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

u
criminal case and in no other. Never
heard civil suit against my husband
mentioned, either for slander, seduc-
ton or damages, at any time
until | read such statement in
Mr.. f. e. Johnson's "The Truth
Stated" recently published in Ohio.
never heard or suspected that Miss
Terrill had retracted or would retract
her testimony against my husband. On
the contrary, fully believed that if the
case came to trial Miss Terrill would
repeat in Court the testimony she gave
before the Justice.
] was advised by our counsel, and
fully believed, that in case OF trial Of
the case my husband was in great dan
ger of conviction and therefore of be-
ing sent to tho penitentiary, and be-
cause of this fear, and for this reason
alone, 1 consented to part with the
$1,000, which so nearly impoverished
us that when our expenses grow
ing out Of this matter were paid,
and by the time my husband
could get employment, all our
property in the world, outside Of
household furniture, was exhausted.
will further state that | have no
knowledge that Mr.. A. X. Webber was
ever employed to assist in defending
my husband in the case herein referred
to. On the contrary, l am confident
that he never was so employed. Mr..
Weber never participated in any con-
sultation / had with our attorneys In
the case, and never knew of his par
ticipating in any interview or consul
tation concerning the settlement of said
case, or of having anything whatso.
ever to do with the case after Mr..
Hinckley's examination before the
Justice.
TSigned] RHoDA w. HNcKLEY.
Subscribed and sworn to before me,
Notary Public within and for Sulli.
van County, Missouri. Given under
my hand and official seal at my Office,
in Milan, Missouri, on this oath day Of
September, 1884. My term as Notary
Public will expire March S0th, 1887.
Signedl OWEN WILSON, N. P.
This affidavit is conclusive, so far as
ths nature of the settlement of the
Hinckley case is concerned, and bears
strong testimony on other important
points in the controversy. 1t Is docu-
ment that will place Mr.. E. G. johnson
in very unenviable position to say the
least.
Perhaps we should state right here
that Mr.. Hinckley is employed in profit
able and important business engage
ments far from home; that Mr.. Hinck-
ley had not seen his wife for many
weeks when she made the foregoing
affidavit and that Mr.. Hinckley had no
knowledge whatever that she contem-
plated making any affidavit or state
ment relative TO the matter. We have
taken no little pains to ascertain the
character and standing Of Mrs. Hinck-
ley and we now state explicitly that they
are above reproach in every respect.
No one who enjoys her acquaintance
will dare assail her character or her in
tegrity. The attorneys in the case must,
and the public will, accept every state
ment in her affidavit as absolutely true,
but as Mrs. Hinckley is not we'll
known except In few townships in the
county we give place in another col.
umn to some testimonials which sshOw
the regard in which she is held by old
friends and neighbors whose long &C.
quaintance with her gives TO their testi-
mony the greatest weight.
MR.. METCALF's POSITION
was that his client was in danger Of
going to States prison; that the at
tempt to find evidence to break down
the prosecution had failed, and that
when the proposition was made for o
settlement Of the criminal case by the
payment Of the costs, together with five
hundred dollars to Mr.. Terril and one
hundred dollars TO Mr.. Nye, he felt
compelled to advise him to accept with.
ont hesitation and without haggling.
The prosecutors consent was necessary
to the salvation Of his client. That
consent could be had, so far as he knew,
only upon the terms above mentioned.
He was receiving large fee for the
defense Of his client, to stand
between him and conviction. His
mind was occupied with devising
means for his clients protection,
q man whom we say, without his
authority, but with abundant evidence,
that George Metcalf knew to be guilty
technically Of the crime with which he
was charged, though the facts and cir
cumstances were such as TO greatly pal
late his offence. A bridge was offered
upon which he could safely send Mr..
Hinckley from the criminal dock TO his
family. He felt that his duty as faith
full attorney to his client demanded thai
he avail himself of the opportunity thus
afforded.
+. @. JoHNsoN's VERSION.
But how stands the case according
TO the version OF T. G.. Johnsonf
He says that he supposed that his
client was really innocent; that nc
crime had been committed; thai
the case had wholly broken down,
had fallen to pieces; that it was well
understood by all concerned In the dc.
fense that there was no danger of q
conviction. Then, why did he allot
Mrs. Hinckley's money to be squan.
deredP Why did he consent to pay
hundreds of dollars of costs that could
never have been adjudged against Mr..
HinokleyP Why did he allow Mrs.
Hinckley TO impoverish herself that the
man and the woman who had falsely
sworn that her husband had been guilty
OF the crime Of seducing a pupil might