The Wellington enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 1867-188?, 1884-10-08


prosecution, when you well knew that
meant nothing more than was act
ually done, viz: Agreed with Terrill
and the prosecutor to 60 no farther
with the criminal case; the fact that
YOU allowed a woman, who had en-
ployed you to protect her interests, to
take counsel of her fears and pay 81, ,00C
to settle case that she had no earthly
reason to dread; the letter from Mrs.
Hinckley, printed elsewhere, showing
that our statements with regard to the
settlement are true and that yours are
untrue; your lame attempt to prove that
Hinckley was guilty Of slander and lia-
BILE 10 civil suit in that he confessed,
when in the hands Of the mob, that
crime had been committed, when the
girl and her father at three different
times had made solemn oath to the same
facts; the reasoning you put into the
mouth Of Mrs. hinckley when you mako
her say: II have got $1,000, 1t is in
the hands Of the law; II this thing goes
on and is fought through l shall never
see any part Of it, and II it settled up I
can no more than lose it; it is gone
anyhow, and as the question simply is,
who shall have it, don't care what be-
comes Of it, so that / and my husband
can 90 home and get rid Of the whole
matter" which, in view OF the state
ments in her letter TO me and her af-
fidavit, both printed in another column,
is untrue; the statement that Mrs.
Hinckley "was informed and advised
by all her attorneys that by no posi-
bility could conviction be obtained"
was also untrue, for she says she never
heard such thing until she saw it in
your papers. All these and many other
points to save repetition l only hint at
in this letter, because they are dis
cussed at length in another article in
this issue.
That you may have no further ques-
tion about the identity Of the lawyer
who advised us as to the liability OF
Hinckley to arrest on a suit for
slander or for civil damages,
l will tell you that the abstract
question on which your question was
founded was submitted to Judge Boyn-
ton before it was published, and its cor
rections endorsed by him, and since the
issue Of your last paper the case as you
now present 1t, was submitted TO Judges
Boynton and Hale, and they again say
that in any Of the conditions stated,
Hinckley was not liable to service on
civil suit for any Of the offences named,
for tho reason that the requirements oi
the law and the oath taken TO procure
q requisition for his return from Mis-.
souri, made any such suit by Terrill
or his daughter illegal
l leave It for an intelligent public to
decide who is the 'ass-tute lawyer" in
this controversy.
You say "make fun OF the Terrills
as though their feelings or interests
were Of no account, and not to be
respected" and much more in the
same vein. Really, Mr.. johnson, you
seem 10 have very tender interest in
the family, one Of the members Of
which, according to your statements,
perjured herself In swearing that your
client had seduced her, and another
"under whose duress she was" com.
PEELED his daughter TO swear away her
virtue that he might bring Mr.. Hinck.
ley to Ohio in order TO levy black mail
upon him. We know which party paid
your fees, otherwise we might be in
doubt on which side OF the case you
were employed. We kept the name Of
this family from our columns until after
you exposed them by Terrill's affidavit
in "a Fair Hearing" 1t is not we who
have charged that the girl swore false.
ly, under the compulsion OF her father,
when she swore that Hinckley had
been guilty Of a crime; 1t Is not we
who make the father swear that he
compelled Hincklay to pay $500 to set
tie a proposed suit for SANDER after he
had made solemn oath that he did moi
desire Hinckley's arrest for the purpose
Of collecting pecuniary mulct or tc
serve him with civil process. II is you
who have paraded them before the pub.
lie in characters utterly inconsistent
with virtue and honor, and yet yor
have the cheek TO tell me that you
think twill have 10 account 10 then
for the reckless manner in which l have
dealt with the reputation Of an innocent
man and defenseless woman" Either
your client was guilty or else the repu
tation of the Terrills is past being dam
aged by any one. But you say you be
lieve your client was innocent. HinckleJ
and the Terrills can not both be limo
cent. Do you catch onp In the Ian
puape of the Democratic orator, an
moved TO exclaim: o, consistency
whore is thy jewell
That was q case OF stupendous fool
ing indeed, in which a man and wife
at least, were put to good deal Of in
convenience and needless distress, ant
their $1,000 was snapped around II
pay somebody for the joke, though
lawyers, clients and witnesses all, &C
cording TO your statements, were In
nocent and reputable people. 1t would
seem that your argument had reached
the lowest depths Of absurdity and any
man who will carefully analyze your
various statements and arguments and
see reason and consistency In then
must be something more or less thar
human. fI ..
There are a few other points in you
very suggestive letter, with referenc,
10 my personal relations 10 your ad
ministration Of the political affair
Of the county, that 1 shoul'
be glad 10 notice, but feal
that this letter has already exceeded
the limit Of your patience and will