duty, 10 say that II any person imputed ia
putty TO her they made theD. selves Infamous,
did not brand tho defendants as Infamous,
even IN the hypothetical form stated by you. |
oniy maintained that if serious charge of M
purity was made on the facts al tho; appeared
IN the css2, the authors @opid make themselves
lLtamous, DER do S C how Gnp one copld eif
Ter from m! or confess! my day tc icuoueco
ery s1c charge II il Should b. made. That nv
language ID the s'c'nd specification is incofr
| rect;y aIvna is made sill more manifest by the
Tact that II correctly reported it would be as o!
| fonslVo to the counse! ss 10 the defendants. 1t
| could hardly have boon so understood bv couu
sci. The CONSTRUCTION put upon the phrase
by o0uosei was not charge OF imuurity but
playful aliuson to tho chidreu OF others ia con.
uectlon with Adelaide. L. could not be that
l represented that any such constructor made
those IDtemCuie Hh1 sdVanc d it. II I made
Goy such statement, evan 10 the heat of debate.
would deeply regret it and take pleasure 10
relrscung 1t. L. is ny earnest desire never to
do rnjuslcc toapy one. sud wherever it is showu
that l have done s! no ono will DO pronpter TO
redress the wong than l.
Il s3ec'iully, RO OULD
Tie band 1t to me 10 person. To that |
replied as follows:
RICHMOND 10Th July, 10
Slr-iuur letter of the 22d instant, in reply to
mine OF the 18th, received last night containing
hypothetical apology, consider evssive and
unsatisfactory, and is not what you led me to
believe in our interview of the 18th inst would
be forthcoming in yonr promised written COM
municstion TO m Without desiring 70 canvass
the views Of counsel others as TO the matter at
issue between US, and disclsimlng all purpose in
this or my former letter 20 use lsngusge at which
you could rer onably take exception, l aspect
fully decline to enter Tito any discussion of the
suoect whether in writing or otherwise. l
therefore demand thst you will confirm to mo in
writing your promise made to me verbally at our
Interview to retrsct at the next term of the Chan.