In October of 1823, the Superior Court ruled that depositions be taken. At the December Term, Latting moved that the sheriff of Chicot County be made a defendant. The motion was continued until the next term, and the parties were given leave to continue to take depositions. Miles filed a plea, or answer to what would have been Latting's declaration. However, neither of those pleadings survive in this collection.

In March of 1825, Ben Patton received a dedimus originally issued by Clerk David E. McKinney. Patton, the sheriff of Chicot county, served notice of the dedimus to by leaving a "true coppy" with Mrs. Latting. In it Miles informed Latting that he would attend at the house of Isaac Ward, in Oden Township, Chicot County, that month to take depositions on his behalf.

Ephraim C. Davidson, Justice of the Peace, presided. On March 26th, Henry W. Robinson, Abram DeHart, Joseph O. Campbell, Nicholas Merriweather, Thomas Marney, John Campbell, and John DeHeart gave depositions. It would be an understatement to say that Andrew Latting was not liked by his neighbors. Henry Robinson, who claimed to have known Latting for 14 years, testified that he heard that John Dehart accused Latting of poisoning him before he died. When asked if he was aware of the first charge contained in the bill against Latting, Robinson testified that the slave mentioned in the charge was originally the property of Mr. Morehouse, and after his death he became the property of General Hughes of Ouachita. Robinson believed the slave had been stolen in the summer of 1816. Hughes accused Latting of stealing the slave. Latting was absent at the time, long enough to have traveled to Ouachita and back, and within days of Latting's return the slave was in Latting's possession. A Mr. Frederick Fooy arrived from Ouachita, supposedly under the authority of Hughes to retrieve the slave, and questioned the slave in the presence of both Robinson and Latting. Robinson testified that Latting had hidden in the swamp for several days, "perswaiding him to run away with him & treating him with whiskey." Robinson also testified that Latting requested Robinson to go with him to rescue the slave from Foy and told Robinson that he intended to kill Foy.

The next deponent was Abram Dehart. He testified that he had known Latting for about 15 years, and that he was a troublesome man, breaking the peace by encouraging lawsuits, using his authority as justice of the peace to oppress others. He testified that his father, John Dehart, accused Latting of poisoning him when he was on his deathbed. Latting gave the senior Dehart white powder which Latting claimed was laudanum but which a doctor later said was poison. When asked if he knew anything regarding the charges in the libel suit, Dehart replied that about the time a slave was reported to be stolen, he saw a "negro" at Latting's house; that he, Dehart, had gone hunting for two days with a "yellow Negro man" who was riding one of Latting's horses; and that Latting had possession of a slave which Dehart understood belonged to Mr. Ruth of Natchez, but that when it came time for the sale of the slave Dehart saw him "lying under a big log in the cane by a hole of water I asd him said negro, what he was doing there he told me that Latting had put him there. . . ."

Next to testify was Joseph O. Campbell. He said he had known Latting 12 years, and that he would take every advantage of his fellow men in order to profit himself. When asked about the charges against Latting, Campbell stated that Latting had a slave in his possession who supposedly belonged to Mr. Ruth of Natchez for about a year. Latting informed Campbell that the slave had run away and asked Campbell whether he knew of his whereabouts. Later Latting's son Henry told Campbell that the slave had approached his father and him "above the head of the Iland No. 86 & 87 on his way to Arkansas where the negro was to be sold."

Nicholas Merriwether testified that he had known Latting for 15 years, but would not permit him to visit his house because his character was so base. Merriwether claimed that Latting had committed so many felonious actions that he would mention only one more: "he was committed to Jail for stealing a negro; that he broke Jail and escaped of which I took an attest coppy from the reckords; and certificut from the Jailor with intent to have him taken up, which coppy I transmitted to the Govenor; and requested that he would have him removed from the office of Justice of the peace, it being a scandal to the Territory." (Underneath Merriwether's deposition is the notation "400 words. 40 cents.")

Thomas Marney next testified that he had known Latting for six years. He recounted that he and Lawrence Carpenter had agreed to clear a field for Latting for $45. Latting provided a team, "spirrits and provission for the log rolling which did for one day," but the work actually took two days. Latting charged them ten dollars for the use of the team on the second day and for a few logs that would not burn. Regarding the charges against Latting, Marney testified that Latting had harbored two "yellow negrows" belonging to a Mr. Nichols at Point Cooper. While in Latting's possession a man named Freeman arrived and took away "the fellow" in irons, but did not get far before the slave got away and stole Freeman's gun. Marney saw the slave on Latting's land, holding Freeman's gun and not wearing any irons. When asked about this, Latting supposedly replied that he had not seen the slave. Marney remembered seeing the two slaves in the house where the wood choppers slept. Marney claimed to have overheard a conversation between Latting and his wife. She asked him whether he planned to take the slaves with him on his next trip down the river, and "his repply was that if he could make tow or three hundred dollars by them it was no boddys busissness." Marney then stated that as the time for Latting's departure drew near, the slaves were missing during the daytime but as he understood it they came in at night to obtain provisions; "at length the wech [wench] cam and staid at the hous and the fellow lurked about untill he was found in the hous and taking by Freeman." Apparently the two slaves were male and female. Marney further testified that Latting had "exceeded judicial authority" in the case of Hemphill's salt boat. George Shanks had told him that at first the judgment was for fifty nine dollars but afterwards it was reduced to forty nine. From Marney's testimony it appears as though perhaps this was a judgment that Latting rendered in his capacity as justice of the peace in Chicot County.

John Campbell testified next. He stated that he had known Latting for approximately twelve years. As to his general character, "Andrew Latting will deprive and take every advantage he can of his fellow creatures if It is to any profet or revenge and does not care who he distresses." As to the specific charges, Campbell testified that Latting had a slave in his possession who was understood to belong to "Mr. Ruth" of Natchez, for about a year. He also testified that after Freeman, the overseer of Nichols, tried unsuccessfully to capture the "yellow-fellow," Campbell frequently saw the "yellow negro" on Latting's land, sometimes riding Latting's horse. As to Latting's misconduct while a justice of the peace, Campbell testified that Mr. Griffin of Ouachita had "lodged a small note" against Campbell's stepfather Abram Dehart for collection. Campbell went to Latting as his stepfather's agent and offered to pay the note, but Latting refused to accept the payment.

John Dehart was the last deponent to testify in Chicot County. He testified that he had known Latting for around fourteen years and that Latting's general character was "verry bad." His father had been traveling by Latting's house when he felt unwell. Latting gave him a white powder which he stated was the best kind of laudanum. On Dehart's way home he stopped a few minutes at a mill. Part of the document is missing but the testimony continues that in the presence of a Dr. Floyd, Dehart fainted, then regained consciousness and vomited, and until his death a short time later continued to insist that Latting had poisoned him. As to the alleged libel regarding the slave, Dehart testified that Latting was gone "a suitable length of time, I belive about eight or nine days to go to Ouichita, and a day or two after he returned" the slave was with him.

Following these depositions, at the April 1825 Term of the Superior Court, a jury was called, consisting of John Douglass, John McLaine, John L. Chastine, Thomas Whittington, William Shipley, Samuel Taylor, James Ball, John Kishler, William Roberts, William Flanakin, Thomas White and J.D.W. Pearson. The jury could not reach a verdict, so its members were discharged by the court. Leave was given to take more depositions.

During April 1825 Clerk McKinney issued a dedimus to any judge or justice of the peace in Opelousas County, Louisiana, to hear testimony of witnesses. Accordingly, George King, the judge for Sant Landry Parish in Opelousas County heard the testimony of Henry Stiner on September 6, 1825, at the courthouse. Stiner, having been sworn "upon the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God" testified that he had known Latting for about seven years and his general character was "very base." When asked about Latting's conduct as a justice of the peace, Stiner responded that he had heard complaints about Latting by Thomas James, with whom Stiner had lived for a year. Stiner also testified that he had been the prosecutor and principal witness against Peter L. Pritchett on behalf of the United States in a case involving forgery and perjury in 1821. Latting had arraigned Pritchett and bound him to appear before the circuit court. Stiner traveled thirty miles, "as far as Latting's, with full intention of continuing on to Court, but said Latting took me aside, and advised me not to go any further–He said that if Pritchet would give me anything not to appear, I have better accept of it." Stiner apparently testified that he saw Latting give Pritchett a receipt for $1,000 or $1,200 worth of land, without mention of any consideration, however this testimony is crossed out, even though it is quite specific.

At the October Term of Superior Court, the court stated that the lower court should not have dismissed the suit at Latting's costs. Instead, the plaintiff, Miles, should have been responsible for the costs. On appeal, the only issue left was the amount of Latting's costs. Apparently the amount of the costs was not easily determined, because the parties were back at the April 1826 Term. A jury was called to decide the issue, consisting of William Sheffield, Caleb Linsey, Richard B. Elam, David Walker, John T. Garrett, Jacob Gray, Gilbert Barden, Roger Wheat, Caleb Records, George W. McSwiney, John Gillespie and David Frost. Again, the jury could not agree on a verdict so its members were discharged. This proceeding merited a brief article in the Arkansas Gazette issue of Tuesday, April 25. The article provides additional information and is reproduced here in full.

Law Intelligence

We are indebted to the politeness of a gentleman of the Bar, for the following brief reports (furnished at our particular request) of two of the most important causes tried during the present term of the Superior Court:

Andrew Latting
vs. Libel
Benjamin Miles

This cause has been the theme of public conversation for two or three years past; and it will be recollected, that, at the April term of the Court, in 1825, it was before a jury–that the jury, after being kept together several days, were unable to agree on a verdict, when, by consent of parties, a juror was withdrawn, and a new trial ordered.

The second trial commenced on Monday, 17th inst., and the whole of that day, Tuesday, and a part of the morning of Wednesday, were consumed in the examination of witnesses, and the reading of depositions.

At 11 o'clock on Wednesday morning, Col. Ashley, on the part of the plaintiff, addressed the jury, and in a speech of upwards of two hours, descanted on the mass of evidence before him. The after-noon, until dark, was occupied by Messrs. Wharton and Sevier, who contended that the defendant had sustained his charges throughout. Mr. Crittenden followed, and concluded the argument, for the plaintiff, in an address which lasted until near 9 o'clock. After which the jury retired, and being kept together until Friday noon, were discharged, in consequence of not being able to agree on a verdict.

Thus has this important case again to undergo an investigation; and it is hoped, for the said of the Court, the gentlemen of the Bar interested, and the satisfaction of the community, that a verdict may be had at the next trial. If industry and perseverance can accomplish any measure, surely the efforts exercised in this cause, ought to produce a decision on the one or the other side.

[It gives us pleasure to state, that, since the foregoing was written, the preliminaries of a settlement of the above have been approved by the parties, and that there is a fair prospect of it being amicably settled at the next term of the Court, without the unpleasant necessity of resorting to a new trial.]

The Gazette was correct in its prediction. At the October Term, the case was dismissed and the parties agreed to split the costs equally.

Previous Case | Next Page