Docket Entry, circa 29 November 1842 [City of Nauvoo v. Hunter]
Docket Entry, [, Hancock Co., IL], ca. 29 Nov. 1842, City of Nauvoo v. Hunter (Nauvoo, IL, Municipal Court 1842); Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book, 9 and 11; handwriting of ; CHL. Includes notations by , [, Hancock Co., IL], ca. 29 Nov 1842, ca. 5 Dec. 1842, ca. 7 Dec. 1842, ca. 10 Dec. 1842, and ca. 27 Feb. 1843.
Municipal Court, at the Mayors , five oClock P. M. November 29th. 1842.—
Aldermen , , , , and .— was elected President pro tem.— opened the case on behalf of the , and read the complaint made by Joseph Smith before , upon the 28th. day of Novr. Inst..—
Novr. 28th. 1842.— Warrant issued to bring Deft. before the Municipal Court, forthwith, & was returned endorsed by < Constable, (through> the , to whom it was directed,) endorsed, “duly served by reading, & delivered the said Prisoner into the charge of by Order of the City , Novr. 29th. 1842. High Const., fees 31 Cts..
Novr. 29th. 1842. Subpoena issued by , for , Wm. Thompson, A. E. Miles, , Charles Seidel, & Alexr. Gravel, & returned by the , endorsed, “the within served on Messrs. , Wm. Thompson, Charles Seidel, & Alexr. Gravel,— fees 75¢, , Marshal.
Same date the returned his claim of $1.00 for notifying the Municipal Court to assemble for the Trial of this Cause.—
Joseph Smith made a further Affidavit on same day, before , which was read.— The Defendant pleaded Guilty to the charge, which charge was for using and making ridiculous and abusive language concerning Joseph Smiths Character, thereby depreciating his moral and Religious Character, and using said language contrary to an Ordinance, entitled, “an Ordinance in relation to religious Societies.”
The Court then decided, that they would hear Testimony. William Thompson, Alexr. <M> Gravel, and were produced, Sworn, & exmained, as Witnesses for the Prosecution, the two first named were cross examined by on behalf of Deft., & was questioned by Deft..— Wm. Thompson claimed pay as a Witness.
The Deft. was then fined Ten Dollars for contempt of Court, in using disrespectful and abusive language, & stating that he disregarded the Municipal Court. The spoke.— Deft. spoke.— spoke on behalf of the Prosecution. spoke on part of Deft.. The again spoke at length, & recommended the Deft to the mercy of the Court. Whereupon, the Judgment of the Court is, that the Defendant be discharged without payment of any fine, except the Fine for Contempt of Court, and full Costs of this Suit.