No image available

Introduction to State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A, State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus, State of Illinois v. H. Smith et al. on Habeas Corpus, and State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–B

State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A
Hancock Co., Illinois, Justice of the Peace Court, 27 June 1844
 
State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus
Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois, Municipal Court, 12 June 1844
 
State of Illinois v. H. Smith et al. on Habeas Corpus
Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois, Municipal Court, 13 June 1844
 
State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–B
Hancock Co., Illinois, Justice of the Peace Court, 17 June 1844
 
Historical Introduction
In June 1844, JS appeared in a series of legal proceedings relating to the state of ’s efforts to prosecute him and other Latter-day Saints for their roles in the destruction of the press of the Nauvoo Expositor. This newspaper was edited by and published by , , , , , , and . Most of these individuals were former members of the church, and all of them were opposed to JS. The first and only issue of the paper was published on 7 June 1844 in , Illinois. It criticized JS in his capacity as a civic and religious leader, calling for the repeal of the legislative act that incorporated the city of Nauvoo—commonly known as the —and a reformation of the church.
On 8 and 10 June 1844, JS met with the City Council to deliberate the best course of action regarding the Expositor. Referencing English legal commentator William Blackstone and a provision in the Nauvoo charter, the city council declared on 10 June that the paper was a nuisance that needed to be abated to maintain the public peace. JS, as mayor, then issued an order to city marshal to destroy the press and scatter the type in the street. JS issued a second order for acting major general to muster the to support Greene. That night around eight o’clock, Greene led a posse of approximately one hundred men and executed the order.
 
State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A
On 11 June, one of the proprietors of the Expositor, , filed a complaint before , Illinois, justice of the peace , who lived in , Illinois. Higbee, who witnessed the demolition of the press, alleged in the complaint that JS and seventeen other men had “unlawfully & with force” destroyed the press of the Expositor. The order of names in the complaint suggests that Higbee was targeting two groups of men. In the first group were JS and four other members of the city council—alderman , city councilors and , and city councilor pro tempore . Another acting member of the city council, , who voted to approve the 10 June resolution, was listed with the second group—which was composed of individuals who evidently assisted in executing the mayor’s orders: , , , , , , , , , , , and .
Based on the complaint, issued a warrant the same day stating that the named men “with force & violence broke into the printing office of the Nauvoo Expositor, and unlawfully & with force burned & destroyed the printing press, type & fixtures of the same.” The warrant classified their actions as a , which law defined as “an unlawful act” performed by two or more people “with force or violence against the person or property of another, with or without a common cause of quarrel.” The law also indicated that “a lawful act” could constitute a riot, if performed “in a violent and tumultuous manner.” Conviction resulted in a fine of up to $200 or imprisonment of up to six months. Although the warrant did not explicitly state it, Morrison may have viewed JS and the four other members of the city council who did not physically participate in the destruction of the press as accessories to the riot. If convicted, accessories under Illinois law received the same punishment as principals.
On 12 June, constable served the warrant by arresting JS in . Bettisworth intended to take JS to for a preliminary examination before . JS, however, feared that his life was in danger in Carthage—the county seat and a nexus for antagonism against the church. He therefore declined to accompany Bettisworth to Carthage and sought a legal remedy within the safety of Nauvoo. Noting that the warrant allowed Bettisworth to take the individuals named therein before Morrison “or some other justice of the Peace” in the county, JS asked to be taken before , a justice of the peace who lived in Nauvoo and was a member of the church. According to , Bettisworth insisted that JS was required to appear before Morrison and “seemed very wrathy.”
 
State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus
In response, JS sought a writ of from the Nauvoo Municipal Court. Although reportedly later claimed that JS “had resisted the law” during the arrest, the constable nevertheless allowed him to prepare a petition for the writ. The petition gave three arguments justifying JS’s request for a writ of habeas corpus: First, ’s warrant was defective because it did not “disclose sufficently” the crime with which JS was charged. Second, was motivated to make his complaint by malice toward JS and was part of “a conspiracy against” JS’s life. Third, JS was not guilty of riot and was requesting the municipal court to investigate the merits of the charge against him. , clerk of the Nauvoo Municipal Court, granted the petition by issuing a writ of habeas corpus, which was directed to and commanded Bettisworth to produce JS before the municipal court. Greene served the writ on Bettisworth, who subsequently brought JS before the court.
On 12 June, at about five o’clock in the afternoon, associate justices , , , , and , with acting as president pro tempore of the court in JS’s place, convened at the to review the legality of JS’s detention. The court first reviewed the legal basis of the city council’s resolution to declare the Expositor a nuisance. The justices then heard witnesses who described the orderly manner in which the press had been destroyed. In addition, several witnesses testified regarding threats allegedly made by against JS and others in . Higbee evidently was not present at the hearing. The court ruled that JS “had acted under proper authority” in ordering the destruction of the press, that his orders “were excuted in an orderly. & judices [judicious] manner. without noise or tumult,” and that JS should “be honorably discharged from the accusati[o]ns and of the writ.” The court further held that Higbee had instituted “a malices prosecution” against JS and should pay the $22.12½ costs of the habeas corpus proceedings.
 
State of Illinois v. H. Smith et al. on Habeas Corpus
The next day, 13 June 1844, JS presided as chief justice of the municipal court over habeas corpus proceedings for his codefendants. Early that morning, arrested eight of the other men named in the warrant—, , , , , , , and . The defendants submitted a petition for habeas corpus to the municipal court, arguing that they were not guilty of riot. The petition further asserted that ’s complaint was motivated by malice, revenge, and a desire to bring a mob against . After receiving the petition, issued the writ of habeas corpus. One of the defendants, Huntington, acting in his capacity as a high constable of Nauvoo, served the writ on Bettisworth and brought the constable and the prisoners before the court. Subsequently, one of Bettisworth’s deputies, possibly physician Thomas Barnes of , arrested an additional eight men named in the warrant—, , , , , , , and . After the petition for habeas corpus was amended to include their names, Richards accordingly revised the writ of habeas corpus, and these additional defendants were also brought into the court.
The proceedings commenced at nine o’clock in the morning in the . JS was joined by associate justices , , , , and . city attorney represented the defendants. The justices heard a few documents read into evidence, including the city council’s resolution declaring the Expositor a nuisance and JS’s two orders for the abatement of the press. gave a statement about the defendants’ right to habeas corpus, after which two witnesses, Addison Everett and James Jackson, testified regarding the orderly and quiet manner in which the defendants carried out the order to destroy the press. evidently was not present at the hearing. JS and the court then “honorably discharged [the prisoners] from the accusations and arrest.” The justices also held that Higbee had instituted the suit out of malice and ordered him to pay the court costs.
 
State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–B
Meanwhile, the church’s antagonists held public meetings in , Illinois, and in to pass resolutions expressing outrage against city authorities for the destruction of the Expositor and for the Nauvoo Municipal Court’s perceived interference in the legal process. JS’s antagonists called for volunteers to assemble as a on 19 June 1844 to help arrest him. Armed men began threatening Latter-day Saints living in Nauvoo’s countryside and outlying settlements. On 16 June 1844, Judge of ’s fifth judicial circuit, which included , visited Nauvoo in an attempt to defuse the situation. noted in JS’s journal that Thomas counseled JS and his codefendants to “go before some Jusstice of the peace” for an examination, which “would allay all excitement or cut off all legal pretext for a mob.” Thomas promised that after they did so, he would order the church’s opponents to keep the peace. Although the judge evidently meant that JS should go before , the justice who had issued the original warrant, JS interpreted Thomas’s counsel to mean that the accused could appear before any justice of the peace who had jurisdiction over the alleged crime.
On 17 June 1844, , a city alderman and justice of the peace, agreed to hear the case. Although Wells was a member of the Nauvoo City Council, he was ill on 10 June and therefore was not present when the council passed the resolution declaring the Expositor a nuisance. In addition, Wells was not a member of the church and the accused may have hoped that, outside of Nauvoo, he would be perceived as a neutral arbiter. Rather than interfere with another justice’s process, Wells opted to initiate new proceedings against the defendants. Latter-day Saint filed a complaint before Wells on 17 June alleging that “on or about the 10th day of June, 1844,” the accused men committed a riot in Nauvoo when they “forcibly” entered the Expositor printing office, seized “with force of arms a printing press, types and paper, together with other property” that belonged to the paper’s proprietors, and broke and burned “the same in the streets.” Based on the complaint, Wells issued a warrant for JS and sixteen other men who allegedly participated in the riot. The list of men named in Wells’s warrant was nearly identical to the one in ’s warrant.
constable arrested the defendants and brought them before , apparently on his farm in eastern , during the early afternoon on 17 June. As a justice of the peace, Wells had authority to hold a preliminary examination to “inquire into the truth or probability of the charge.” After reviewing the evidence, the justice could either send the case to the circuit court or discharge the defendants. served as the prosecuting attorney, while Nauvoo city attorney represented the defendants.
The prosecution called five witnesses. Three of them testified regarding the violent nature of the posse’s seizure of the press and destruction of it in the street in an effort to establish that the action constituted a riot under law. The other two witnesses—the complainant, , and city councilor —testified about the city council’s resolution regarding the Expositor in an attempt to demonstrate that JS and the other city council members named in the complaint were accessories to the riot. JS interrupted Warrington’s testimony by arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to try the city council’s official actions. held that the defendants were being tried “in their individual capacities, and could not be recognized by the court to their official capacity.” Warrington responded by stating that “all he heard the prisoner say, was said as councillors” and concluded without saying more.
The defense then called six witnesses, including again, each of whom testified that the posse had destroyed the press in an orderly manner and that no property other than the press and its fixtures had been destroyed. In addition, read into evidence the resolution and the mayor’s orders. After the testimony closed, discharged the defendants. The published trial report appeared in an extra issue of the Nauvoo Neighbor dated 21 June 1844.
 
State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A (Continued)
The discharges by the Municipal Court and by failed to satisfy JS’s opponents or state officials that the needs of the law had been met. Illinois governor arrived in on 21 June, organized the state militia under his command, and assessed the increasingly volatile situation. After receiving reports from both the Latter-day Saints and their antagonists, Ford informed JS on 22 June that he had concluded that the destruction of the press of the Expositor—which Ford, a former Illinois Supreme Court justice, considered “a very gross outrage upon the laws and the liberties of the people”—was the root cause of the difficulties. In addition, Ford declared that the attempt by the accused to address the riot charge before the Nauvoo Municipal Court, rather than before , further exacerbated the situation. Ford concluded that JS and the others needed to submit to arrest by and appear before Morrison. The governor promised that he would ensure their safety.
JS, doubtful about his security in despite the governor’s assurances, seriously considered leaving and seeking assistance from the federal government. In the early morning of 23 June, he crossed the and went to , but after messengers from Nauvoo urged him to reconsider, he returned to Nauvoo that evening. He informed via letter that he would comply with the governor’s demands. Accompanied by others named in ’s 11 June warrant, JS arrived in Carthage close to midnight on 24 June.
The following morning, detained JS and fourteen Latter-day Saints on the riot charge. The constable subsequently arrested JS and for , a charge evidently stemming from JS’s mustering of the Nauvoo Legion and declaration of martial law on 19 June. At four o’clock in the afternoon on 25 June, JS and the other defendants appeared for a preliminary examination, not before , but before Robert Smith, another justice of the peace and the commander of the Carthage Greys, the militia unit charged with guarding the prisoners. It is unknown why Morrison did not preside over the proceedings. , one of the proprietors of the Expositor, served as the prosecuting attorney, while the defendants were represented by and , attorneys from . Higbee requested an adjournment, perhaps because , the complainant, was not present. After some discussion between the attorneys, Justice Smith held that there was probable cause to believe that the defendants had committed a riot in the destruction of the press and ordered that they enter into $500 recognizances binding them to appear at the October 1844 term of the circuit court for trial. JS and Hyrum Smith were murdered while in jail on 27 June 1844, so criminal proceedings against them naturally terminated. However, at the October 1845 term of the Hancock County Circuit Court, a jury acquitted eleven men who had been indicted for their alleged roles in the destruction of the press.
 
Calendar of Documents
This calendar lists all known documents created by or for the court, whether extant or not. It does not include versions of documents created for other purposes, though those versions may be listed in footnotes. In certain cases, especially in cases concerning unpaid debts, the originating document (promissory note, invoice, etc.) is listed here. Note that documents in the calendar are grouped with their originating court. Where a version of a document was subsequently filed with another court, that version is listed under both courts.
State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A
Hancock Co., Illinois, Justice of the Peace Court, 27 June 1844
 
State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus
Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois, Municipal Court, 12 June 1844
 
State of Illinois v. H. Smith et al. on Habeas Corpus
Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois, Municipal Court, 13 June 1844
 
State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–B
Hancock Co., Illinois, Justice of the Peace Court, 17 June 1844
 
Historical Introduction
In June 1844, JS appeared in a series of legal proceedings relating to the state of ’s efforts to prosecute him and other Latter-day Saints for their roles in the destruction of the press of the Nauvoo Expositor. This newspaper was edited by and published by , , , , , , and . Most of these individuals were former members of the church, and all of them were opposed to JS. The first and only issue of the paper was published on 7 June 1844 in , Illinois. It criticized JS in his capacity as a civic and religious leader, calling for the repeal of the legislative act that incorporated the city of Nauvoo—commonly known as the —and a reformation of the church.
On 8 and 10 June 1844, JS met with the City Council to deliberate the best course of action regarding the Expositor. Referencing English legal commentator William Blackstone and a provision in the Nauvoo charter, the city council declared on 10 June that the paper was a nuisance that needed to be abated to maintain the public peace. JS, as mayor, then issued an order to city marshal to destroy the press and scatter the type in the street. JS issued a second order for acting major general to muster the to support Greene. That night around eight o’clock, Greene led a posse of approximately one hundred men and executed the order.
 
State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A
On 11 June, one of the proprietors of the Expositor, , filed a complaint before , Illinois, justice of the peace , who lived in , Illinois. Higbee, who witnessed the demolition of the press, alleged in the complaint that JS and seventeen other men had “unlawfully & with force” destroyed the press of the Expositor. The order of names in the complaint suggests that Higbee was targeting two groups of men. In the first group were JS and four other members of the city council—alderman , city councilors and , and city councilor pro tempore . Another acting member of the city council, , who voted to approve the 10 June resolution, was listed with the second group—which was composed of individuals who evidently assisted in executing the mayor’s orders: , , , , , , , , , , , and .
Based on the complaint, issued a warrant the same day stating that the named men “with force & violence broke into the printing office of the Nauvoo Expositor, and unlawfully & with force burned & destroyed the printing press, type & fixtures of the same.” The warrant classified their actions as a , which law defined as “an unlawful act” performed by two or more people “with force or violence against the person or property of another, with or without a common cause of quarrel.” The law also indicated that “a lawful act” could constitute a riot, if performed “in a violent and tumultuous manner.” Conviction resulted in a fine of up to $200 or imprisonment of up to six months. Although the warrant did not explicitly state it, Morrison may have viewed JS and the four other members of the city council who did not physically participate in the destruction of the press as accessories to the riot. If convicted, accessories under Illinois law received the same punishment as principals.
On 12 June, constable served the warrant by arresting JS in . Bettisworth intended to take JS to for a preliminary examination before . JS, however, feared that his life was in danger in Carthage—the county seat and a nexus for antagonism against the church. He therefore declined to accompany Bettisworth to Carthage and sought a legal remedy within the safety of Nauvoo. Noting that the warrant allowed Bettisworth to take the individuals named therein before Morrison “or some other justice of the Peace” in the county, JS asked to be taken before , a justice of the peace who lived in Nauvoo and was a member of the church. According to , Bettisworth insisted that JS was required to appear before Morrison and “seemed very wrathy.”
 
State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus
In response, JS sought a writ of from the Nauvoo Municipal Court. Although reportedly later claimed that JS “had resisted the law” during the arrest, the constable nevertheless allowed him to prepare a petition for the writ. The petition gave three arguments justifying JS’s request for a writ of habeas corpus: First, ’s warrant was defective because it did not “disclose sufficently” the crime with which JS was charged. Second, was motivated to make his complaint by malice toward JS and was part of “a conspiracy against” JS’s life. Third, JS was not guilty of riot and was requesting the municipal court to investigate the merits of the charge against him. , clerk of the Nauvoo Municipal Court, granted the petition by issuing a writ of habeas corpus, which was directed to and commanded Bettisworth to produce JS before the municipal court. Greene served the writ on Bettisworth, who subsequently brought JS before the court.
On 12 June, at about five o’clock in the afternoon, associate justices , , , , and , with acting as president pro tempore of the court in JS’s place, convened at the to review the legality of JS’s detention. The court first reviewed the legal basis of the city council’s resolution to declare the Expositor a nuisance. The justices then heard witnesses who described the orderly manner in which the press had been destroyed. In addition, several witnesses testified regarding threats allegedly made by against JS and others in . Higbee evidently was not present at the hearing. The court ruled that JS “had acted under proper authority” in ordering the destruction of the press, that his orders “were excuted in an orderly. & judices [judicious] manner. without noise or tumult,” and that JS should “be honorably discharged from the accusati[o]ns and of the writ.” The court further held that Higbee had instituted “a malices prosecution” against JS and should pay the $22.12½ costs of the habeas corpus proceedings.
 
State of Illinois v. H. Smith et al. on Habeas Corpus
The next day, 13 June 1844, JS presided as chief justice of the municipal court over habeas corpus proceedings for his codefendants. Early that morning, arrested eight of the other men named in the warrant—, , , , , , , and . The defendants submitted a petition for habeas corpus to the municipal court, arguing that they were not guilty of riot. The petition further asserted that ’s complaint was motivated by malice, revenge, and a desire to bring a mob against . After receiving the petition, issued the writ of habeas corpus. One of the defendants, Huntington, acting in his capacity as a high constable of Nauvoo, served the writ on Bettisworth and brought the constable and the prisoners before the court. Subsequently, one of Bettisworth’s deputies, possibly physician Thomas Barnes of , arrested an additional eight men named in the warrant—, , , , , , , and . After the petition for habeas corpus was amended to include their names, Richards accordingly revised the writ of habeas corpus, and these additional defendants were also brought into the court.
The proceedings commenced at nine o’clock in the morning in the . JS was joined by associate justices , , , , and . city attorney represented the defendants. The justices heard a few documents read into evidence, including the city council’s resolution declaring the Expositor a nuisance and JS’s two orders for the abatement of the press. gave a statement about the defendants’ right to habeas corpus, after which two witnesses, Addison Everett and James Jackson, testified regarding the orderly and quiet manner in which the defendants carried out the order to destroy the press. evidently was not present at the hearing. JS and the court then “honorably discharged [the prisoners] from the accusations and arrest.” The justices also held that Higbee had instituted the suit out of malice and ordered him to pay the court costs.
 
State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–B
Meanwhile, the church’s antagonists held public meetings in , Illinois, and in to pass resolutions expressing outrage against city authorities for the destruction of the Expositor and for the Nauvoo Municipal Court’s perceived interference in the legal process. JS’s antagonists called for volunteers to assemble as a on 19 June 1844 to help arrest him. Armed men began threatening Latter-day Saints living in Nauvoo’s countryside and outlying settlements. On 16 June 1844, Judge of ’s fifth judicial circuit, which included , visited Nauvoo in an attempt to defuse the situation. noted in JS’s journal that Thomas counseled JS and his codefendants to “go before some Jusstice of the peace” for an examination, which “would allay all excitement or cut off all legal pretext for a mob.” Thomas promised that after they did so, he would order the church’s opponents to keep the peace. Although the judge evidently meant that JS should go before , the justice who had issued the original warrant, JS interpreted Thomas’s counsel to mean that the accused could appear before any justice of the peace who had jurisdiction over the alleged crime.
On 17 June 1844, , a city alderman and justice of the peace, agreed to hear the case. Although Wells was a member of the Nauvoo City Council, he was ill on 10 June and therefore was not present when the council passed the resolution declaring the Expositor a nuisance. In addition, Wells was not a member of the church and the accused may have hoped that, outside of Nauvoo, he would be perceived as a neutral arbiter. Rather than interfere with another justice’s process, Wells opted to initiate new proceedings against the defendants. Latter-day Saint filed a complaint before Wells on 17 June alleging that “on or about the 10th day of June, 1844,” the accused men committed a riot in Nauvoo when they “forcibly” entered the Expositor printing office, seized “with force of arms a printing press, types and paper, together with other property” that belonged to the paper’s proprietors, and broke and burned “the same in the streets.” Based on the complaint, Wells issued a warrant for JS and sixteen other men who allegedly participated in the riot. The list of men named in Wells’s warrant was nearly identical to the one in ’s warrant.
constable arrested the defendants and brought them before , apparently on his farm in eastern , during the early afternoon on 17 June. As a justice of the peace, Wells had authority to hold a preliminary examination to “inquire into the truth or probability of the charge.” After reviewing the evidence, the justice could either send the case to the circuit court or discharge the defendants. served as the prosecuting attorney, while Nauvoo city attorney represented the defendants.
The prosecution called five witnesses. Three of them testified regarding the violent nature of the posse’s seizure of the press and destruction of it in the street in an effort to establish that the action constituted a riot under law. The other two witnesses—the complainant, , and city councilor —testified about the city council’s resolution regarding the Expositor in an attempt to demonstrate that JS and the other city council members named in the complaint were accessories to the riot. JS interrupted Warrington’s testimony by arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to try the city council’s official actions. held that the defendants were being tried “in their individual capacities, and could not be recognized by the court to their official capacity.” Warrington responded by stating that “all he heard the prisoner say, was said as councillors” and concluded without saying more.
The defense then called six witnesses, including again, each of whom testified that the posse had destroyed the press in an orderly manner and that no property other than the press and its fixtures had been destroyed. In addition, read into evidence the resolution and the mayor’s orders. After the testimony closed, discharged the defendants. The published trial report appeared in an extra issue of the Nauvoo Neighbor dated 21 June 1844.
 
State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A (Continued)
The discharges by the Municipal Court and by failed to satisfy JS’s opponents or state officials that the needs of the law had been met. Illinois governor arrived in on 21 June, organized the state militia under his command, and assessed the increasingly volatile situation. After receiving reports from both the Latter-day Saints and their antagonists, Ford informed JS on 22 June that he had concluded that the destruction of the press of the Expositor—which Ford, a former Illinois Supreme Court justice, considered “a very gross outrage upon the laws and the liberties of the people”—was the root cause of the difficulties. In addition, Ford declared that the attempt by the accused to address the riot charge before the Nauvoo Municipal Court, rather than before , further exacerbated the situation. Ford concluded that JS and the others needed to submit to arrest by and appear before Morrison. The governor promised that he would ensure their safety.
JS, doubtful about his security in despite the governor’s assurances, seriously considered leaving and seeking assistance from the federal government. In the early morning of 23 June, he crossed the and went to , but after messengers from Nauvoo urged him to reconsider, he returned to Nauvoo that evening. He informed via letter that he would comply with the governor’s demands. Accompanied by others named in ’s 11 June warrant, JS arrived in Carthage close to midnight on 24 June.
The following morning, detained JS and fourteen Latter-day Saints on the riot charge. The constable subsequently arrested JS and for , a charge evidently stemming from JS’s mustering of the Nauvoo Legion and declaration of martial law on 19 June. At four o’clock in the afternoon on 25 June, JS and the other defendants appeared for a preliminary examination, not before , but before Robert Smith, another justice of the peace and the commander of the Carthage Greys, the militia unit charged with guarding the prisoners. It is unknown why Morrison did not preside over the proceedings. , one of the proprietors of the Expositor, served as the prosecuting attorney, while the defendants were represented by and , attorneys from . Higbee requested an adjournment, perhaps because , the complainant, was not present. After some discussion between the attorneys, Justice Smith held that there was probable cause to believe that the defendants had committed a riot in the destruction of the press and ordered that they enter into $500 recognizances binding them to appear at the October 1844 term of the circuit court for trial. JS and Hyrum Smith were murdered while in jail on 27 June 1844, so criminal proceedings against them naturally terminated. However, at the October 1845 term of the Hancock County Circuit Court, a jury acquitted eleven men who had been indicted for their alleged roles in the destruction of the press.
 
Calendar of Documents
This calendar lists all known documents created by or for the court, whether extant or not. It does not include versions of documents created for other purposes, though those versions may be listed in footnotes. In certain cases, especially in cases concerning unpaid debts, the originating document (promissory note, invoice, etc.) is listed here. Note that documents in the calendar are grouped with their originating court. Where a version of a document was subsequently filed with another court, that version is listed under both courts.
 
State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A, Hancock Co., Illinois, Justice of the Peace Court
  • 1844 (6)
    • June (6)
      11 June 1844

      Francis M. Higbee, Complaint, before Thomas Morrison, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

      11 June 1844

      Thomas Morrison, Warrant, to “all Constables Sheriffs, and Coroners” of Illinois, for JS and Others, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

      • 11 June 1844; first leaf at Karpeles Manuscript Library, Santa Barbara, CA; photocopy and partial second leaf at BYU; unidentified handwriting, presumably Thomas Morrison; notations in handwriting of David Bettisworth; docket in unidentified handwriting; notation probably in handwriting of Jacob B. Backenstos.
      • 12 June 1844; JS Collection, CHL; handwriting of William Clayton; notations in handwriting of David Bettisworth; notation in handwriting of Willard Richards with signature of David Bettisworth; docket and notation in handwriting of Willard Richards.
      • Ca. 25 June 1844; JS Collection (Supplement), CHL; handwriting of John Taylor and Willard Richards; docket and notation in handwriting of Willard Richards.
      25 June 1844

      JS and Others, Recognizance, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL, to “the people of the state of Illinois,” 25 June 1844–A

      • 25 June 1844; CHL; manuscript form in handwriting of Willard Richards with manuscript additions in handwriting of Willard Richards; signatures of JS, John Taylor, William W. Phelps, Hyrum Smith, John P. Greene, John Benbow, William Marks, Truman R. Barlow, Edwin Woolley, and John S. Fullmer; certified by Robert Smith; docket and notation in handwriting of David E. Head.
      25 June 1844

      Joseph W. Coolidge, Recognizance, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL, to “the people of the State of Illinois,” 25 June 1844–B

      • 25 June 1844; photocopy at Utah State Historical Society; handwriting of John Taylor; signatures of Joseph W. Coolidge and John S. Fullmer; certified by Robert Smith.
      25 June 1844

      Stephen Perry and Others, Recognizance, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL, to “the people of the state of Illinois,” 25 June 1844–C

      • 25 June 1844; Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; handwriting of Willard Richards; signatures of Stephen Perry, Dimick B. Huntington, Jonathan Dunham, Stephen Markham, Jonathan Holmes, John Benbow, John S. Fullmer, and John Taylor; certified by Robert Smith; docket in handwriting of David E. Head.
      25 June 1844

      Jesse Harmon and Others, Recognizance, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL, to “the people of the State of Illinois,” 25 June 1844–D

      • 25 June 1844; Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; handwriting of Willard Richards; signatures of Jesse Harmon, John Lytle, Joseph W. Coolidge, Harvey Redfield, Levi Richards, Truman R. Barlow, Stephen Markham, Edwin Woolley, Cyrus Canfield, and John Benbow; certified by Robert Smith; docket probably in handwriting of Jacob B. Backenstos.
 
State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus, Nauvoo, Illinois, Municipal Court
  • 1844 (9)
    • June (9)
      11 June 1844

      Thomas Morrison, Warrant, Copy, to “all Constables Sheriffs, and Coroners” of Illinois, for JS and Others, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

      12 June 1844

      JS, Petition, to Nauvoo Municipal Court, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      12 June 1844

      Willard Richards, Habeas Corpus, to Nauvoo City Marshal, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 12 June 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; printed form with manuscript additions in handwriting of Willard Richards; docket in handwriting of Willard Richards; notation in handwriting of John P. Greene; notation in handwriting of Willard Richards.
      12 June 1844

      Willard Richards, Summons, to Nauvoo City Marshal, for Daniel H. Wells and Others, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 12 June 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; handwriting of Willard Richards; docket and notation in handwriting of Willard Richards; notation in handwriting of John P. Greene.
      12 June 1844

      Minutes, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 12 June 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; handwriting of Willard Richards.
      12 June 1844

      Testimonies, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 12 June 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; handwriting of William Clayton; docket in handwriting of Willard Richards.
      Ca. 12 June 1844

      Docket Entry, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • Ca. 12 June 1844; Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book, pp. 108–110; handwriting of Willard Richards.
      13 June 1844

      Willard Richards, Execution, to Nauvoo City Marshal, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 13 June 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; handwriting of Willard Richards; docket and notation in handwriting of Willard Richards; endorsement in handwriting of John P. Greene; notation in handwriting of Jonathan C. Wright.
      Between ca. 12 and 20 June 1844

      Trial Report, Draft, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • Between ca. 12 and 20 June 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; handwriting of John McEwan; certified by Willard Richards; docket in handwriting of Willard Richards. Draft.
      • Ca. 20 June 1844; JS Office Papers, CHL; handwriting of John McEwan. Partial draft.
      • 21 June 1844. Not extant.
  • 1845 (1)
 
State of Illinois v. H. Smith et al. on Habeas Corpus, Nauvoo, Illinois, Municipal Court
  • 1844 (6)
    • June (6)
      11 June 1844

      Thomas Morrison, Warrant, Copy, to “all Constables Sheriffs, and Coroners” of Illinois, for JS and Others, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

      • 12 June 1844; JS Collection, CHL; handwriting of William Clayton; notations in handwriting of David Bettisworth; notation in handwriting of Willard Richards with signature of David Bettisworth; docket and notation in handwriting of Willard Richards.
      13 June 1844

      Hyrum Smith and Others, Petition, to Nauvoo Municipal Court, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 13 June 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records; handwriting of George Stiles; signatures of Hyrum Smith, William W. Phelps, Orrin Porter Rockwell, Joseph W. Coolidge, Stephen Markham, Harvey Redfield, John Lytle, Dimick B. Huntington, John Taylor, John P. Greene, Levi Richards, Stephen Perry, Jonathan Holmes, Jonathan Dunham, Samuel Bennett, and William H. Edwards; certified by Willard Richards.
      13 June 1844

      Willard Richards, Habeas Corpus, to Nauvoo City Marshal, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 13 June 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; printed form with manuscript additions in handwriting of Willard Richards; docket in handwriting of Willard Richards; notation in handwriting of Dimick B. Huntington; notation in handwriting of Willard Richards.
      • 13 June 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; printed form with manuscript additions in handwriting of Willard Richards; docket in handwriting of Willard Richards; notation in handwriting of John P. Greene; notation in handwriting of Willard Richards.
      13 June 1844

      Subpoena, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      13 June 1844

      Willard Richards, Execution, to Nauvoo City Marshal, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 13 June 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; handwriting of Willard Richards; docket and notation in handwriting of Willard Richards; endorsement in handwriting of John P. Greene; notation in handwriting of Jonathan C. Wright.
      Ca. 13 June 1844

      Docket Entry, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • Ca. 13 June 1844; Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book, 111–112; handwriting of Willard Richards; notations in handwriting of Thomas Bullock.
  • 1845 (1)
 
State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–B, Hancock Co., Illinois, Justice of the Peace Court