Docket Entry, circa 29 November 1842, Copy–B [City of Nauvoo v. Hunter]
Docket Entry, circa 29 November 1842, Copy–B [City of Nauvoo v. Hunter]
Source Note
Source Note
Docket Entry, , Hancock Co., IL, ca. 29 Nov. 1842, City of Nauvoo v. Hunter (Hancock Co., IL, Circuit Court 1843). Copied 17 Feb. 1843; handwriting of ; certified by , 17 Feb. 1843; docket by , [, Hancock Co., IL], 17 Feb. 1843; notation by , [, Hancock Co., IL], 28 Feb. 1843; docket by unidentified scribe, [ca. 28 Feb. 1843]; four pages; private possession. Includes seal.
Historical Introduction
Historical Introduction
City of )
Vs.)
Thomas J. Hunter)
Municipal Court at the Mayors , five oClock p.m. November 29th. 1842.—
| Fine—— | $10,00) |
| Aldermens fees— | 4,00) |
| Clerks fees— | 1,43¾) |
| Marshals fees— | 2,06¼) |
| 1 Witness | ,50) |
| $18,00) |
Present.
Aldermen, , , , , and .— was elected president pro tem.— opened the case on behalf of the City, 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¢.
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 & abusive language concerning Joseph Smith’s Character, thereby depreciating his moral & religious Character, & using said language contrary to an ordinance entitled, “an Ordinance in relation to religious Societies.”
The Court then decided, that [p. [1]]
Source Note
Source Note
Document Transcript
Document Information
Document Information
Go to page