Semi-weekly south Kentuckian. [volume] (Hopkinsville, Ky.) 1883-1889, 1885-03-17
GRAVE CHARGES.
A Lawyers Defense Before the
Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury in spirit of fun
preferred charges against Mr.. r. w.
Henry for cutting open the "Jack"
bag, of Jordan Taylor, the Casky
murderer, who killed his mistress af-
ter his "love powders and rabbit foot"
had failed to retain her affections.
Mr.. Henry was notified of their ac-
ton and submitted the following
defense:
TO The Honorable Grand Jury Of
Christian County, March Term
1885:
The undersigned, being informed
that charges of serious and solemn
nature are being preferred against
him before your honorable body,
begs leave to make this his defense:
Nothing extenuating nor setting
down aught in malice"
AS 10 the high crimes and INSIDE
meanors charged, he pleads mot
guilty" us to the larceny of the rab-
bits foot and says he did cut open
the magic jack but he did this with
out any felonious intent. From his
earliest infancy this petitioner has
been taught, by nurse, house-maids
and others versed in the mysteries
and powers of the black art, that the
left hind foot of a graveyard rabbit
had much power and virtue in it.
That any person possessed Of one of
these potent symbols might trans
gress the laws of both God and man
with impunity. Believing this to be
true and hearing that Jordan Taylor
had in his possession such shield
and protection yet was overtaken in
a fault, your petitioner was forced
to believe that the left hind foot of a
graveyard rabbit was no good, or
that Jordan did not have one, or
that Jordan had not been Overtaken
in his fault. Having prosecuted
Jordan III the lower court your petit
toner was convinced that he had
been overtaken and the only alterna-
tive left was to either lose confidence
in the protective power of a rabbits
foot or to prove that Jordan did not
have one. To this end and with no
other purpose than to vindicate the
left hind foot of a graveyard rabbit
in its ancient, undisputed claim TO
magic power, this petitioner opened
said jack. There was no rabbits
foot in it, neither fore nor hind foot.
Neither was there foot of a grave
yard rabbit nor Of a rabbit with a
more joyous place ofresidence. This
petitioner did not open said jack
with view of abstracting there
from any valuable, but only for the
purpose of investigation and with a
view TO scientific verifcation. Petit
toner is rejoiced with a great joy to
report to this Grand Jury and to all
who may be interested in the noble
science of sOrcery that Jordan Tay-
lor's detection is due to his not hav-
ing what he thought he had. If
there had been in the possession of
said Taylor the left hind foot of
graveyard rabbit, who can stand up
and say that he would have ever
confessed or have been detected 4?
Nay verify, we maintain that the ira
ditions of our fathers are not idle
nursery tales, nor should we lose
sight of the ghost stories we heard
in the chimney corner Of the olden
time. There is much wisdom in the
science of "Voudouism" and there is
knowledge to be gained from love
powders, may-apple root and mole's
ears.
Your petitioner humbly submits
that he should he not be in
dicted for larceny for he took moth
ing, that he should not be indicted
for breaking into enclosed premises,
since he did not break in with any
felonious intent, and he should not
be indicted for cutting a slack" for
the thing he cut was not jack as it
had in it no rabbits foot.
r. w. HENRY.