may be proper to attend more particularly to the articles of charge, as exhibited in the complaint.

The

The first article of charge had probably been designed to be made effectual to disrobe me. purport of it was, that I had given a false affidavit respecting the period of time for which a note was given to the Bridgeport bank, signed by William Lewis and others.

In order to have a clear understanding of the subject, it will be necessary to give a relation of the circumstances. In the summer and autumn of 1814, money had circulated far less liberally than before. At that period, there was a number of people in the vicinity where I resided, together with myself, who were indebted to the Bridgeport bank for loans. On most of the paper I was endorser, or had recommended them to the bank, by which means they had obtained their loans. As the circulating medium had become scarce, some of the debtors were unable to meet their instalments. In this situation I had, in several instances, remitted their respective sums, as endorser; but finding it difficult to meet their regular payments, together with my own, I was desired by several to write on to the bank, and request the privilege of a suspension of instalments for one year, by rendering the bank secure for their claims. This I did, and shortly after, evidently in compliance with my request, the President of the bank inclosed all the claims, of which reference has been had, in a letter to Cyrus Swan of Sharon, with directions to secure them on a credit of one year, and dispense with instalments. At this information, all the debtors were highly gratified. A day was appointed to meet at the office of Mr. Swan, probably the 22d of November, and ascertain what security would be acceptable. We did so, when Mr. Swan exhibited to us his letter of instructions, which authorized him to secure the payments for one year on all the claims, some of which would not

fall due, short of forty or fifty days. Mortgage security was proposed, if desired. Mr. Swan observed, he did not wish it; substantial endorsers would be sufficient. He then proposed, that the claims against Wm. Lewis and Doctor Calhoon, together with a particular claim against Daniel St. John of three hundred and seventy-five dollars, amounting in the whole to nine hundred and twelve dollars, on which I had before been endorser, but had no interest in it, should be put into one note signed jointly by them, and instead of my name, they should procure as joint signer with them Ira Swift. The note was accordingly drawn at that time, and in these words:

"One year from date, value received, we jointly and severally promise to pay the President and Directors and Company of the Bridgeport Bank, the sum of nine hundred and twelve dollars, with the interest thereon. Witness our hands at Sharon, November 25th, 1814."

It was at the same time proposed what names would be satisfactory on my paper, and others. The afternoon of the 25th of November, was then agreed upon, to bring in the obligations, which if executed agreeably to the requirements made, should be satisfactory.

A

On the morning of the 25th of November, Mr. Lewis called at my house, and observing, it would be inconvenient for him to be absent from home in the afternoon, and expecting I should necessarily attend at Mr. Swan's office, requested me to carry his note, (which has generally been distinguished by the term of the "Lewis note,") and deliver it to Mr. Swan, as it was executed in conformity with the requisitions made. I received and examined the note, and found it was faithfully executed as Mr. Swan had proposed. In the afternoon I went to the office of Mr. Swan and delivered the note

with my own hand, and also my own notes, executed as had been required. Mr. Swan pronounced them all to be good and acceptable to him; yet he must communicate to the bank what security he had received, and obtain their approbation. I should think within the period of a week, an agent, Mr. Wakeman, was sent up from the bank to take mortgage security on those notes; and observed, that the president of the bank had asserted, he would take no man's endorsement in Connecticut, for one year. Mortgages were of course immediately executed to secure all the claims. For security of the "Lewis note," Mr. Lewis mortgaged a piece of land to secure the whole, although but about half was his just share.

sum.

About the middle of the next month the failure took place. Very soon after this event, Mr. Swan thought proper to attach the property of the innocent joint signer with Mr. Lewis, viz. Ira Swift. Mr. Lewis had already mortgaged, for the security of the note, a piece of land, which he had often told me he could take 1600 dollars for at any time he would consent to part with it; yet he estimated it at a higher rate, and would not dispose of it for that Mr. Swan was doubtless not ignorant of this fact, when the mortgage was taken from Mr. Lewis, and also when he proceeded to distress Mr. Swift. He also proceeded at the same time to attach the property of an underwriter of mine, viz. Mr. Russel Millard. Mr. Swan had called at my house when he was going out, and I had inquired of him whether he was going a distance, and when he should return. He gave me no answer, except that he should not be gone probably over three days. On his return, upon the same day, he called at my house. When I observed, he had made an expeditious tour for a three days journey, a gentlemen then present, doubtless noticing that he appeared to be unwilling I should know where he had been, and what he had been doing, made the inquiry of

3

me, if I were apprised of what Mr. Swan had been about that day?" I answered I did not know. He observed, he has been attaching Ira Swift's property, as under writer on the "Lewis note."

More

over, said he, Mr. Swan has also been attaching Russel Millard's property, as endorser on your paper, for which you have given mortgage security. per, I was truly amazed! I inquired of Mr. Swan if this was true? He acknowledged it was. I inquir ed of him, by what law he could attach property eleven months before the note fell due, and hold the property? His answer was, that he could attach three years before a note was due, if he pleased. I observed, he could indeed do this, to alarm the ereditors of a benevolent underwriter, if the underwriter was so unfortunate as to owe a few shillings to others at the same time, and thus occasion a plundering of his property to be distributed between an unprincipled attorney and his rapacious officers. But in the present case he knew the underwriters had no interest in the claims; and furthermore, that he had already declared that the obligations were abundantly secured by mortgages; and also, that neither of them could be called upon under one year from the date of the notes; and that one month had not yet elapsed. He did not claim

that either note was on demand for which he had issued attachments, but attempted to justify himself by observing, he had a right to attach any man's property three years before a note became due. I observed, that his conduct was very extraordinary; and it appeared to me obvious, he was desirous of business. I should deem it my duty to report him to the bar: If his professional brethren approved of his conduct, they would undoubtedly manifest it, by permitting his continuance; if not, he would be degraded. I added, this would not be the only information which I ought to communicate -to the bar. His singular conduct, in relation to some fat cattle of mine, which had been attached,

and which he had now gotten in his possession, for a less sum by an hundred dollars or more, than I had understood, both by him and the officer, to have been offered for them, rendered it suitable and proper that he should be reported.

Not long after, I was passing his office, and he very complaisantly invited me in. He appeared very affable, and remarked that he was indebted to me on book. I replied, I did not know it. I remarked, I knew I had advanced him property before, but he had also done business for me which I had supposed would overbalance my charges. He observed, he should charge me little or nothing for what he had done, as I appeared to be dissatisfied with his late proceedings; and he was unwilling I should entertain unfavourable feelings towards him. He footed up his account, and said he owed me several dollars, which he immediately presented. I assured him I had no demands against him; yet if he felt disposed to give me the money, I would cheerfully receive it as a present. He requested I would receive it. His intentions appeared obvious by this procedure. I reflected, that a little would be better than nothing for the late loss I had sustained in relation to the cattle. I therefore received it, and he balanced his books. He then observed, he should butcher a particular fat cow very soon, which belonged to the lot of fat cattle already referred to; and added, as I had felt that he had conducted dishonorably relative to the cattle, he would send me a quarter of the cow as a present. I thanked him, and assured him I would cheerfully receive it, which engagement he afterwards fulfilled. As it was obvious to me his intentions were to purchase a forbearance to report him to the bar, although at a very low rate, and indulging the hope he would yet remunerate still further towards what I esteemed my just demand, I withheld the information. But I have never since received one farthing, except in the foregoing charge,