Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1879-05-18
TO SETTLE AN UNPLEASANT CUES
TON.

Orusby by Mrs Emma Douglas while labor
ing under fit of uncomfortable passion on
malice, and her subsequent, trial before the
proper tribunal for her misdeed, Ill which
case Mr. John T. Pantllnd, the proprietor OF
the Orlnsby, was the prosecuting witness, has
uccasioned much comment in good society III
this city, of which Mr.. Pantlind has, since
his ARRIVAL here, been a prominent, popu-
lar and active member. Daring the above
named trial the defendant testified to the
most outrageous conduct toward her, on the
part of Mr.. Pantlind while she was employed
in his hotel chambermaid; but the evidence
was not corrobOrated by any other witness,
nor was Mr.. Pantlind permitted to testify in
his own behalf after the damaging testimony
| against him had been adduced. Under such
circumstances 1t is perfectly natural that those
who know nothing more about the true in
wardness of the case should ceusure Mr. Pant
| lind; however, since there are two sides to all
questions, and as Mr.. Pantlind was not given
IN opportunity 10 prescnf hi, SIDE IN coHrt,
the NJ ,t;EI<G hrrnAi. "i,i do !. Gur Elsa. !'hr
:tcts 3;c.l ~. p~>:.l->l II '''as s.,r rnolt
| not given pno.ic.7lr4 .,r ttvpritl~.n or any
.ring Of that kind, bat merely to to throw
II 5ht upon an entirely misunderstood matter.
1t is not the purpose of the MpRNIHG APPEAL
to decry or to do an i'll jury to an unfortunate
woman, who has our sympathy because she IS
unfortunate, but it also is not right that Mr..
Pantlind should be left at the mercy of mercl-
less gosslpers, who for envy or other cause wish
to drag his name and character in the dirt A
reporter mas made thorough inquiries respect
ting the merits of this case with the view to
setting the matter right before the public
and not with the intention of shielding
either Mrs. Douglas or Mr.. Pantlind
1t is unfortunately the way of this unchart-
able world, 90 where you will, to prefer &C
cepting as fact all reports that are discredit |
able rather than the contrary about any one. |
How easily are the true nature and |
character perverted of one who is superior in |
one walk of life or other. The following |
facts i'll the foregoing case have been cleaned |
from parties whose veracity is unimpeachable,
and who have no other motives than the
of honorable natures to reveal
" nat they know: Mrs. Douglas came to the
Ormsby House November last, from Bishop
Whitaker Seminary at Reno, when Mr.. Pant
lind introduced her to the other members of
Quoted herself in a very proper manner
About that time she went to Virginia. where
she remained several days, and when she re-
turned it was not in a sober condition. From
that time on she was continuously under the
influence of liquor to lesser OF greater extent.
The other servants of the house were COM
PEELED to do her work the greater part of the
time, which at last grew to be an imposition
upon them and they SO declared themselves
20 Mr.. Pantlind. 1t appears that Mrs.
Douglas was so addicted to strong drink at
hat time that it was an absolute impossbility
or her to abstain from the of it, and in
consequence Mr.. Pantlind was necessitated to
discharge her. Since that time MIR Pantlind
las been haunted by Mrs. Douglas. The I
emale servants of the hotel assert that at no T
ime during Mrs. Douglas sojourn in the G
louise was there any criminal intimacy be-
ween Mr.. Pantlind and her, for, if there had {
,een, they would certainly have known it; a
esides they say that Mr. Pantlind has always
reated his female help with the profoundest e
aspect, and never taken any liberties with h
hem of whatever nature, let alone making u
he advances, and subsequent conduct his "
art Of which he is accused by his prosecutor fl
'hese facts are, as has been stated in this a
rticla, uninpeachable. 1t is evidently case il
black mail against an innocent man, who o
t the present moment is undoubtedly con lie
emned by some who are never willing to
eigh both sides of a question, but prepared Ie
accept the blacklist side as gospel truth. D
What strengthens the impression that this is Fl
blackmail case, is the following version N
,specting some of Mrs. Douglas doings dur n
lg her residence at Silver City, which has &C
cen made public by truthful and highly ia
spectacle gentleman of this city, whose
anne it is unnecessary to mention In coRnec- h,
On with tAls' out "hich can De had II NJ
.oper occasion for giving it publicity should Of
'esent itself: She lived there for some time n
i'd got into little difficulty with a merchant or
that place, and began to inaugurate sys- -
M OF blackmail against him; but with what
ccess is not stated. Now, if woman will
such thing in one instance, why will she be
u do It ia anOtherl The proposition resolves A.