John F. Fisk to Beriah Magoffin

KYR-0001-020-1044.xml

Metadata
Citation
Download

Accession Number

KYR-0001-020-1044

Document Genre

Correspondence

Repository

Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives

Collection

Office of the Governor, Beriah Magoffin: Governor's Official Correspondence File, Petitions for Pardons and Remissions, 1859-1862

Item Location

MG20-129 to MG20-130

Place of Creation

Covington, Kenton County, Kentucky

Date of Creation

29 May 1861

Dates Mentioned

1861-05-29

John F. Fisk to Beriah Magoffin, 29 May 1861, Office of the Governor, Beriah Magoffin: Governor's Official Correspondence File, Petitions for Pardons and Remissions, 1859-1862, MG20-129 to MG20-130, Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives, Frankfort, KY. Accessed via the Civil War Governors of Kentucky Digital Documentary Edition, discovery.civilwargovernors.org/document/KYR-0001-020-1044, (accessed December 22, 2024).

Download XML

Covington Ky May 29^th 1861
His Excellency,
Governor B, Magoffin
Sir,

I have send the letter of Mr Arthur as to the case of Hiram Alexander, I was one of the prisoners attys, Mr Arthur has stated the testimony of the Commonwealth quite accurately.

The prisoner, however, proved by two witnesses, who were present, that Alexander did not cross over to Overhous, but that Slaughter did. and that Slaughter, after the cutting ran up Banklick -- passed where Alexander and the two witnesses stood, Another witness, saw a large tall man running up Banklick, but that man was not Alexander, A man, near enough to hear the German's cry, but not to see who did it saw a man running
away from the scene of action, and the next morning, in Cincinnati, Slaughter, was seen wiping a bloody knife, and called a lady's attention to the fact, that human blood would not wipe off, but did not say whose blood it was, When Overhaus was knocked down, he fell partly on his side and face, and being badly frightened could not with certainty tell who stabbed him, and it was proved by two or three witnesses that while confined in bed, he had said that Slaughter robbed him, and then that another Alexander, not the prisoner had done it, These statements, made it more than probable that the German, did not know who stabbed him, but from the fact that Slaughter had been convicted without his evidence, that he was determined to convict Alexander, which he did, I fully expected the jury to hang or
acquit, and was disappointed when he was convicted, before the testimony the jury could have acquitted. Mrs Alexander, has all the time been fully convinced that Hiram was not guilty. In this view I believe she is sustained by Slaughter, If Alexander is guilty, two witnesses are guilty of gross perjury, Overhous might believe Hiram stabbed him, and still be be mistaken. At all events, Slaughter had the bloody knife the next morning, while Alexander, was away in Indiana whither he had gone, to get married, I could not have convicted upon the testimony, the jury did, and they were out but a short time.

From the facts, as shown, herein, and by Mr Arthur, Your Excellency, can see, that there is a great opening for a reasonable doubt, and now that they are both in the Peniten-
tiary, Slaughter, has no reason for trying to screen Alexander and taking any blame upon himself, I hope your Excellency, will weigh well the testimony, and then give Alexander the benefit of the doubt. and restore him to his mother.

Respectfully
Yours
John, F, Fisk

Early Access is a work in progress. Help us improve our edition by suggesting a correction for this document.

Suggest a correction