Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-04-19
SLAUsOf GEES FREE.
Judge Hughes, In an interesting Opinion,
Discharges Him from Custody.
NO REASON no SUSPECT FRAUD.
rbss. tho Court says, was an After
sbought ON the Part of Funncii,
who seemed Anxious to Get siau-
son and Family Rack TO Tennessee.

George w. Sleuson. who was arrested
upon requIsitlon papers issued by the
Governor Of Tennessee. and honored by
tho Executive OF this State.
1t will be remembered that Siausoh
was charged with fraudulent appropria-
ton Of money" belonging to c. q. Fun
nell who caused the former TO be ar
rested and lodged in the Petersburg jan
last Tuesday. The accused the same
night sent his petition to Judge Hughes
praying COR writ of habeas corpus
which WA granted. and on the following
day argument in the case was heard IN
tho Uni;ed States District Court. Judge
Hughes Withheld his opinion until yes
terday, when It was delivered, and ac-
cording to Ut, slauson was declared dis
charged fron rustody. He had been re-
leased last Wednesday on HIS own recog-
nizance. and yesterday morning when
the case cam, sp he was promptly on
hand.
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
The history o tie case given in the
opinion. with Jsdee Hughes's decision,
Is as follows: ''Slassoa shows that his
Indebtedness in tennessee is a balance
OF SS2S.e9. which kthe result OF dealings
there with Gerald N Funnel, during the
year 1885. under contact mutually agreed
upon by both. TheA business was not
successful. and towafs the close OF the
year. 1t was found Vat Slauson would
have to leave Tennetee and come 10
the East TO recuperateAis finances. This
recourse was talked Yer and agreed
upon between Slauson al Cecil G.. Fun.
nell. the person who is low prosecuting
him. Slsuson and Gend NJ. Funnel
had been engaged in To business of
soliciting assurances. The San was. that
Slauson. on coming East Us first to ga
20 Baltimore to consult the with Mr..
Breeze. q well-known and veg prominent
man In the business OF in&ance, and
that Slauson's after movemtt is should
be governed by The result D his visit
10 Baltimore. Cecil G. Funnel not only
advised and counselled Slauson to come
20 the East from Tennessee. 1it gave
him pecuniary air for making hisvisit TO
Baltimore.
AS 10 the pecuniary debt left bytSauson
in Tennessee. &c was made up Of items
set out In a bill Of particulars ilti by
G. G. Funnel in a suit Instituted byhim
against Slauson, in the Hastings Cprt
OF Petersburg, on the 10th of Marh,
just past. The notice or declaration
the case claims the balance already me-
toned 'as due to me by you on cor
tract"
The items are then given in full.
NO INDICATION OF FRAUD.
Continuing, the opinion says: "The
items get out in the foregoing list are
given merely to show the character Of the
Indebtedness. All the debit items are OF
the same character. 1t would be an in
suit to the intelligence OF the inspector
OF these items to enter into an argument
TO show that neither the items nor the
aggregate which they constitute, could
be regarded as evidences OF money
''fraudulently appropriated" within the.
meaning OF the Tennessee law. Here are
two men engaged In the business Of in
surance-one OF them as a travelling so
Hector or insurance: the other keeping
their office, collecting and managing their
earnings under an express contract. and
uetraying the travelling and family ex-
penses or the travelling associate in bust.
ness. These dealings run on for q year
in Tennessee, and there is settlement
In December, and balance ascertained
due from Slauson 10 Gerald NJ. Funnel.
There Is no misunderstanding at the time
OF this settlement between Siauson and
Gerald Nj. Funnel. There is no pretense
or charge or fraud at the time 1t Is
not shown that Gerald NJ FunneIl with
wnom the business was done, ever be.
heved or charged fraud against Slauson.
But Cecil G.. Funnel bought the debt
neld by Gerald NJ. Funnel against Slau-
son lie did not charge fraud fcr a
series or months. He sued for the debt
as due by contract as late as March 10th,
just passed He sent his claim TO Peters
burg where Slauson lived and kept house
mil AvHa Inc Gffff
brought upon it as due on a contract.
WANTED SLAUsoN'S FAMILY BACK.
1T seems that for some reason of a
nature not proper or necessary 70 Dc
exposed In public court, Cecil G.. Funnel
was very solictous for Slauson to return
With his family to Tennessee. His eager
ness for this return began TO manifest IT.
self In tho latter part Of December.
1875. apparently before he purchased the
debt against Slauson from Gerald Nj.
Funnel Persuasions failing 10 bring
about Slauson's return TO Tennessee, re-
sort was soon had to threats. He first
threatened to publish, and then pub
lished. circulars assailing the character
OF Slauson. and mailed them TO insurance
men and others. He threatened other at
tacks upon Slauson. the character Of
which was not made known TO Slauson.
He talked TO Slauson's wife. and re-
hearsed his threats to her He did this
on one occasion on a railroad train. and
did Il SO effectually that the woman. In
alarm, wrote 10 her husband a letter.
from which the following extracts are
made:
ION Train . Cecil arrived in
Chattanooga last night at II. He has told
me OF all the awful things he could do
10 you. He will write TO papa, 20 the bank
at - Qllegible). and In fact, to every
one. He viii have II advertised that you
did God knows what lie said he could
take our trunks. but for our sakes he
don't want TO do that: but II 20 on "a
you before you and he come to some
understanding. he will make IL dreadful
for ali. He said you have his railroad
ticket. Have you? He said he gave you
money 10 go to Baltimore on, and back
IL you did not succeed In arranging
things" etc. etc.
Nothing availed TO bring back Slausou
and hts family TO Tennessee, neither per-
suasions nor threats. After purchasing
the debt due from Slauson TO Gerald M
Funnel. and after bringing suit upon
the debt as due upon a contract as late
as the 10th OF March. Just past he then
resorted TO the extraditlon PROCEEDINGS
which have been brought before me for
consideration. the foundation Of which
is Cecil @. Funnelrs affidavit chargine
the crime OF a fraudulent appropria.
ton" OF money.
WAS MERELY AN AFTERTHoUGBT
Comment upon his conduct "a IN.
necessary. His charge OF fraud against
siauson Is an afterthought The affidavit
by which he charged the fraud ia :
fragrant perjury. His prosecution OF thi,
extradition proceeding is malicious. Tn,
Governor OF Tennessee was deceived ant