The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1893-03-10
w. C. JONES ARRESTED.
On a RequisiIiOn From Gov. Flower,
OF New York.
He Defeats the scheme to Hurr Him
of to New York.

P. M. Parker, Deputy Sheriff, of
Chsutsuqua County, N. Y, OH last
Saturday, the l4th Instant, arrested
w. G. Jones at the Cotton Factory in
this city, on requisitiOn from the
Governor of New York. The requisi-
ton was based on an Indictment by
the grand jury of Cnautauqua
County, n. Y, procured through the
allegation Of Daniel ana Michael
Toomey, Of that county, that they
had been defrauded by Jones in u
horse trade. The charge, under the
laws OF New York, is grand larceny.
The affidavit recites that on October
"a, 1890, Jones bought Of the ToOme ~
the following horses: Clara Doug
lSss, $780, Edith Shaw, $l75; Wild
Flower, $500; Lorene, 500; Fannie,
$500; NOOby and colt, $425; Kittie
Carter and colt, $500; Topsy, $500;
Brownie, $500; Ida Paul, $500; Q Iar-
termaster, $1,000; Balmont Wilkes,
$1,000, and one sulky, 500.
In payment Tor tuis property Jones
executed his noe Tor 81 500 aud
transferred to tue Toomeys 81 600
worth Of stuck IN the Laurel Hill
Manufacturing Company, situated
in LAWRENCE County. The note for
$4,000 has been siuce paid,
The TOom,ys charge that Jones
gave them certificate, stating that
The Cotton Mill stock was valuable,
paying 10 10 per cent. dividends
and that the property was free from
debt, aud the controlling interest was
owned by himself.
AS soon az possible, after his arrest,
Mr.. Jones consulted his attorney,
Mr.. r. H. Hatcher, who went at once
to Nashville aud petitiOned Judge
Anderson for writ OF habeas corpus,
which was granted. This writ was
placed in the hands OF Deputy Sher-
if Consadine, of NSshvill", who ST
once came down to Columbia and Ia
company with Sheriff Ragsdale, of
Maury County, drove out 70 the resi-.
dence of Mr.. Jones and, awaking
Mr.. Parker, demanded that Mr..
Jones be surrendered 20 him. On
being satisfied of the legality of the
proceedings Mr.. Parker did 80. The
writ Of habeas corpus was made re-
turnable before Judge Anderson at
8 o'clock p. M, Wednesday, the Sth
instant. In the meantime Mr.. Jones
gave bond for $4,000, for his appear
ance.
AT the appointed hour the case
was called and Mr.. Jones was present
with his attorneys G. T, Hughes and
E. H. Hatcher, Hughes d Hatchery
of Columbia, S. +. Wilson, of Gala
tin, Spared Hill and w. l.. Gran
berry, of Nashville r. w. Carmack,
Of Memphis, and w, J. Webster, OF
Columbia. The prosecution was
represented by w. H. Washington
Pulaski NJ Psrker, the under Sheriff
of Chautauqua County, New York,
who came after Jones, was also on
hand. .
The argument began about o'clock
and continued until shout o'clock
in the evening, being confirmed
chiefly to the affidavit of the defend
ant for a continuance. About 6
O'Clock Judge Anderson said that he
would be ready to decide the case, he
thought, at 2 p. M, Thursday, and
asked the counsel who had not
finished arguments to submit briefs
to him in the meantime.
The affidavit Of Mr.. Jones was as
follows:
l. He expects to show that the
papers upon which the Governors
warrant was issued are irregular on
their face and insufficient to hold
petitioner; and also by competent
evidence that the Indictment against
him procured in Chatauqua County,
State of New York, upon which a
Teguisition was issued by the Govern
or of said State to the Governor of
Tennessee, and on which the Gov
ernor of this state issued his warrant
for the arrest OF sfliant was procured
by fAlsehood and by direct fraud up
on the court in said State Of New
York, preferring the same that what
he did constituted no crime, and that
his actions, doing aud representa-
tons forming the basis Of the charge
against him, If crime at all, which
is denied, was cOnsummated in
Tennessee and not in the State of
New York.
q That his action, conduct and
dealings constituting the alleged
crime imputed to affiant, were cou-
summaJed in Tennessee at the time
and not in the State of New York,
and that he never fled from the State
of New York to avoid Or escape the
Consequences or penalties of his said
action, conduct and dealings.
3. He expects to prove that this In
dictment againsJ hun in the State of
New York, the basis OF the requisi-
ton against sfliant and Of the warrant
under which he is sought to be held
was frauduenlty procured IN said
State and that the requisition upon
the Governor of Tennessee was fraud.
ulently procured from The Governor
of New YORK through the agency Of
the processes Of criminal law aIpli.
cable to the extradition of parlie:
from one State to another to coerce
affiant into the payment of money
in settlement of what his prosecutor
claims to be due him growing out u
their business dealings. In Other
words, this extradition proceeding
was fraudulently adopted to collect {
claimed debt or to force settlement
of disputed financial matters existing
between prosecutor and affiant.
4. He further afiirms that acting
under the advice Of his counsel hi
has an application pending before
the Governor Of Tennessee to have
him recall and revoke his warran
ordarinu the arrest Of atfiaut and di