Introduction to State of Ohio v. D. P. Hurlbut
State of Ohio v. D. P. Hurlbut
Kirtland Township, Geauga Co., Ohio, Justice of the Peace Court, 15 January 1834
Geauga Co., Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, 9 April 1834
Historical Introduction
On 21 December 1833, JS filed a complaint before , a justice of the peace in , Ohio, alleging that , a former Mormon, had threatened his life. Dowen issued a warrant for Hurlbut, who was apprehended and brought before , a justice of the peace in , Ohio. From 13 to 15 January 1834, Holbrook presided at a three-day preliminary hearing at the Methodist church in Painesville, held to evaluate whether there was sufficient evidence against Hurlbut to send the case to the Court of Common Pleas. After examining sixteen witnesses—including JS for two days—Holbrook ruled that JS had reason to fear Hurlbut’s threat, and he ordered Hurlbut to enter into a binding him to appear at the next term of the court of common pleas.
In early April 1834, Judge Matthew Birchard of the court of common pleas presided at the trial. Seventeen prosecution witnesses, including JS, were subpoenaed to appear, as were seven defense witnesses. On 9 April, Birchard held that “the said complainant [JS] had ground to fear that the said would wound, beat or kill him, or destroy his property as set forth in said complaint.” The judge ordered Hurlbut to enter into a $200 to keep the peace generally and toward JS specifically for six months, as well as to pay the court costs of $112.59. Despite efforts by officials to collect the costs, Hurlbut evidently never paid them.
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.
View entire transcript |
Cite this page
Cite this page
