Editorial, 26 June 1835 [State of Ohio v. JS for Assault and Battery]

Page [3]
image
In compliance with the above polite invitation, we give below the evidence introduced, and the decision of the Court, on the trial of the Prophet, last week. It may be proper to state, in limine, that at the examination had before the justice, in this place, by whom the Prophet was held to Bonds, , the individual upon whose person the assault was committed, could not be obtained as a witness, as he had, it appeared, been suddenly induced to leave the . He returned a few days since when his presence at court was secured, much against his will. Burgess, the witness last examined, whose testimony most favored the accused, was not brought forward at the justice’s examination, although present in the place at the time—a circumstance that induced many to suppose his evidence was manufactured for the occasion. The witnesses introduced were, , a brother-in-law, , a brother and “,” , the mother, and Burgess, a faithful follower, of the Prophet accused. [p. [3]]
In compliance with the above polite invitation, we give below the evidence introduced, and the decision of the Court, on the trial of the Prophet, last week. It may be proper to state, in limine, that at the examination had before the justice, in this place, by whom the Prophet was held to Bonds, , the individual upon whose person the assault was committed, could not be obtained as a witness, as he had, it appeared, been suddenly induced to leave the . He returned a few days since when his presence at court was secured, much against his will. Burgess, the witness last examined, whose testimony most favored the accused, was not brought forward at the justice’s examination, although present in the place at the time—a circumstance that induced many to suppose his evidence was manufactured for the occasion. The witnesses introduced were, , a brother-in-law, , a brother and “,” , the mother, and Burgess, a faithful follower, of the Prophet accused. [p. [3]]
Page [3]