The Wellington enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 1867-188?, 1884-09-10


accused was committed while he and Miss
rerrill sustained the relation of teacher
pupil and hence that that there was ALSO
iutely no evidence upon which 10 arrest
Hinckley, except the testimony OF the
daughter. a,
And yet, Terrill IN his affidavit, pub
lished MA Fair Hearing" says, III IS
true my daughter tor ten days after II was
chdrged that the offense was committed,
in my presence and in the presence oil
others repeatedly stated that the charge
was untrue" -,
Hinckley fed the State, and Terrill
made the following affidavit for the pur-
pose OF securing warrant for Hinckley's
arrest, viz;
STATE OF ONO, LoRAIN COUNTY, ss;
Before me, G, II. Doolittle, personally
came James s. Terrill, who, being duly
sworn according to law, deposeth and
saith that on about the 10th day of April,
A. d. 1882, at the County Of Lorain, one
Dexter l.. Hinckley, being then and there
q male person over the age of twenty lone
to.wit, Of the age of forty years, the said
Dexter L. Hinckley, being then and there
a teacher in public school at Ridgeville
township, Lorain county, Ohio, unlaw.
fully, purposely, willfully and felonously,
during the term of the engagement ofhim,
the said Dexter L. Hinckley, as such
teacher OF said public school aiore
said, did seduce Jeanette Terrill,
the said Jeanette Terrill, being
then and there female under the instruc-
tion of him, the said Dexter L. Hinckley,
in said public school, as he, the said DcX-
ter L. Hinckley, then and there we'll knew,
contrary TO the form ofthe statute in such
cases made and provided, and against the
peace and dignity of the State oil Ohio.
(Signed1 JAMES s. TERRILL.
Sworn TO and subscribed before me,
this nth day of June, A. d. 1882.
(Signed G. II. DooLITTLE,
Justice Of the Peace.
Remembering that the foregoing affi-
davit 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 basis for said
affidavit was the confession of his daugh-
ter, 1t at once becomes entirely clear that
Terrill either swore falsely in his affidavit
in "a Fair Hearing" stating that his
daughter denied the charge for TEN DAYS
after il was made, or he made the forego-
ing affidavit without any knowledge what
yer of the truth of the statements therein
contained. The parties who are relying
upon Terrills testimony TO impeach Mr..
Weber can take whichever horn of the di.
lemma they choose. In view Of the fact,
however, that the girl in her testimony be.
fore the, Justice at the examination OF
Hinckley, sustained the charge made in the
above affidavit, ii is fair 10 conclude that
the false swearing was done in the affidavit
published in "A Fair Hearing" An affi-
davit, in addition to the one above quoted,
was required by the Governor Of the State
before requisition could be given Tor the
return of Terrill to Ohio, and the nature of
1t will be readily seen by the following quo.
tation from the Session Laws of Ohio Of
1881. We quote: "And he may, on appli-
cation appoint an agent to demand from
the executive authority Of any other State
or Territory any person charged with fel.
ony who has fed from the justice OF this
State; but such demand or application
must be accompanied by sworn evidence
that the party charged is a fugitive from
, Justice, and that the demand or application
is made in good faith, for the punishment OF
crime, and not for the purpose Of collect.
ing debt or pecuniary mulct, or ofremov.
ing the alleged fugitive to- foreign juris
diction with view there TO serve him with
civil process"
(See Session Laws of Ohio for 1881,
page ~, Senate Bill No. 26S.)
A requsitlon was secured on the
strength of such an affidavit as Is above
described. Hinckley was brought to
Ohio and bound over upon the strength
Of Miss Terrill's testimony. A bond to
the amount of one thousand dollars was
given for Hinckley's appearance at the
next term Of court. Hinckley's attor-
neys, z. G.. johnson and George p.
Metcalf, became his bondsmen, and
took as their security, a note belonging
to Mrs. Hinckley for one thousand dol
lars, secured by real estate mortgage.
Thus far Mr.. Terrill PLAYED the role
Of the righteously indignant father
with apparent heartiness and consis-
tency. That part of his affidavit re-
quirsd by law as above quoted, sand
that the de nand or application is made
in good faith for the punishment Of
crime," absolutely requird that he
push the case to trial. Did he do so ?
Not at all. The next thing we hear Of
Terrlll, he is negotiating for settlement.
Settlement Of whatp Terrill states in
his affidavit In "a Fair Hearing
"there was no proposition from Mr.
Metcalf or Mr.. Weber or anyone else
that the criminal case should be settled
On the contrary 1t was distinctly un-
derstood that it should not be-" What
then was to be settled? In his oath
above referred to, made for the purpose
of securing a requisition, the following
statement was necessarily made: "and
NOT for the purpose lof collecting deb
or PECUYIARY MULcT or of removing the
alleged fugitive TO foreign Jurisdiction
= with view THERE TO SERVE HIM WITH
CIVIL Process" Again we repeat, whaI
was to be settled2 As matter of fact
Terrill demanded one thousand dollars
and he says in ga Fair Hearing" 81
finally adjusted the matter so far as any