The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-01-12
c,Q1ER MAKES NEW CHARGES.
,er swEAT's FINANCIAL REL
v'D' opD NOW ATTACKED.

vork Alleged in Connection
.., Viii Put Into His Hands
SoIe--In Another Instance He
ansed of Bad Faith in Han
,,..r piece of Unconstitutional
u''''e oos of Alleged Drunkenness
a...d Ngninst Judge Reese.
t.n.o Ga. Jan. 1.-THE investigation
.harges against Judge Sweat of the
sn.uiek circuit viii be taken up by the
I,rso committee tomorrow morning.
charges against Judge Reese will
~. Investigated until after the Sweat
I,se is disposed Of
T..,-e sweat arrived to-day, in company
~ his counsel, Congressman Brantley,
=, 7r5gs Mcdonald of Waycross. The
i -...ication promises to be a most SEN
kauonal one
r,;s afternoon Senator Carter gave no
~ Chairman Fielder that he would
- the committee to allow him to file sup
i M,.roontarv charges against both Judges
4 ..sa and Sweat. The additional charges
.,oose5 against Judge Reese consist sim
in tba citation of additional instances
n his alleged drunkenness.
THE nroposed new charges against Judge
uo,t are. however, of a highly sensa-
anal character. 1t is alleged that Judge
i ros+ is guilty of larceny after trust,
,ngb tbe charge is based upon alleged
8 ,,rmstances happening before his cleo
an to The bench. These charges, accord
n the memorandum of Senator Car
are as follows: Messrs. Russell & Co.
Chattanooga, Tenn, and Massilon, O.,
ac4d in the hands of Judge Sweat, Feb
81 1Sa notes amounting to $1,400, the pur-
base price of a saw-mill and fixtures.
Il doe Sweat agreed to collect the notes
n 10 per cent Afterwards he sold the
In 10 D. Z. Knowles of Offer
8n. Ga. for $1,000, taking
81 mortgage on the mill, and some land
nd TO be worth the amount. The records
81 how that this mortgage was afterwards
ncelled lor 800, and the mill taken back
Judge Sweat. Mr.. Knowles is report
II to have said that he could have paid
br the mill, and would have done so, but
llge Sweat consented to take it back
ni release him for $500 The mill was
sterwards sold to various parties and
honey collected from them. Russell &
Il 3ompany sent their agent to investigate
hi he got information that Judge Sweat
ai collected over $500. From that time
to Feb 9, 1894, Russell & Co. repeatedly
deavored to get q statement from him
ni a remittance, but have failed. The
se was placed in the hands of attorneys
& October, 1895, but they have not sue
Fejed In getting any adjustment of the
Batter. It is said that Judge Sweat has
id be is not liable for his collections be-
E use Of expenses, taxes and fees.
q The other case in whicn the evidence will
submitted is one in which certain prop
IN in Ware county, or the vicinity, was
trusted to Judge Sweat as agent for a
in Atlanta. 1t is alleged that the
& ldge was made agent for the property
III arged with the duty of returning it for
Hxation keeping the taxes paid, etc. The
atement is made that as no demands
ere made upon the principal for money
& p nay the taxes. he got uneasy and sent
agent to inquire the reason. Judge
Reat j, is alleged told the agent that il
as all right ana he had not made any de-
and for the money because it was g
nal matter. and he had other items
lch would all be presented in a lump
le two years passed by and the princi
wrote to officers of the county tC
oW what had become of his property
ey replied that he had no property, bu
aJ the property spoken of had been solo
tax sales and had been bought by Judg,
81 eat II is alleged that the matter wa.
ade warm and the judge gave a note t
ihourse the principal for his loss in tn,
bitter
uose oweat's reply to Senator Carriers
charges is as follows: In reference
senator Carters new charges, l have
lhlS to say, that while not embrace
nun the scope of the duty of the com
lee ana not having been put on noticC
would have any such charges e
~ YET the truth is that perhaps TWEEN
years ago | did return and pay taXe.
while on lot of wild land in Clincl
l'y lor Ramspeck & Gwinn, and tht
Iaiing or dissolving and going out o
'ueSs ana not being able to hear or oh
any remittance from them with which
ray inc taxes, the lot was sold at taJ
or nominal sum and passed int
Dalls of DR.. 2. Stotesbury for iti
o. ' f"4ut OF nunufeu dollars, dnt
N not admitting any moral OF lega
'5yy' 5,yy' a note was given upon condition
lIlslment of the matter.
81 'ar as the Russell & Company mat
- concerned, it is true that in 1SS
# 81 claim for some $500 / did, as al
34 ,''ey' recover in Clinch superior cour
< \, 8cuon of trover a saw-mill from i
81 ~ ~ uIlie' and by express authority sol
&. 49,. ~. H. Knowles for $1,000, taking
'ssse on the mill and a fee simple piec
.N Hl % IN addition, and by the same au
~ cancelled the mortgage of $500, TAX
t.e mil back, and under similar au
Ieso.d 1t at a time or two unde
,tynai r.ty sales which had to be Cancelled
'"t "Hally being left at Argyle subjec
oluers of Russell & Company, wher
g par Tally or wholly destroyed b
1He amount received not being NOR
..'HeIeht to cover all fees, costs
'"u expenses, nothing was ever pai
J'S'l q Co. Neither the committe
newspapers are the forums 1
M 40 pIlng up these old matters, an
oUy serve to show the recklessnes
l''-ulty with which l am being al
j. l.. Sweat"