Cleveland Morning Leader

EDITOR OF LEADER:—In your notice this morning of the case of Averill vs. Rheim, just tried in the Common Pleas Court, though mainly correct as far as it goes, we think it is calculated to prejudice the plaintiff's claim. Were it not that the cause must come before another jury from this county, the article would not be noticed. While a cause is pending, a statement in a public journal that would bias the mind is prejudicial. The article says "it is alleged that Rheim received no benefit from the money." If this was so, whose fault was it? as it was in proof that on the day the mortgage was executed Rheim received a bill of sale from Fretter of two vessels, as an indemnity, worth $1,000 more than the amount for which he had mortgaged his farm. Mr. Rheim claims that he was so much intoxicated that he had no knowledge of what had transpired on that day; yet it was in proof that he acknowledged the mortgage, exchanged papers with Mr. Scranton, (saying he was doing it for others,) did the same at the Custom House with V. Swayne, where he signed the affidavit which he made on the same day that he was the owner of the vessels at that time made over to him by Fretter & Fretterich. In the event of a verdict against Rheim, whether he would be obliged to raise an amount equal to the value of half or the whole of his farm, would depend upon the value of lands when that time arrives. Cleveland, Nov. 19, 1862.