Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1885-10-10

facts l cannot refrain from saying il exhibits
ont he part of some Of The members cf ,.p
Nj. +. Church in Manassas q most cxirao.i;.
nary attempt to ruin the character o uunwh5
had Delrlended them, and saved them !rr;s
loss, in the the very transaction thcy com
planned of.
The substance Of the testimony is as Fl.
lows:
Mr.. Baldwin was real estate agent $.
such he sold to Enos Newman property !,
Manassas. which was decided to his son ri.
win A. Newman, because of judgments
against Enos Newman. Both live in Wash.
ington.
Edwin A. Newman gave deed Of ,,n.,
on the property to secure the paym.G, -
his two notes for 1878 each. payable in tx
and twelve months, making Isaac p Bad
win trustee. Newman afterwards contract.
ed with the Misses Hazen, of Manassas, to
sell them part of the property, and to have
the deed ready for delivery on the Is. l"r
of June, 1885, or forfeit SO By the same
contract the Misses Hazen were 10 DAY : !0o
Oh the lst day of June, 1885, or forfeit -
The first note became due May 18Th aui
was not paid. Mr Baldwin was authorized
by the deed of trust to advertise and sell the
property and pay off both notes, in case Of
default in the payment of the first, and to
retain commission Of 3 per cent. OH the
whole. He did not do this however. ana
thereby relinquishcd the commission he was
entitled to, ana saved Newman the expense
of foreclosure
The deeds Of conveyance and Of release
were embodied in one instrument. and Mr..
Baldwin, as trustee, was necessarily a uartv
to it, the last one 10 execute it, and the ONLY
person authorized to deliver it and receive
the money until after tho note was paid
Mr.. Newman himself had no right 10 the
deed and could not deliver it until the net,
was paid, if he had been present. 4! rot
delivered by June lst Newman forfeited
$25. If $500 was not paid by June Ii n"
Misses Hazen forfeited $2j Tie testimony
of the deed of trust the contract and the
Misses Hazen, all prove these facts. Fur
thermore, Mr. Baldwin proved by four wit
nesses that Mr. Newman expected, and
had instructed him to deliver the deed,
receive the money and pay of tho claim
against the property he released, as was his
duty to do, with or without any instruction
other than the deed of trust. Mr. Baldwin
did so, and reported to Newman the same
day, accounting for every cent he received:
and received from Newman receipt in full
expressing his entire satisfaction; and i"r
doing which Mr. Newman has since v0un
tarily offered Mr.. Baldwin money.
Miss Nellie HaZen testified that Mr.. Bald.
win saved her the loss of $25 by receiving
the money then, which she would othcrwisc
have forfeited.
And when it is remembered that not one
word OF evidence was adduced TO prove the
third specification, by which it fell by de
fault and that none of the others are prov
ed by the prosecution, but are, by the Be
fendant, all proved TO be absolutely FALSE,
! the assertion of the committee that if Nr
Baldwn's protest had been admitted asevi
dence their verdict would have Decn guilty
-"charge and specifications fully sustained
by the evidence"-can only excite astoni-h
ment and pity, mingled with contempt.
That any gentlemans character should be
| placed in jeopardy by the ignorance and
pre- udce of such creatures is truly mis-
| fortune.
1t is but just to say that such men arc not
fit to sit in judgment upon the actions OF
any man.
The plea of the committee that the omis-
| sion of the prosecution to introduce Il cOI,T
| of the protest" as evidence until too hate,
and that because of its suppression allen"
was the verdict reached, is too absurd ;adr.
serve serious consideration. For fthcy had
the right to acquit they had the right 10
convict because the right to acguit Noes.
sarily carries with it the right to condemn.
1t would really seem that the omission OF
the prosecution to insert the ''protest" r
the record, and prove that Mr.. Baldwin
wrote it, was Intentional on their part, it
cause its admission as evidence would open
the door to an investigation Of Mr.. Bald
wi Ia nbo
they evidently desired to prevent, rs they
did at Waterford,
For the purpose of showing the rcc'c.s
and unjust manner in which charges are
fabricated against Mr.. Baldwin, from ignu.
rance, envy, or malice, will here refer TO
question which was asked him on The
trial by one of the counsel, and his answer
Question. did you at any time or place,
by tongue or pen, assert that the committee
appointed by Bishop Warren to inquire into
the charges preferred by you against Rev
h. II. Vaughan dismissed the charges with
out an investigation, knowing such sla'"-
ment to be misleading and falsc?'
To which Mr.. Baldwin answered: II
never did," as Mr. Baldwin knew that The
committee did dismiss his charges against
Mr.. Vaughan without an investigation. and
that his statement of the fact in the protest
was not misleading and false, but true, his
answer was true also, as the testimony given
In the case clearly shows. And yet, strange
as it may appear this answer of lir. Bald.
win was construed and is reported by some
of his enemies in Manassas as a positive de-
NAL that he was the author Of the Lay
mans Protest" For q less offence than
circulating such q report olr. Baldwin was
charged with lying. But it is as useless to
reason with ignorance, envy and prejudice
as it would be to read the riot act to a bur
ricane. To such as are thus unfortunately
afflicted this review is not addressed hut TO
sensible and just men. Mr.. Baldwin has
never at any time or place denied being the
author of the protest" He Is the author,
and is prepared TO prove the allegations il
contains, and, more, if these noble minis.
tiers will give him an opportunity. All the
verbiage Of the committee about the start
ling disclosure that Mr.. B. is the author of
the protest is hypocritical clap.trap end
twaddle.
With regard to the technicality dodge,