Newspaper Page Text
~ . gf><
WASHINGTON, APRIL 23, msi.
PJII LPOT’S CASE.
IN our last we-.nude n few remarks upon the
decision of Judge Holt in relation to ilie case of
John N. Philpot. We now lay before our rea
ders the derision itself which appears below, to
gether with the remarks of the Chronicle and
Constitutionalist. In answer to the Constitution- 1
alist, in relation to the time Sic. selected, for an
attack upon Judge Ilolt, by “ Plain Dealer
we are authorized to say, that the author of that
piece knew no more of the absence of Judge Holt
front Augusta at the time of its publication, than
toe knows whereJpdgeHolt will be ten years hence.
Our object is by no means to injure Jutlgellolt or
to create a prejudice in the public mmd against i
him, if his conduct docs not deserve it, and for that
reason we have published the decision,so that eve
ry reader may he enabled to make up his own opi
nion. The part that we lia vc already taken, and
that we utay hereafter take in this matter, will
be only 60 far'us we conceive ourself bound
as an independent editor, when the cause of in
nocence is suffering by virtue of w hat we hold to
be a high handed, iuuj arbitrary decision. If
we arc mistaken in our opinion the good sense
of the community can, and will correct us. We
have given them the means to detect the error we
have fallen into, if it be a fact that we are in er
ror. We have understood Unit Judge Hull is
humane, and possesses in all respects the char
acter of a gentleman; we have no reason, or in
clination to believe otherwise. Our remarks are
not intended to apply to the,man but to th a office
which he holds. Is he not, like ull others sub
ject to error, and may he not be like some others,
not a perfect jurist ?
We have been led to believe that Philpot has
already suffered full sufficient for the contempt
alledged, ('if it be admitted that he is gniltv,)
and that there is no probability of his punishment
coming to an end. We cannot see into the just
ness of requiring an individual to perform an act,
and then throw him into a prison, and there keep
him until that act be performed, although to ac
complish it he must travel some hnndred miles.
It may be law—but there is no justice in it. It
■ is high time the conductor the judges of the Su-’
perior courts should be scrutanized. They have,
according to their own decisions as much power
as an Emperor, and if not taken notice of, might
crc long exercise it to the fullest extent.
We are fold by the Constitutionalist, that our
correspondent and ourself have been misinform
ed, &c. Perhaps so, but as far as the decision
ffoe*, it confirms “Plain Dealer's” statement
“Plain Dealer” says that “Judge Holt has kept
a man in jail for ten months, for not producing
a negro boy who is five hundred miles off, and
who mTty, for aught the judge knows, be actually
dead ” This Judge Holt very distinctly admits,
and justifies himself by attempting to she w that
if he ('Philpot) cannot produce him now, he
might by possibility have produced him u year
ami a half ugo.
“Plain Dealer” says that the court and one of
the counsel maintain that Philpot promised to
produce the hoy; and that Philpot and his coun
sel assert that no such statement was ever made
by Philpot. This is not denied in the decision
and if it w ere, the matter would rest just where
it does It would only be the same two, against
the same two still. ‘ 'Plain Dealer” say 3 that
this mighty contempt consisted of nothing more
than a statement of Philpot’s, which he has fail
ed to make good, even according to Judge
Holt’s account of the mutter) and what says the
decision! “This wiit, Lc. wfts returned before
me, (being then present) by John N. Philpot,
who didnot product the boy, but prayed tiirie to
do so, STATING that he had him in Leach Isl
and, and that if allowed until Saturday follow ing,
would make a full and perfect return by produ
cing the boy,” (language more like that of a law
yer than a plain man who probably did not know
what was meant by a return toihe habeas corpus,
much less that producing the boy would be a
full and perfect return.) And again his honor
answers the argument, that a statement was not
a return, and says—“ However it is contended
11 that the admission was not a return to the
“writ; and Philpot should not be Concluded by
14 it- It is true the admission does not constitute a
formal return ,, but the time, place, and clr
* cumstances stamp it with the seal of truth, and
being made to the court in connexion with the
P case, #nd to effect its proceedings, cannot be
Here a very clear admission of the
judge, thtmUllf^ot’s contempt was nothing more
than making a statement , which he failed after
wards to makegood.
As to the other statements'of “Plain Dealer,”
the decision of Judge Holt is silent, and w e shall
be silent until the facts of the Case are more fully
ascertained. So far then it seems that our cor
respondent was not misinformed.
We now beg leave to bestow a few remarks up*
cm the decision itself; which in our conception
Jeaves Judge Holt in a much worse condition than
Hint in wjridfi “Plain Dealer” left him. Almost
the whole of t!u> decision is taken up in apologies
for believing Philpot*# STATEMENT \n prefer
ence to his affidavit. I: is well known that we do
not profess to he a lawyer, but we will venture to
assert, that the law does not justify judge or jury
to attaching IMOUE credit to w bat a man SAYS,
than 10 what he swears, (As Judge Crawford oh
served on n certain occasion while presiding in
our Superior Court, it docs not require a lawyer
to know this, —a man that never read a page of
law ought to know better. ) Cut his Honor tells
us about Philpot’s affidavits , (by which we pre
mium hy has filed at least two,J1 and of the affida
vits of Care v &. Kurley and he add*, “must it (the
-Court,) not exercise its judgment upon them in
“refeieuce to the interest the affiants have in the
“question—and tnuy it not choose which to be
lieve when contradictory, the admission and re
“turn of Philpot, or the subsequent affidavits?”
What were in those affidavits we know uof. but
f from the language off Judge Holt we root fairly
infer that they were favorable to Philpot; and we
I may just as fairly infer that his Honor did not be
lieve them, but felt himself autliorisfcU to set them
aside as well as Philpot's, arid to take
statement in preference to them all, although
PhitjMrt’s own affidavit accompanied those of Ca
rey and Furley; thus taking the statement of one
J individual in preference to the affidavits of the
same individual supported by the affidavits of two
olhois If this be Judge Holt’s way of getting at
truth, we cannot wonder at his blunders.
His honor soys “hie order to attach is notin
“the terms dl it indefinite 01 unlimited as to lime,
“but is to terminate when the body of the boy
“James shall oe produced. The attachment l*e
“ing to compel Obedience to the writ, and ending
“when that object Shall be attained, cannot cx
“tend beyond tile will of him 011 whom it operates”
This is adding insult to injury. Judge Holt
must excuse us if wo cannot be imposed upon by
such glaiing sophistry. Indeed it hardly de-1
! serves so mitol a name as Sophistry. Here is the
(judge admitting tiiat the negro is in the West
; with affidavits before him setting forth that the
prisoner c.Linot produce him,—■ the prisoner is ifi
close custody iu Richmond Jail, under ail ordci
I to remain there until he produces the negro; and
the judge tells him tiiat his imprisonment H t his
i own will Now trow is it possible for Philpot to
i to piodu£u the negro, (admitted to he out of the
1 staiO,) so long as fie continues in Jail? Anil yet
I judge Holt tells him there he is to remain until
j lie does produce him. We cannot but suspect
j the cause which has to look for support to such
i arguments.
( 11 ut what is the result of all the judges learned
reasoning upon 1 lie case? Why that he may
make the imprisonment of a man to-depend upon
a condition which cannot !*v performed, lias he
a right to impose such conditions upon any man?
I If he hath such a right, thou he may put the next
: person who offends Inin in jail until he raise the
i dead, and to aught we know the present i?sue
| depend* upon it, for it is asserted that the fact of
| the negro being in existence is not certainly
known. If we cannot answer arguments upon
the law ofthe land, we can at?*; when they lead to
an absurdity, and Judge Molt and his friends will
never reconcile us to his decision, until they prove
to us that he lias n right to imprison a man for
life for a contempt of court, and that the individ
ual guilty ofthe contempt has it fully iu his pow
er to correct it.
Tnis is the sum total of his remarks, and if the
conclusion to which he has led himself and *es not
drive him from his position; it become* the good
people of this State to drive him from his place.
His own decision, we think, warrants all that we
have said, h the opinion already expressed, Ilia*
the statement of our correspondent may he relied
j The Guardian of a Negro boy i Habeas Cor-
James, vs. > P u *—evasive rc
Joint N. Thii.ror, ‘j turn
Attachihcnt S; motion to be Discharged.
The movant John N.Tmim'ot, was attached for j
comtempt under the following chcunir-tances: — I
A Writ of Habeas Corpus was served on him
on the lfilh October, IR2P, requiring him to
bring up the body of a negio boy James, said to
be free and illegally detain *d in his custody.
This wiit was issued bv :i Justiceof the Inferioi :
Court, and on the next day 17th Oct., was re-’
turned before me (being men present) by John
N Philpot, who did not produce the buy hut
prayed for timfi tl{* *-0} pf.tting thot He Han hut, !
in Leach Island, and that if allowed until the Sa- |
return by producing the boy. Time was given !
according to his request, and owing to my ah- j
scnce on the circuit 110 iuithcr pioceedings 100 k :
place until the 2d of November, when Philpot j
made this return : “That the boy lames men
tioned in said writ was not in nis possession or cus
tody tis the time said writ was scivcd upon him,
nor had he been in his custody or possession since
the service of said wii t, and that tt is not in iii>
power to produce said hoy.”
This return artl illy framed and evasive in ifs
terms was not received as sufficient, and being
taken iu connexion with an attempt made by
Philpot, forcibly to run off tVinney, the mother
of James, on the very night after he admitted he
had him iu Beach Island arid-pray ed time to pro
duce him, thus to perfect his return shewed plain
ly, that the time prayed for was designed to b
used not for producing Jarfles but securely purloi
ning him. This is more manifest by the result, tor
it now appears, that James cmitiiAicd in the pi ce
where Pliilpot deposited him until the 28th May
following, when he was sold to a Citizen of Mis
souri,, and removed to some part ot the Western
country; When the evasive return ot the 2d Nov.
was made, Philpot’s Counsel were distinctly in
formed that it would not la* received as sufficient,
and that an attachment would issue if prayed for,
until James should He produced.
No attachment was prayed for by the Guardian
of James, who then took no other step that! to j
file Ids exception to the sufficiency of the return, j
and Philpot not moving for his discharge from
the writ of Habeas Corpus, the case remained un
til the May Term following, when the Guardian
of James having prayed for an attachment a
gainst Philpot, he offered an affidavit which would
have been deemed a full and sufficient tfeturn if
it had been offered at the'time his admission (with
which it is in direct opposition) was made and be
fore his return was filed. This question then
presented itseff to the Court; could it or should
it disregard the admission made by Philpot him
self, tnke no notice of the facts connected with
ami immediately following it, set aside bis eva- ;
sive return, and give no consideration whatever
to the motives which led to and produced them !
all, but receive and look to this affidavit alone;
or shoutd it not, and was it not bound to cousid- :
er the admission of jPliilpot and his return of
file, as conclusive against him and cause justice 1
to he done accord it
Hit: latter was believed to be the course pre
scribed by law ; audit being ngmifest that the.
Court and its process had been ; died w ith in a
matter ofthe highest moment, and nothing hut
its power exercised wi.h fnnfTßfc\ could save
from the greatest possible injury an unoffending
and helpless child, Philput was attached uutili
J tunes should be produced.
A motion is now made for the discharge \u
Philpot on two grounds:—
P/St, Because the time for which he is to he
imprisoned being indefinite and unlimited, the
order is illegal and should be set aside.
Secondly, Because by affidavits filed be has
purged himself of his contempt.
The order to attach Pliilpot is not in t He terms
of it, indefinite or unlimited as to time, * it is to
terminate when the body ofthe boy James shall
he produced. This attachment being to compel
obedience to the writ, and ending when that ob
ject shall be attained, cannot extend beyond the
will of him on whom it operates, as his obedience
w ill at all times effect his enlargement. And so
long as obedience is refused the contempt re
mains increased rather than diminished by the
length of time it is w ithheld. But it is secondly
urged in behalf of Philpot, that he had purged
Idmself (by affidavits filed) of his contempt and
should therefore be discharged. He, it is said, is
purged of his couttmpt bf tfovinj disclaimed ail
intention of offering any ? ancF by shewing that
his failure to produce the boy, results from his
inability to do it.
If the simple disclaimer of intention to offer
Contempt Could !>e received in opposition to the
ltd itselt, as a protection of the offender; then
the punishment of the greatest contempt, would
be but an apology to the Court; and a witness
might be assaulted on the stand with impunity if
the assailant would hut condescend to Say he
meant no harm, he intended no contempt.—The
Court looks to (he act itself. If that be equivo
cal, amt Satisfactory explanation can he given, it
wiii be received; but if the act be a plain, direct
contempt, no apology w ill make it less so, how e
ver it may influence the Court iii awarding pun
ishment. What are tho facts iu this case ? Tri
fling with the Court, evasive return to a writ of
Habeas Corpus, and finally disobedience of its re
quirements—are they susceptible of explanation,
and if so, how have they been explained ? The
admission inadt by Piiifoot on the 17th Oct. that
he had the boy in iieacMslaud. and would pro
duce him on the Saturday following, is how said
j to have been founded <ll a belief, that he could
( have recovered him from a Mr. Carey, to whom
he was sold. But why the admission “that he
had him,” if tlre boy hid been sold in grto i faith
befoie the service of the writ? I’hilpoi \va? not
without counsel—on tke contrary he was attend
ee* by able counsel, who must have advised him
if such had been the fad, that it would have con
stituted a sufficed! return. Yet no sale was ever
hinted at. Dal tnis proceed from his desire to
produce the boy that l.is right to freedom might
he fairly tried ? Thilpot’s conduct towards the
mother a few hours after, and his subsequent
conduct towards the boy preclude the idea Be
sides even on the 2d Nov. he will.not sweat, that
the boy was not in his power on the lfifh Oct.
when the writ tv a* served, from which time un
til the 2Sth of May follow mg, he was kept within
a few miles of Augifsta, the place carefully con
cealed, and even now not the slightest efi'ort is
shewn to have been made to produce him.
However, it is contended, that the adAiission
was not a return to rhe writ, and Rlfilpot should
not be concluded by it. It is true the admission
docs not constitute'a formal return, hut the time,
place and circumstances ofthe admission stamp
it with the seal of truth, and being made to the
Court in connexion with the case, and to affect
its proceeding cannot be disregarded but must be
considered by it.
Ihe return however of the 2d Nov. has been
filed, and by h Philpot must be concluded. This ‘
return is clearly evasive and insufficient, and rtf ay
well-consist with the previous admission.— Take
both together and how is the case? On die 17th
October. Philpot admits he had the boy in Beacli-
Ishnul, (in his power therefore, hut no* in posses
sion.)
On the id November, he returns that 011 the
lfifh October the boy was not in his possesion,
nor has been since, and that it is not in his power
to product him.
This is almost ns plain nA if Philpot had chine
forward and staled to the Court in ns many words,
“I had Janies in ifty power but not in my posses
sion at the service ofthe writ, he has not been in
mv possession Since, atid 1 have put it out of my
power now to produce him, and must therefore
oe excused. * Can the defective and evasive re- :
turn ha amended is an i Important question which !
here presents itself. In die opinion ofthe Court
it cannot be. it seems nays Bacon in his abridg
ment title, Habeas Corpus, letter H. sec. 12, tlwit
j before the return is filed any defect in form or the
! want of an averment <Jf a matter of fact may be
amended; but after die retin ii is fifed it becomes
a recot and of the Court and cannot be amended.
It is expressly slat and ii\ Sir Rollerl Yiitis’s Cade,
cited i3d I’de. abridgment Id. 2d Lev. 128. 3.
j K“b, ffJl. 117. If tin 11 tbe English Courts re- .
<P'ire such exact and prompt ob* dienre to this 1
j hi it, where disobedience will So attended by only !
a temporary inconvenience to the subject seeking 1
fits benefit, how tnc!i more strict-h>uld an I
; *.7Vtrr:cfn Court ar* : "g :rrf n r t ‘nnstitution* which
! it even bey jud Legislative Cobtro!, and in a case !
j too, not of temporary meonveni nee alone, but j
: (unless this writ should be effectual) ofthe per|>vt- 1
j uul slavery of a cnild rudely t..rn from the amis j
of its mother. But suppose the subsequent affi- j
davits of Philpot, Carey and Furlev, (the alfida- ■
vits offered) to be receivable by dn Court, must ‘
it not exercise its judgment upn them iu refer- j
race to the interest ftie affiants have in the qncs- t
lion—and may it not choose which to believe, I
when Conti adictory, the admission and return of
Pliilpot or the subsequent affidavits ? This pow- •
er the Court would certainly have if it were cal- i
It’d on to weigh evidence, but as certainly docs \
not [losses, in a case like tins, when the party is j
concluded by his own admission and his return j
beconte a record. Pliilpot’ inability to produce 1
James Is next urged us a ground for his discharge.
Indeed this is the only ground strongly insisted I
on. for ids counsel seem to admit, that if he could j
be produced he should be. To what is this ina
bility owing?
Has any act of God. any providential interfer
ence placed Jaihes beyond bis reach? Has the
legal process of any tiibuual having paramount
authority to thus rescue the boy from his hands 7
No. His inability, if it exist at all, is evidently
the result of a determination to realize the price
of James at all hazards. This has been done;
the price is realized, ami the Court is now grave
ly’ told in excuse for u high and continuing con
tempt, that having speculated ou the chance of es
cape Irani punishment, and upon the extent to
which tlie Court would exert all power for the
protection of a little negro boy, having sold the
bov when it is impossible or at least very incon
venient to regain possession of iiiiri, failed in his
speculation* upon the chances ofthe law, and be
come insolvent (without Pliilpot should now bo
discharged,) because he is uunhle 10 produce
James. In other words the Court is usked to
suffer the writ of Habeas Corpus to he trampled
1 under foot, its own authority treated with con- j
I tempt,"and the helpless boy seeking its protecti
-1 on, sacrificed by unfeeling avarice, nod all with
! impunity. This cannot be tolerated, every prio
! cipiv of Law’ and Justice forbid it. the feeling of
’ evety man must revolt at it—l euuuot but regret
j ihut the folly or the avarice of Pliilpot has placed
I him in h;s present attitude towards the Court.
! Rut I should consider myself faithless to the trust
j reposed in me, and forgetful of the obligation 1
\ am undar of extending the protection of tile law
I alike to all, however powerful or weak, disfin
i guished or obscure, elevated or degraded in the I
I orders of society, wore I to yield to this motion.
[ the direct and inevitable consequence of which
be to consign James, who*£ birthright may I
be *md probably t* freedom to hopeless slavery.
The fcmtion is refused.
Prow thcfftugusla Chronicle of Apr” 1 6!h.
RgPWLPO'rs CASK.
We call the attention ofthe Mail
er to the two articles on this subject, \
which we copy from Washington
News, containing the’statement of a
correspondent of that poper, and the
remarks ofthe editor thereon.—\\ e
have sometimes past, been aware
that some excitement on this’ subject
existed in this community, and .v u
erally without a full and clear know
ledge of the circumstances connected
with it: and, sensible that one oi
the first duties of our vycation is u
jjretect the just rights of the citizen
from infringement, amt his person
from oppression, and the character of
the public officer from unjust suspi
cion, have intended to make our
selves fully acquainted with ail the
facts of the case, and prftsent them
to the public. • So far, our inquiries,
which as yet have been altogether
casual, while they have tended, to
produce the impression that the case
of the unfortunate prisoner, is enti
tled to public Consideration, and that
lift may have been very hardly dealt
with, have not justified us ii'i making
up any decision, respecting it. And
we should take shame to ourselves
for not having yet paid more atten
tion to it, were it not that other ur
gent matters of a professional and
private nature, have necessarily oc
cupied all our attention, and that we
were informed a short time aso. that
a gentleman of high respectability,
well acquainted With tlife case, would
probably lay it before the public from
another quarter; and as justice is e
qnally due to both parties—-to the
Judge and to the prisoner—as all the
facts of the case will doubtless he pre
sented to the public,—and as they
cannot judge fairly till they have
heard both sules, ±—we hope they will
carefully divest themselves ofail ex
citement, nr prejudice, or partiality,
toward cither, and calmly examine
all the evidence, ere thCy presuAicto
decide. Such will he ouredurse, and
wo shall he obliged to any who will
furnish US with clear and well au
!animated evidence ou either side—
sensible as vvb are, 1 that the case
must excite much public interest
and we shall not hesitate to do jus
tice to both partite, Without fear,
favor or affection.” \Vhile we have
all those sensibilities toward the
rights of the prisoner, which every
citizen must necessarily feel, w ho re
flects that a civil injury done to one
man, is, in effect, done 10 the Whole
community; inasmuch as the civil
rights of one, are alike those of the
1 whole, and any other being subject
to like circumstances, is of course
subject to siimdur injuries; and
therefore, in protecting the civil
rights of another, he who docs so, is
but nlike protecting his b\vn-—yet,
while we feel thus, we arc not dis
jHiscd to consider him as actually in
i jured, because lie is said to be so, and
may be so; uud we arc satisfied there
! is much to he said oh both sides,
- , ev. -.men m me art,, fes we
i copy—arid which are copied as much
! in justice to one party as the other,
| since they must necessarily he ullud
j ed in the coin sc of the discussion, and
I should therefore be fully known to
! the public.—And %ith regard to the
I other party—while we have every
j confidence in his strict honesty, both
ias a man and a Judge, and in his
fconscientious regard for duty—and
(can see no motive that he could have
had, in this case, fordoing other
wise than justice, according to his
best judgment,—tit the srtme time,
w : r. linVc not that unlimited confidence
iii his acfcilteness, penetration, dear
ness of conception, general ability;
either as a lawyer or a Judge, which
will satisfy us that he may not be
wrong, evert though he fully intend
ed to do right. Indeed, this is the
lot oj'all men; and with a conscien
tious sense of right-on his own fruit,
and confidence in his integrity on
the part of his friends, neither he nor
they, can object to the closest scruti
ny of his official conduct; and parti
cularly iu a case where the law has,
and us we must think Unwisely, en
trusted so much power over the citi
zen, to the will of a single individual.
We copy the following paragraph,
in relation to this mutter from the
Constitutionalist of yesterday:
“W e notice in the last Washing- 1
lon News, an attack upon Judge
Holt. The time is well chosen,
when the Judge is in a remote part of
j his Circuit, and not expected to re
turn for sOtnc weeks. The Corres
pondent ofthe News arid the worthy
Editor of that paper is not correctly
informed of the circumstances of the
Pliilpot Case, which shall now be laid
before the public. When the facts
are fully understood, Judge Holt’s
! decision, so far from being consider
ed incorrect, must meet with gener
al approbation. We shall com
mence our statement in our next.”
Northcastmn Boundary. The
’ Portland Courier states thut tho Se
lect committee of the Legislature up
on this Subject made a tery long re
port to the House on Wednesday e
vening, and the resolutions founded
upon it were adopted on Thursday.
The Courier
o™,* <w,-,ion
- 2 K “*i° c Ne “*o*la,.ds on two ground..
In thr first place it contends that the umpire liny.
lost the grottier part of hist Kingdom anil be
come peculiarly dependent upon Gieat kritaid
(or Ins political existence, could no longer be an
independent arbiter, and his decision, therefore,
could no longer be binding. And in the secant!
place Uie report contends, and pi ovus tiiat lie did
not decide the question submitted to him, and
therefore bis decision, if it can be called a dei i b
toit; is ft mere mility. The report comes to the
conclusion Unit the General Government is no t
bound by any consideration to ratify this decision,
and ihat it cannot ratify it without a violtitisnor
the constitutional rights of Maine.”
d'rom the National IntclUeciiccr.
TH£ MYSTERY UNRAVELLED.
Messrs. Gales <fc Seaton,
Gentlemen : You are -no doubt
Well aware, that tlie exact superfici
al contents of the Circle have never
been measured. X have, however,
within the last nionth, discovered a
simple method of ascertaining cor*
Vcctly thcSquare ofanyCircle. Tho
secret ot my discovery has becii con
fidentially disclosed to several of my
friends, (fifteen in number) who, I
feci satisfied, will not divulge it. I
have no hesitation in challenging toe
first mathhmaticinns in the world to
confute thd principle, and rule or
rules, by which I can, by a very Iri-*
fling calculation, measuie, of, in o
tlier words, square the circle.
’ l addressed a letter the lfith'of lasff
month, on the above subject, to tha
Hon. Louis McLane, London, which
letter I had the honor to have trans*
initted t 0 him through the politeness
of the ]{ti lion. C. It. Vaughn nt,
Minister Plenipotentiary fiom Lag*
land; and I am waiting Mr*McLanc’a
reply, as regards any premium or
premiums, which have been offered
in Luropc, for the discovery of a cul*
dilation suited to the comprehension
of common capacity, for ma&stiring
the exact contents ofthe Circle, lay
ing aside all approximations. ‘ i am
aware that what I have here stated
for publication, leaves me exposed
rolhc scrutiny of mathematicians
of the first rank to whom I am very
desirous to explain, confidentially,
the principle upon which mv discov
ery is founded—a discovery which
lias baffled, &. I will pi'oVe ever wou'i
have baffled, their deep and intricate
Calculations for measuring, as I can
correctly, the Quadrature ofthe Cir
cle. JAMES D. WOODSIDE.
Washington City, April 7th, 1831.
J.”
o! her age. She was Ibe relief ofDtvitl
Esq. dec. ami one of the first settlers of this •,
luge. I'or many years she conducted ibcydi .1
I'W! and mechanical departments of the
tor,” formerly printed irr this place, allimugo
she did not acquire the art of printing until she
reached the age of 45. She was a member of. h e
Presbyterian church, and passed from this work!
to another, in the hope of an inheritance • in
corruptible, undefiled, & that fadetli jiot away ”
AI.L persons indebted to the es
tate of William F. Hay-, de
ceased, late of W ilkes county, aro
requested to make immediate pay
ment ; and those having deinandsa
gainst said estate, arc required to
hand them in properly nuthcii!ica
ted within the lime prescribed by
law, or this notice will he plead iii
bar against their recovery.
Thomas Anderson, ’
Adm'r. Be bonis non.
April 22, 1331. 44—fit
tfLSE/ILL he sold on Friday the
T T 20th of May next, at iht
late residence oflstme Lttngdon, de
ceased, a quantity of Corn, Fodder
and Oats, about
200 Gallons Peach Brandy,
a quantity of bacon and wheat, one
HORSE, and other articles belong
ing Xo the estate of said
Terms made known on the day.
Charles W. Gresham,
Administrator.
April 20, 1831. 44- -tds
GEORGlA^—Oglethorpe county.
Inferior Court,
Sitting for Ordinary Purposes,
Adjourned Tet*m, April 5, 1831.
Present their Honors Eduard Coxe, Lewi# J.
Dcupree, and Thomas R. Andrews.
RULE NISI.
William Walker executor of
Wniter B. Dorsey, deceased, stales to the court
that lie luts full,) settled ujs the estate of the said
deceased, and therefore prays that he may be
dismissed therefrom.
Whereupon it is ordered that tUe Clerk issue
the usual Mile in such cases, anti ifrvo objections
are filed the letters will be granted according to
law.
A true extract from the Minutes of the Courts
this sth April,. 1831.
H m, JL Swifhi c. r. o.
Four months i*fier date ap
plication will he made to the hnuorable the lice*
rior court of Elbe.rt county while sittine: for ordi
nary purposes for leave to sell ihe leal estate of’
Simeon Jones deceased, lute ot suiff county.
James Jones, adjn'r.
1 Apt* 20th 1831.