THE RECORDS OF THE TRIAL FROM THE CITY COURT OF MOBILE.
The Clerk of the City Court of Mobile has twice been applied to for particulars, or for a copy of the records of the trial. In his first reply the present Clerk freely confesses the records of the case to be misty, suspicious, deranged, and altogether unsatisfactory, without venturing any further opinion on the matter. In his second reply he confesses in still stronger terms, if possible, of the confusion of the records; important papers not on file; much missing; more deranged, and very hard, with any amount of application of labor to make anything of value intelligible for rigid comprehension—one case, Shoemake’s, entirely disappearing from the docket, and no circumstances or account left to show the cause for the same.
In substance, here follows an extract from the Clerk’s replies: “I find by the Clerk’s indorsement, that in the November term, 1858, the Grand Jury found bills for four cases of libel against J. R. S. Pitts, and four indictments were framed accordingly in the same term. They are found docketed, numbers 61, 62, 63 and 64, to be prosecuted severally by G. Y. Overall, C. F. Moulton, G. A. Cleaveland and S. S. Shoemake. There are four appearance bonds for six hundred dollars each, dated January 25, 1859. The writ of arrest is dated January 15, 1859. But the indictments are all missing. There is nothing here on file or on record showing any action of either the Governor of Alabama or the Governor of Mississippi with respect to the processes for arrest. The case number 64 has entirely disappeared, and no trace left to account for the same. In the February term, 1859, the trial of J. R. S. Pitts commenced on the 23d, continued through the 24th, and on the 25th was given to the jury, who on the 2d day of March rendered a verdict imposing a penalty of fifty dollars, to which finding the Court further ‘ordered that the defendant be imprisoned in the common jail of the county for the space of three months, and on the non-payment of the fine and costs that he be further imprisoned until discharged according to law.’ The case tried must have been that of Overall, 61, the papers of which have entirely disappeared, as I cannot find them on file. The two remaining cases, numbers 62 and 63, were continued from term to term until February 28, 1863, when a forfeiture of bond was taken against the defendant and his sureties, Colin McRae and James H. Daughdrill, and then continued through several terms to 21st of March, 1864, when judgment final was entered, and execution issued, which execution was ordered to be returned by the Commissioners of Revenue on the payment of all costs, the costs being paid by said Daughdrill said execution was returned. The matter remained in this condition until January, 1867, when the defendant and his sureties were finally released by the Commissioners of Revenue.
“The names of the Petit Jury who tried the case are Wm. B. Hayden, James B. Post, George Mason, George M. Brower, Edward Guesnard, John R. McBurney, W. H. Marchan, Henry T. Eatman, Walter L. Young, Benjamin F. Hunt, John A. Bevell and Wm. H. Vincent. The only witnesses I can find any record of are the prosecutors for themselves. The attorneys for the prosecution were R. B. Armstead, solicitor, and Anderson & Boyle, while Manning and Walker appeared to have conducted the defense.
“Imperfect as this history of the case is, it has cost me much search and labor to collect from the disconnected, confused and garbled materials left me for reference. The whole affair is a myth.”
COMMENTS ON THE RECORDS.
This communication from the City Clerk of Mobile is valuable in more points than one. In another place he states that there is in his office on file an affidavit from Shoemake relative to the prosecution. The nature and subject of this affidavit was not inserted in the Clerk’s communication. Why this affidavit of Shoemake’s as one of the prosecutors, and none to be found from any of the other three prosecutors, is a profound mystery. Again, affidavits before Grand Juries, in connection with prosecution for libel, surpasses ordinary comprehension. The missing of so many papers, and the derangement of all others, might be charged to the neglect or carelessness of the custodian, the then Clerk, but how can the legerdemain disappearance of Shoemake’s name from the trial docket be accounted for? No reasons—no cause for the same can be found! The present Clerk is bewildered, and can give no explanation on the matter. Such being the case, is it not reasonable to presume that the leaders of the prosecution then controlled the files and records of the office to suit convenience? Prosecution foul in the commencement needs props, subterfuges and mystery in every stage of progress.
But the most impenetrable darkness of all is, Shoemake’s name being found on the trial docket as one of the prosecuting parties. The order in which they stand on the docket is cases number 61, 62, 63 and 64, corresponding with which the prosecutors are G. Y. Overall, C. F. Moulton, G. A. Cleaveland and S. S. Shoemake; and in agreement with the same, four appearance bonds are found. The question now for solution is, did Shoemake really get a bill from the Grand Jury of Mobile at the November term, 1858, along with the other three? The files and records show that he did. Now let it be borne in mind that this man was the agent to bear the requisition from the Governor of Alabama to the Governor of Mississippi for the arrest of J. R. S. Pitts. Let it also be borne in mind that J. R. S. Pitts is positively certain that he never gave any bond to cover the case of Shoemake—only three, Overall, Moulton and Cleaveland’s; and that before receiving the Clerk’s communication, he never knew that Shoemake was one of the docketed prosecutors; but he did learn during the time of his trial, that Shoemake tried to get a bill in the February term, 1859, and signally failed. Choose either end of the dilemma and the difficulty is not at all obviated. If he did get a bill, the rascality is equally manifest. To go to Mobile, Ala., to prosecute while he was a resident of Mississippi, and J. R. S. Pitts also a resident of this State, is utterly incomprehensible in any other light than a flagrant outrage on every principle of law and justice. If he did not get a bill, the files and records show forgery of the darkest hues. So, then, from whatever stand-point the whole affair is viewed, atrocity and corruption of the most aggravated character stare the impartial inquirer in the face from every direction.
As before seen, the trial opened on the 23d of February, 1859. The indictments were for libel in three cases as the defendant understood the same. The prosecutors, first, G. Y. Overall; second, C. F. Moulton, and the third, G. A. Cleveland. As it had been previously arranged by them on the State docket, the defendant had first to answer the charge of G. Y. Overall. Had he been placed the last on the docket, the prosecution would have, in all probability, signally failed in every case; and even this first case, with all the deep-laid designs in connection, would have been a failure but for the extraordinary resources for the forcing of a verdict by foul means.
The design here contemplated is only to give a brief abstract of the more momentous features of the trial, because the whole given, would be inopportune in a condensed work of this nature.