Huntingdon Gazette

              Single 6 cents.j
HUNTINGDON (TennsykaniaJ Printed dv JOHN
[•CAHAN.
Vol. 9.]. THURSDAY EVENING. vi^:^:^^f^;7TTZTc:
[S2 PcT Anmtui
Frovi tlie Pittsburgh Gazette.
JAMES
fNo. 39.
vs*
Ross, Esq. 'I action of slander
'tried in "Washing
"ton   county,   at
Joseph VANCE,esqJ Nov. term, 1809.
TTHS suit was instituted by Mr. Boss against Mr. "Vance, then a senator in the legislature of Pennsyl¬ vania, for having before the last elec- lion for ^vernor, in 1808, uttered •and circulated the odious calumny against Mr. Ross ** that he had ad¬ ministered the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to a dog."
This action was tried at W^ash- ington on the 3d instant, before the associate judges Allison and Mercer, president Roberts being absent from court this term.
Campbell, Pentecost, and Ne¬ ville, lor plaintiff. ,   Mountain, for defendant.
On behalf of plaintiff, W^illiatn Stevenson, of Washington county, testified that on lhe morning of the 2d of August, 1808, he and a cer- I tifin Lewis Warner, of Pittsburg, were returning from the eastward acrcss the Allegheny mountains, stopped for breaktiist at Metzgar's t-.ivern, in Bedford county, where Joseph Vance arrived in a lew mi¬ nutes after, with 1 is wife. The wit¬ ness and Vance entered int-.^ con- versjitioii while breakfast was pre¬ paring; Vance asked die witness now the election was going on in Washir!gton cpunty I the witness re¬ plied, that when he left home about '5 five weeks past, there appeared to be a change favorable for iVIr- Ross;
that the
¦Washington
Vance said he was sorry £Ood  democrats  of county should give the preference to Mr. Ross over Mr.   Snyder,   but that the people tvould be better in¬ formed before the election; the "^^ it- ness then mentioned, that   he   had heard, when down the conntry, ofa Mr. Davis, of Franklin county, cir¬ culating a report that Mr. Ross had administered the  Sacrament to   a pac'ii of h Uiids, and diat Mr. Davis had hcon sued by Mr. Ross for say¬ ing so ; Vance said he did not know as to the pack of hounds, but diat ¦ Mr. Ross had administered the sa¬ crament to a dog, M'as a certain fact • tlic Vv'itness inquired vyhen this hap¬ pened ; Viince answered nine or ten years ago, while he lived in Wash¬ ington, before M'Kean's election ; the witnes observed, it  must have been more than that, for he had him- eelf lived there thirteen   years and Air. Ross had not resitled there   in ' all that tiiTie ; to this Vance replied tliat he did not recollect the number of years, but it was a considerable time * ince ; the witness then said if Mr. Ross had done so, it was a bad thing, and wondered he had   not been taken'notice of for it;   Vance answered it is so reported.
The witness being cro.s3 exami- ^ ned, said he never had spolcen to Mr. Ross before the beginning of the pre.sent week,(of the trial) — That he did not give his vote for Mr. Ross or Mr. Snjder ; that he did not vote aliho' he might have done so—That he frequently told on his road Home and afterwards, what he had heard from Mr. Vance, .and nhva^'s gave Mr. Vance as his au¬ thor—T'hat he and Warner did not leave the breal; fisting house togc- . ther; for the witness got into the mail stage and rode several miles ; he then got out and  Warner took
his place and travelled afew miles; at the end of sixteen miles diey join- ed again and travelled together on foot during that and tlie next day, and in conversation both seemed to agree as tothe words used by Vance, and Warner said that Vance want¬ ed to eat his first words.
I'lic .second witness LeAvis"W^?r- ner deix)sed that he was in compa¬ ny with Stevenson on the 2d of Au¬ gust 1808, at Metzgar's tavern, he did not hear the wliole of the first part ofthe conversation, but that he came into the house and set down AN'ithin a fevy- feet bf where Stet^en- soii and ^''iince were conversing at die same time Stevenson was repeat ing the story of Davis and the pack of hounds, and of Davis having been sued for it; Vance then said he did not know as to the pack of hounds, but it was a certain fact that Mr. Ross had administered the Sacrament to a dog in Washington ; that Stevenson then asked when this sliould have happened, and Vance answered, several years ago when he  lived  in   Washington, before M'Kean's election : Stevenson ob¬ served this was a bad thing, and he v. ondered Mr. Ross had *1not been called to an account about it; Vance replied,  it was so reported; the witness declared he had paid parti¬ cular attention to the conversation, that more than five minutes, in his opinion elapsed   after  the words '^certain fact," till Vance said "it Avas so reported ;" that when  they joined after quitting the stige, wit¬ ness told Stevenson, this was a hard charge, it ought to   be publickly known, and if false it ought to be contradicted,   and that he would tell Mr.  Ross's friends,  when he went home to Pittsburg.    T'he wit¬ ness further stated, that he and Ste- i veiison were strangers,  who acci¬ dentally met on the road,   in the mountains, and that after parting on the third of August   1808, they had never seen each other, till  this Vv'cek (ofthe trial.) Being cross ex¬ amined, he said he paid but little at¬ tention to the first part of the con¬ versation between Stevenson and Vance, but after the story of ad¬ ministering the Sacrament to the pack of hounds began, he sat tlown and attended to all that passed, un¬ til the conversation ended.
Mr. Campbell then testified, that mr. Ross by letter early in August, 1808, requested him to write to Mr. V^nce, cn this subject, desiring an explanation of his conduct, and to learn from him explicitly, whether he persisted in asserting its truth— or whether he vvould retract it—if nothing satisliictory could be had from V ance then to bring a suit &. luid to request him to agree to come to a trial before the election, that the truth or falsehood ofthe report might be publicly established. Mr. Camp¬ bell produced a copy "of the letter WTitlcn by him to Mr.   Vance, and his acknowledgement of the receipt, together with the promise of an an. •sw er—Mr. Vance however, called uj)on Mr. CampbeU   and declined giving itny written explanation of his belief or unbelief of this report, but said he liad only intended to state it as a report, which he had long ago heard—a suit was brought and Mr. Vance refused to give his consent to a trial before the election
but siiid the bushiess must take its course-—there was a circuit court
in Wasiiington, beginnhig on die 19th Sept. 1808, vthieh siit tMo WTcks, and Mr. Vance was offered a trial in any ofthe wtcks lie riiolit choose-^diis he declined altlioiigh he admitted at the trial that he re¬ mained in Washington county till the22d of October, 1808;
The defendant then called a great number of witnesses to prove his good character for truth, and for mo deration in his temper and language towards all his neighbors, and to¬ wards his political oi)poncnts—also, that he had never been heard to use this report in \\^ashington against Mr. Rossi's election.
The first witness, James Edgar, venerable for his pi(|ty as  well as }-cars, testified tliat he' had known Vance   near 30 year.s—they had lived near neighbours, and belong¬ ed to the same congregation—that he was of excellent character for truth—that he ne\er had Iieard him use the report nor any other against the election oF w. Ross—that ma¬ ny years ago he had licard of this report against Mr. Ross, while he lived in Washington, huit did not give any credit to it—he had al.so heard other reports of Ur. Ross's telling stories in imitation of minis- ters, but all in a merry, jocose way, without any thing more than is often done among young people in jest— that he had known Mr.   Ross from his child hood, and had a great res¬ pect for   him,   and   these reports made no impression on tlie witness¬ es mind, except that relating to the sacrament; that in regard to this, one or more ofthe eldcrsof the Pres¬ byterian church had made inquiry into the matter  immediately after the report first   ai'ose,   and found there tvas no ground for believing so wicked an act had ever been com¬ mitted by any body ; that the re])ort had arisen from an intemperate and indecent meeting of a   nimiber of persons in Wa.yhington, on a Satur¬ day night before a sacrament was to be hekl   in   the neighborhood—at this meeting, which was continued imdl Sunday morning, they had ele¬ vated an umpire or President,  in a chair upon die  table,  who gave orders, and presided over this noisy, drinking company—but uponinqiii ry it was found that  Mr.  l^oss had not been there, but at the time of diis meeting was hi Philadelphia— that this inquiry into the facts vvas made by the late Judge m'Do well, who informed die witness and others ofthe church, that the whole tale was unfounded, as it related to Mr. Ross—and as a further proof that nothing of the kind was believed. Mr. Edgar stated, that he had been ih die habits of intimacy with Mr. 1-loss, called at his house and M|-. Ro.ss at his, without ever having a word of conversation in relation to the subject.
Henry Graham, Esq. gave to Mr. Vance the same good character which was given by Mr Edgar—& likewise expressed his resi)ect for Mr Ross—he also stated that Judge M'Do\vell had mendoned to him the inquiry made into the truth or false¬ hood ofthe're/A>rt respecting the profanation of the sacrament—that there was no groundfor it, and diat Mr Ross, at all events, had no par¬ ticipation in the meeting complained of, as he was then over the moun¬ tains.
Col. Thomas Acheson  deposed
that he had known Mr. \'aiice about fifteen years, had corr«<<pontkd with him lor a long time on political and other subjects, had never Iieard him use this sior)- or any other iclative H \o religion against Mr. Rojss's elec¬ tion ; and that he was \c^vy careful m his conversation and letters toab- stain fi-om every ex])re.^sion ofa slanderous nature, so far ns lie had ever observed ; he fiivih-v r stated that nine or ten years ago, he had heard the report ag-jnst Mr. Ross about die pppfanation of the sncnr.iiciit, r<iid had then made inquirv into it; diat he v\'as perfectly satisiied th.it no 4uch thing had ever been done hv Mr. Ross; nor wa.s there, iK-rluip.'^-, any reason to think il had been <^one by any other person. '*'
Aaron Lyle, Thomas M'KII)bon John Wilson, William Ray, Sherilil Anderson, Joseph Alexander,   Ri. chard   Donaldson, James    Brice, Judges Allison and   Mercer,    and' John Riddle, were called and  gavej testimony of good ch? i acter oiMr.'' Vance—Mr.   Riddle on the cross examination, said wr. Vance   told him he had no reason to believe the story vras well founded, but his pri- , vate belief was his o^vn, -.uid ht \^i;s not bound to express   his beiicfoi* disbelief on the subjccr.
The testimony lor defendant here. closed without any attempt lo v/cak- en the re.speetiibilily  or crctlibility- of Stevenson anrl Warner.
The plaintiif  then   called   Col.1 William Wallace, w ho tf stificd, that^ many years ago, he vvas iu a com.''^ pany that sat   up   care,u: ing   :;r;d| drinking freely on Saturd;iy   ni:j,ht, till the morning of Sunday ; tliat in, the morning a large bowl was filled, and when set down after   disputing what na me die bowl should   ha\ e, it was agreed to call it Lake   I'lricl I'here was great meniment in go¬ ing round the bowl, till by accidcntj it was broken to pieces and the com¬ pany dispersed ; the   witness   sooiij after Iieard that the disorderly con-^ duct of this night, had given rise to^ the report ofthe sacrament having; been profaned, but nodiing of that kind vvas done or thought of by any | of the company,   several of vvhom' are still living in diis   country  and?;^i very resjicctable j Mr. Ross v^as not^Cj; at this meeting—the witness recol- Vyj^, Iects well that he was suid   at   that time to be in Philadelphia. |1
Mr. Neville with great pcrspicu- p ity and excellent argument summon 1; ed up the testimony on behalf of jfj theplaintift'; he stated that thcdi- %),_ famatory words as charged against f|^ the defendant were fully proved, by ''V tvvo   witnesses   whose  characters '^ff stood unimpeached; that diese vvit-\; nesses agreed in all the material facts| and almo.st in the very words, al< though they had not seen each o- ther from the time of the sjieaking^ until the week of trial; that th^; vvere uttered by the defendant, afti hccring that   another person ha< been sued for propagating die sam< base ciiluninly, and as if to give cd. lour to this tale of malignitj'—thi the conversation was  in  a publn house, to a stranger, by a Scnatoj of the Slate, without any nicntioi of his ovni disbelief of the story, buj on die contrary using the term "cer: tain fact: "and if the design or e\ iti intent ofthe speaker could be^oubt. ed by his friends, all doubts inusl cease, when they reflected that hci refused any satifactory explanation,!
i
Vv
WW