Page
Page
Upperman offered contradictory affidavits in April and October 1843 regarding Drown’s motives. In the first, he claimed that Drown wanted to coerce Mallory to release Upperman and Drown from a debt they owed him. In the second, Upperman claimed that Drown wanted to coerce Mallory to pay a debt owed to Upperman and Drown. The same day as the latter affidavit, Upperman also testified that another affidavit he had sworn the day before related to the case, now apparently not extant, had been made under duress and that his April 1843 affidavit was true. (Affidavit, 10 Apr. 1843 [State of Illinois v. Drown; Affidavit, 3 October 1843–A [State of Illinois v. Drown]; Affidavit, 3 October 1843–B [State of Illinois v. Drown].)
Petition, 10 Oct. 1843 [State of Illinois v. Drown on Habeas Corpus]. According to a Nauvoo ordinance regarding habeas corpus, if the court found that the charge was obtained “through private pique, malicious intent, religious or other persecution, falsehood, or misrepresentation” the petitioner was to be “released & discharged.” (Nauvoo City Council Minute Book, 8 Aug. 1842, 98–99.)
Docket Entry, 10–ca. 17 Oct. 1843 [State of Illinois v. Drown on Habeas Corpus]. In February 1845, as one of the last official acts of the city officers after the Nauvoo charter had been repealed the prior month, the mayor tallied up outstanding fees owed by the city and authorized payment out of the city treasury. (Daniel Spencer, Order of City Treasury, to William Clayton, 10 Feb. 1845, Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL.)
Nauvoo, IL, Records, 1841–1845. CHL.
© 2024 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of UseUpdated 2021-04-13Privacy NoticeUpdated 2021-04-06