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

committed, in my presence and in the
presence of others, repeatedly stated
that the charge was untrue"
Hinckley fled the State, and Terrill
made the following affidavit for the
purpose Of securing q warrant for
Hinckley's arrest, viz:
STATE OF OHIO, LoRAN COUNTY, IS:
Before me. G. H. Doolittle, person.
ally came James S. Terrill, who, being
duly sworn according to law, deposeth
and saith, that on or 9 about the 10th
day Of April, A. d. 1882, at the County
of Lorain, one Dexter L. Hinckley,
being then and there a male person
over the age Of twenty-one, to-wit, OF
the age Of forty years, the said Dexter
L. Hinckley, being then and there a
teacher in public school at Iidgeville
township, Lorain county, Ohio, unlaw-
fully, purposely, willfully and feloni-
lousy, during the term Of the engage
ment Of him, the said Dexter L. Hinck-
Icy as such teacher of said public
school aforesaid, did seduce Jeanette
Terrill, the said Jeanette Terrill be-
ing then and there female under the
instruction of him, the said Dexter L.
Hinckley, in said public school, as he,
the said Dexter L. Hinckley, then and
there well knew, contrary to the form
OF the statute in such cases made and
provided, and against the peace and
dignity OF the State of Ohio.
(Signcd.) JAMES S. TERRnL.
Sworn to and subscribed before me,
this 18th day Of June, A. d. 1882.
(Signed.) c. H. DooLrrTLE,
Justice of the Peace.
Remembering that the foregoing af-
fdavit was made only six days after
the charge Of seduction was first made.
and further, that the only evidence in
the world that Terrill had as q basis
for said affidavit was the confession Of
his daughter, 1t at once becomes en-
tlrely clear that Terrill either swore
falsely in his affidavit in "a Fair Hear
ing" stating that his daughter denied
the charge for TEN DAYS after 1t was
made, or he made the foregoing affi-
davit without any knowledge whatever
Of the statements therein contained.
The parties who are relying upon Ter
rill's testimony to impeach Mr.. Web.
ber can take whichever horn Of the
dilemma they choose. In view Of the
fact, however, that the girl in her tes.
timony before the justice at the exam
ination Of Hinckley, sustained the
charge made in the above affidavit, il
is fair to conclude that the false swear
ing was done in the affidavit published
in "a Fair Hearing" An affidavit, in
addition to the one above quoted, was
required by the Governor Of the Stat,
before requisition could be given fol
the return Of Terrill to Ohio, and the
nature Of it will be readily seen by the
following quotation from the SeSsi OF
Laws of Ohio Of 1881. We quote
"And he may, on application, appoint
an agent to demand from the executive
authority Of any other State or Terri
tory any person charged with felon,
who has fed from the justice of thi
State; but such demand or application
must be accompanied by sworn evi
dence that the party charged is fugi
tive from justice, and that the demand
or application is made in good faith
for the punishment of crime, ant
not for the purpose Of collecting a deb
or pecuniary mulct, or of removing thu
alleged fugitive to a foreign jurisdic
ton with view there TO serve him will
civil process" ..
| [See Session Laws Of Ohio for 1881
page 40, Senate Bill No. 1851
A requisition was secured on th'
strength of such an affidavit as is abov,
described. Hinckley was brought Il
Ohio and bound over on the strength o
Miss Terrill testimony. A bond to th,
amount Of one thousand dollars wa
given for Hinckley's appearance at tn,
next term OF court. Hinckley's attor
ney's, L. G. johnson and George P
Metcalf, became his bondSmen, an,
took as their security note belonging
to Mrs. Hinckley for one thousand dol
lars, secured by real estate mort
gage. '.'
Thus far Mr.. Terrill played the rol,
Of the righteouSly indignantfather wit
apparent heartiness and consistency
That part Of his affidavit required b,
Jaw, as above quoted, "and that th
demand or application is made in goo,
faith for the punishment Of crime" at
solutely required that he push the cas-
to a trial. Did he do sop Not at all
The next thing we hear Of Terrill he
negotiating for settlement, Settlemen
Of whatP Terrill states in hi
affidavit in "a Fair Hearing,
'"there was no proposition from MI
Metoah or Mr.. Webber or anyone els
that the criminal case should b
settled. On the contrary, 1t was dii
tinctly understood that II should ne
be- What then, was TO be settled
In his oath above referred 70, made Il
the purpose Of securing requisitioI