<title type="main">J. Davidson to P. C. Phister

Greenupsburg Ky Oct. 15. 1862. Hon P, C, Phister, Maysville, Ky. Dr sir,

I am directed by your friend J. C Adams to send you the inclosed papers which will explain themselves, He wishes you to write a letter to Acting Governor Robinson and send the inclosed or such of them as in your judgment may be necessary and ask the the Govenor to remit the fine of $20, assesed against him by Judge John Seaton,

You can send the Govenor remitten to me as Judge A,

is now absent from home and will be for a week or two, You will see by the certificate of the Clerk, that said settlement was returned to his office on Monday morning the 6th of October and that the Court-of-Claims didnot convene until the next day.

And after Said settlement of the indebtedness of Greenup County had been returned Judge Seaton has opened Court every day (Sundays excepted) up to the end of last week and issued Rules Attachments &c against Adams, for the purpose of bring him to account for the high contempt offered him as JudgeJohnSeaton

as the Presiding Judge of Greenup County,

And I suppose is determined to put him in jail to keep away the contempt if he can arrest him.

The Execution against A for the fine is now in the hands of the sheriff and will be levied on defts property unless something is done to stop it.

The Rebels has over runCarter County but have not came into this or Boyd unless it has been on the southern border. May we expect a November Term of Court in this County? -- I remain yours &c.

J. Davidson,

I have examined the enclosed papers. Two questions seem to me ^to^ arise upon them. First -- Whether a County Court Judge has a right to order his predecessor to produce a paper or report required of his appointees, since, if the paper be official, it should be returned in open Court and delivered to the clerk for record, and not to the man who happens to be Judge in personam; and Second whether, as appears by the papers within a compliance with the order of a Court (supposing the fine within assessed to have been legal) does not exempt the assessed party from payment. When questions are purely judicial; out of the scope of usual Executive action. But in any view of them, considering the case as the papers present it; and knowing the parties as I do personally, (Adams and Seaton) I think the fine against Adams, whether technically legal or not, ought to be remitted by the Governor. T B S.