Semi-weekly interior journal. [volume] (Stanford, Ky.) 1881-1905, 1882-12-19

ing to the said sdgall and his wife,
respectively, were feloniousIy taken,
stolen and carried away. 90 and
that he had cause 10 suspect that the
shirt snd-dolman-were concealed in
David Everhart's house. Thereupon,
the Squire proceeded to issue what he
called "Sarch Warrant, " being quite
lengthy and solsmnly-worded writ,
reciting In indignant tones the devil.
ment suspected TO have been done. and
commanding Joseph Laswell, Consta.
BILE, Ito enter the dwelling Of Ever
hart in the daytime and thare diligent-
" sureh for the aforesaid shirt and
dolman-and II the same or any part
thereof should he found, to bring the
same and the Bodys Of said David and
Csty" before the Squire 10 be dealt
with, NC. How this writ was obeyed
is plainly indicated by the Constable's
return endorsed upon IL in these words;
Executed and returned by me on
the 30th day Of June, 1907, and found
in the clearinghouse Of David Ever
hart a small garment, claimed by the
said Stigall and his wife to be part
Of the said Stigalls wifs's shih.'
An examining trial was then had
before the Squire, which resulted in
q judgment by him "that the oflense
whare0iA they stand charged ought IN
be examined into by q court for the
examination Of the fact" &c. that
is, he sent them on for further trial,
a. We express IL.
In this case the evidence was taken
down in writing. a. is done now-a-
days at examining trials, and 10 ap-
pears upon one Of the papers, consist
ing Of the statements OF Stigall, his
wife and John Carter. The Stigslls
simply say, "the small garment is
their own right and property, which
was a part of said StigAll's wiSss
shift
Carriers statement is, that he saw
Everhart's wife, the Winter before,
buy three yards Of cotton cloth and
saw her cut out for Eyerhart one shirt
out OF il, and there was some left; and
that on the goth day Of June. the day
Of the alleged theft,) he saw Csiy
come from Stigall's and saw her have
nothing with her "ba a pigeon Of It,
tus."
These statements, and these alone,
seem to be the evidence upon which
the Squire based his edict depriving
these citizens, for time at least, of
their liberty. We can understand how |
Mrs. Stigall might have recognized I
the dolman itself, IL found, but how
she could identity it after il had as
sumed the form Of n small garment.
in view Of the sameness of appearance
Of cotton cloth the world over, is raih. |
err mysterious. She assuredly must
have had a keen eye for dry goods and /
q long and intimate scluaintanceship
with the dolman.
As TO Carriers testimony, il isn't 1
possible that he could have mistaken /
the stolen garments for n pigeon Of /
lettus;" aud besides that, his testimo
ny fully established the creditable fact !
that the Everharts didn't steal all the !
cotton cloth they ever had, for he saw 4
them buy three yards, with his own
eyes.
/ have made diligent sarch for fur.
Their proceedings in this celebrated case
finding any; hence | conclude
that the higher Court thought, as I
DO, that Squire Smith. in his anxiety
10 maintain the rights and dignity of
The Commonwealth. let bis zeal get
away with his discretion.
Yours afiectionately. j. b.
STANFORD. December, 1882. io1