Difference between revisions of ".MjkyMzE.MTA2Mjk1"
m (Protected ".MjkyMzE.MTA2Mjk1" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
Latest revision as of 13:55, 5 June 2020
page 2d I think Thomas H Averit was also present, & that we together compared the signature of the paper in question with that of the acceptance already mentioned. I did express my opinion of the paper at the time, & have always expressed it freely on proper occasions Ques 4th by same. Be good enough to state what you said about the paper at that time? Answer My exact words I cannot of course pretend to give The substance of what I said was that I did not believe the paper to be genuine & that I thought the best thing that could be done with it was to burn it And further this deponent saith not F.J. Mettauer The deposition of John W Rodgers of lawful age, taken at the same time & place between the same hours to be read in same suit between the same parties as the foregoing deposition he being first duly sworn deposeth & saith: Ques 1st by defts counsel. Have you given a deposition in the case before this time? Answer Yes. I have given a deposition in this case a few days ago. Ques 2d by same. Be good enough to state if you saw a paper purporting to be executed by John Stevens the deft, to Edward Williams the plff giving him the right to redeem certain slaves, before that time purchased by the said Stevens of the said Williams? Ans: I did see such a paper, and the name of John Stevens was spelled in that paper Jon Stevens, the name was written but once, and that was in the beginning of the paper, and at the bottom. Witness states that upon examination of his former deposition given in this cause, he sees that he is made to speak as if in reciting the paper, that eth paper was signed and sealed at the bottom, the witness does not mean so to be understood, and says that there was no signature and seal at the bottom. Ques 3d by same. Are you the same John W Rodgers page 3d who was examined by the plff as a witness, at the Tavern House of William S King in the county of Prince Edward on the 21st day of October 1852? the deposition to be read in this cause? Answer, I am. And farther this deponent saith not John W Rodgers The deposition of Sally A Rodgers of lawful age taken at the same time and place, between same hours, to be read in same suit between same parties she being first duly sworn, Deposeth and saith as follows: That she saw the paper alluded to and dissented in the two foregoing depositions, in the possession of Samuel D. Rodgers, and she remembers well that the name of John Stevens was in the beginning of the paper and that it was written "I Jon Stevens &c" Witness does not remember that it was signed and sealed at the bottom. And further this deponent saith not S A Rodgers The deposition of Samuel J Hurt taken at the same time & place, between the same hours to be read in same suit between same parties he being first duly sworn deposeth and saith: Ques 1st By by counsel. Be good enough to state if you saw the paper described in the foregoing depositions, and when, and any other paper of like import? Ans. I saw such a paper three or four years ago in the hands of Williams the plaintiff purporting to give him the privilege of redeeming the negroes before that time purchased of him by Stevens the deft, that witness examined the paper and did not think it genuine and advised him to burn it, that some short time afterwards said Williams brought him the same paper and told the witness that Francis J. Mittaner had seen it, and a great many other persons and that Francis J. Mittaner had advised him to burn it. Witness heard no more of the paper, until the spring of the present year, when the plff Williams brought him another