The Enquirer

Domestic.

CONNECTICUT.

Litchfield, Oct. 1

On Saturday last a motion by counsel was made to the county court, that Mr. Ashley be discharged from the recognizance by which he was bound to good behaviour until this term. In support of which motion it was stated, that he had in every particular complied with the injunctions of the bond, and therefore was not a proper subject of further restrictions of the kind.

This motion was objected to by the attorney for the state: who offered to read certain paragraphs in the Witness; to shew that Mr. Ashley had not conducted so as to deserve the exoneration by him claimed.

Which paragraphs were objected to for two reasons. First, because Mr. Ashley, on the day of becoming recognized, did convey away all his interest in the establishment, and had since that time worked as a journeyman in said office. Second, because there was no proof other than his laboring in said office, to shew that he even saw or aided in the least in publishing said papers then offered.

A written contract was then produced, by which Mr. Ashley had relinquished, for a consideration therein stipulated, all his interest in the establishment.

Witnesses were then sworn, from whose testimony it did not appear that any purchases or contracts respecting the establishment had been made in behalf of Mr. Ashley--or that he had acted in any other capacity than that of a journeyman, under similar engagements with others in the office.

It was contended by Mr. Attorney that this agency in the business was sufficient; and that he stood now about the same as at the time of conviction. The court over-ruled the objection and admitted the evidence. He then read various passages from different numbers of the Witness, to shew that Mr. Ashley's behaviour had not been such as required. He did not attempt to controvert the truth of facts stated in these paragraphs: though they were claimed to be true by the defendant's counsel, who said if he had expected to see these things brought up, he should have been able to make them appear--nor was there any positive evidence that Mr. Ashley had even the agency of a journeyman in one of the papers produced by Mr. Attorney. After some altercation on various points, the question was submitted; and the court decided that Mr. Ashley should renew the bond.

My counsel then moved in my behalf for a discontinuance of the order of the court; stating various considerations in support of the motion. This was also objected to by Mr. Attorney, who referred the court to what he had before read to the court, as the grounds of his objection.

My counsel remarked, among other things, on the present spirit of newspapers in the state, of all parties; and asked whether my conduct was more than must be expected under such various and repeated provocations---and whether the court required me to behave better than every body else? For such, said he, is the amount of continuing these orders upon one who, I aver, has not at any rate conducted himself worse than other printers in the state.

The court decided a continuance of the order for bonds till next term--consequently I returned to prison.

Witness.

From Poulson's American Daily Advertiser.