The Papers
Browse the PapersDocumentsJournalsAdministrative RecordsRevelations and TranslationsHistoriesLegal RecordsFinancial RecordsOther Contemporary Papers
Reference
PeoplePlacesEventsGlossaryLegal GlossaryFinancial GlossaryCalendar of DocumentsWorks CitedFeatured TopicsLesson PlansRelated Publications
Media
VideosPhotographsIllustrationsChartsMapsPodcasts
News
Current NewsArchiveNewsletterSubscribeJSP Conferences
About
About the ProjectJoseph Smith and His PapersFAQAwardsEndorsementsReviewsEditorial MethodNote on TranscriptionsNote on Images of People and PlacesReferencing the ProjectCiting This WebsiteProject TeamContact Us
Published Volumes
  1. Home > 
  2. The Papers > 
Introduction to State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot Complaint, 10 August 1838 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Warrant, 10 August 1838 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Subpoena, 6 September 1838 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Recognizance, 7 September 1838 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Complaint, 28 August 1838 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Complaint, 12 September 1838 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Warrant, 12 September 1838 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Recognizance, 18 September 1838 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Transcript of Proceedings, circa 18 September 1838 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Indictment, circa 10 April 1839 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Docket Entry, Indictment, 11 April 1839 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Docket Entry, Removal Orders, 11 April 1839 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Capias, 30 May 1839 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Docket Entry, Continuance, 14 August 1839 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Docket Entry, Nolle Prosequi, 10 December 1839 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Docket Entry, Costs, 15 April 1840 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Indictment, circa 10 April 1839, Copy [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Docket Entry, Indictment, 11 April 1839, Copy [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Docket Entry, Removal Orders, 11 April 1839, Copy [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot] Docket Entry, Continuance, 17 August 1839 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot]

Recognizance, 7 September 1838 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot]

Source Note

Recognizance, [, MO], for JS, , , and , 7 Sept. 1838, State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot (Mo. 5th Jud. Cir. 1838); handwriting of ; signatures of JS, , , and ; certified by ; docket by , [, MO], [7 Sept. 1838]; notation by , [, Daviess Co., MO], 1 Mar. 1839; two pages; BYU. Includes dockets and possible redactions in unidentified handwriting.
Single leaf measuring 12½ × 7⅝ inches (32 × 19 cm). The document was folded for filing. kept the document until 1 March 1839, when it was filed in the Courthouse. By 1974 at the latest, the document was removed from the courthouse and entered private possession. On 1 May 1990, Brigham Young University’s Harold B. Lee Library purchased the recognizance, and since then the document has remained in the library’s possession.

Footnotes

  1. [1]

    In 1974, when the contents of the case files were microfilmed, the recognizance was missing.

  2. [2]

    Case File for Recognizance, 7 Sept. 1838, State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot (Mo. 5th Jud. Cir. 1838), BYU.

    Recognizance, 7 Sept. 1838. State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot (Mo. 5th Jud. Cir. 1838). BYU.

Historical Introduction

On 7 September 1838, Judge of ’s fifth judicial circuit wrote this recognizance (a legal instrument), which required JS and to appear at the next session of the circuit court in , Missouri. The recognizance was the result of a preliminary hearing held on 7 September in Daviess County to evaluate a complaint that and three other church opponents made the prior month. These men stated that JS and Wight assembled 500 armed men in early August, intending “to commit great violence to many of the citisens of Davis County.” The complaint further alleged that on 8 August, JS, Wight, and 120 of the armed men threatened the life of , a Daviess County justice of the peace, forcing him “to sign a paper writing of a verry disgraceful character.”
presided at the 7 September hearing to evaluate the allegations. During the hearing, held just north of the boundary between and counties, acted as the prosecutor, while defended JS and . Atchison also calmed the crowd that had assembled to harass the Latter-day Saint prisoners. Though no record of the witnesses’ testimonies is extant, the testimony of the prosecution’s sole witness, , was likely consistent with ’s complaint and Black’s prior statements on the matter. However, and Edgar Flory, non-Mormons who attended the hearing, subsequently reported that Black conceded, “Mr. Smith may have said that he [Black] would not be forced to sign” the document. The defense witnesses—, , , and —likely offered testimony that was consistent with the affidavit JS made two days earlier. Price and Flory concluded, “Mr. Smith proves that he assured Mr. Black that he should not be forced to sign any instrument of writing but that he requested it as a favor.”
After hearing the testimony, ruled there was sufficient evidence that JS and committed a misdemeanor at ’s home on 8 August 1838 and that the case would proceed to a grand jury hearing. King then wrote the featured recognizance, which obligated the two Latter-day Saint leaders to appear before the next session of the Circuit Court in November 1838. Latter-day Saints and served as sureties on the recognizance to ensure that JS and Wight appeared in court. The four men signed the recognizance, and then King certified and docketed it.
Subsequent events did not permit JS and to appear before the circuit court in November. By then, both men were in custody on charges of treason and other crimes allegedly committed during the conflict between church members and other Missourians in October 1838. On 1 March 1839, delivered the recognizance to , clerk for the Circuit Court, who docketed the document and filed it with the court. JS and Wight fulfilled the conditions of the recognizance when they appeared before the circuit court in April 1839 to answer charges that indicted the Latter-day Saint leaders and thirteen other church members for riot.
See also Introduction to State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot.

Footnotes

  1. [1]

    See “Recognizance,” in Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 2:329.

    Bouvier, John. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America, and of the Several States of the American Union; with References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law. 2 vols. Philadelphia: T. and J. W. Johnson, 1839.

  2. [2]

    JS, Journal, 7 Sept. 1838.

  3. [3]

    William Peniston et al., Complaint, Ray Co., MO, 10 Aug. 1838, State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot (Mo. 5th Jud. Cir. 1838), microfilm 959,084, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.

  4. [4]

    JS and Wight’s attorney, David R. Atchison, initially requested that King schedule the hearing for 6 September 1838, likely to preempt an anticipated 7 September rendezvous of anti-Mormon vigilantes who were intent on seizing the Latter-day Saint leaders. The hearing was scheduled to be held at the home of Latter-day Saint Waldo Littlefield, near the boundary between Daviess and Caldwell counties, so that JS could quickly return to Caldwell County if trouble arose.a However, on 6 September neither Peniston nor Black appeared, leading King to postpone the hearing one day, subpoena Black as a witness, and move the hearing to John Raglin’s home, located within a half mile north of the boundary between the counties.b

    (aJS, Journal, 4 Sept. 1838; Austin A. King, Ray Co., MO, to William Morgan, Daviess Co., MO, 4 Sept. 1838, William Morgan, Papers, CHL; “Mormons Once More,” Hannibal [MO] Commercial Advertiser, 25 Sept. 1838, [1]; “Public Meeting,” Missouri Republican [St. Louis], 3 Sept. 1838, [2]; “The Mormons,” Missouri Argus [St. Louis], 6 Sept. 1838, [1]; “Mormon Troubles,” Missouri Republican, 19 Sept. 1838, [2]. bJS, Journal, 6–7 Sept. 1838; Subpoena, [6] Sept. 1838, State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot [Mo. 5th Jud. Cir. 1838], microfilm 959,084, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL; George A. Smith, Autobiography, 110; Berrett, Sacred Places, 4:497.)

    Morgan, William. Papers, 1838–1839. CHL. MS 19757.

    Hannibal Commercial Advertiser. Hannibal, MO. 1837–1839.

    Missouri Republican. St. Louis. 1822–1919.

    Missouri Argus. St. Louis. 1835–1841.

    Smith, George A. Autobiography, ca. 1860–1882. George Albert Smith, Papers, 1834–1877. CHL. MS 1322, box 1, fd. 2.

    Berrett, LaMar C., ed. Sacred Places: A Comprehensive Guide to Early LDS Historical Sites. 6 vols. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1999–2007.

  5. [5]

    JS, Journal, 4 and 7 Sept. 1838.

  6. [6]

    Dibble, “Philo Dibble’s Narrative,” 89.

    Dibble, Philo. “Philo Dibble’s Narrative.” In Early Scenes in Church History, Faith-Promoting Series 8, pp. 74–96. Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1882.

  7. [7]

    See William Peniston et al., Complaint, Ray Co., MO, 10 Aug. 1838, State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot (Mo. 5th Jud. Cir. 1838), microfilm 959,084, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL; Adam Black, Affidavit, Daviess Co., MO, 8 Aug. 1838, in “Public Meeting,” Missouri Republican (St. Louis), 3 Sept. 1838, [2]; and Adam Black, Complaint, Daviess Co., MO, 28 Aug. 1838, copy, Mormon War Papers, MSA.

    Missouri Republican. St. Louis. 1822–1919.

  8. [8]

    “The Mormon Difficulties,” Niles’ National Register (Washington DC), 13 Oct. 1838, 103.

    Niles’ National Register. Washington DC, 1837–1839; Baltimore, 1839–1848; Philadelphia, 1848–1849.

  9. [9]

    See Affidavit, 5 Sept. 1838. Robinson, Huntington, and Carter may have been chosen to testify because of their connections with the Danite society. Robinson was a Danite colonel, as well as the First Presidency’s scribe; Huntington was captain of the Danite guard. Extant sources do not explicitly indicate whether Carter was a Danite, but his brother, Jared, was captain general of the society for a time.a In addition, early names for the society—the “Brother of Gideon” and the “gideonites”—were perhaps connected with Gideon Carter in addition to chapter 8 of the book of Judges.b Lightner, who was not a member of the church, may have provided testimony regarding JS’s character. Lightner was married to Latter-day Saint Mary Rollins Lightner.c

    (aJS, Journal, 7–9 Aug. 1838; Reed Peck, Quincy, IL, to “Dear Friends,” 18 Sept. 1839, pp. 34–35, 38, 45, Huntington Library, San Marino, CA; Dimick Huntington, Reminiscences and Journal, [14]–[15]. bWilliam Phelps, Testimony, Richmond, MO, Nov. 1838, p. [86]; Robert Snodgrass, Testimony, Richmond, MO, Nov. 1838, p. [35], State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Treason and Other Crimes [Mo. 5th Jud. Cir. 1838], in State of Missouri, “Evidence”; Whitmer, History, 86, 95–96. cJS, Journal, 7 Sept. 1838; “Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner,” Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, July 1926, 198.)

    Peck, Reed. Letter, Quincy, IL, to “Dear Friends,” 18 Sept. 1839. Huntington Library, San Marino, CA.

    Huntington, Dimick B. Reminiscences and Journal, 1845–1847. Dimick B. Huntington, Journal, 1845–1859. CHL. MS 1419, fd. 1.

    Lightner, Mary Elizabeth Rollins. “Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner.” Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine 17 (1926): 193–205, 250–260.

  10. [10]

    “The Mormon Difficulties,” Niles’ National Register (Washington DC), 13 Oct. 1838, 103.

    Niles’ National Register. Washington DC, 1837–1839; Baltimore, 1839–1848; Philadelphia, 1848–1849.

  11. [11]

    See “Surety,” in Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 2:421. Partridge may have acted as a surety for JS and Wight because in Partridge’s role as bishop, he managed the church’s finances and properties.a Durfee may have acted as a surety because he owned four hundred acres, which made him one of the fifteen largest landowners in Caldwell County, Missouri.b

    (aRevelation, 4 Feb. 1831 [D&C 41:9–11]; Revelation, 9 Feb. 1831 [D&C 42:10]; Revelation, 20 May 1831 [D&C 51]. bHamer, Northeast of Eden, 56, 84.)

    Bouvier, John. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America, and of the Several States of the American Union; with References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law. 2 vols. Philadelphia: T. and J. W. Johnson, 1839.

    Hamer, John. Northeast of Eden: A Historical Atlas of Missouri’s Mormon County. [Mirabile, MO]: Far West Cultural Center, 2004.

  12. [12]

    See Introduction to Part 3: 4 Nov. 1838–16 Apr. 1839.

  13. [13]

    Daviess Co., MO, Circuit Court Record, Apr. 1839, bk. A, 71, 77, Daviess County Courthouse, Gallatin, MO; Indictment, [Honey Creek Township, MO], [ca. 10] Apr. 1839, State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot (Daviess Co. Cir. Ct. 1839), Historical Department, Nineteenth-Century Legal Documents Collection, CHL. Because JS and Wight escaped from state custody on 16 April 1839, the case did not proceed to a full trial. (See Historical Introduction to Promissory Note to John Brassfield, 16 Apr. 1839.)

    Daviess County, Missouri. Circuit Court Record, vol. A, July 1837–Oct. 1843. Daviess County Courthouse, Gallatin, MO.

Page [1]

Be it remembered that on this <​7th​> 8th day of September 1838 personally appeared before me Judge of the 5th Judicial circuit Joseph Smith Jr. and and acknowledge themselves to be indebted to the state of in that is to say the said & Smith in the Sum of five hundred dollars each & the said & in the sum of two hundred & fifty dollars each, to be levied of their respective good chattles lands & armements, to be void if the above named Smith & comply with the conditions under written,— The conditions of this recognance is such that the said & Smith do make their personal appea<​ance​> at the next term of the circuit court to be holden on the 1st Thursday after the 4th monday in November next to answer to an indictment to be prefered against them for a misdemeanor and not depart this court without [p. [1]]
View entire transcript

|

Cite this page

Source Note

Document Transcript

Page [1]

Document Information

Related Case Documents
Editorial Title
Recognizance, 7 September 1838 [State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot]
ID #
3472
Total Pages
2
Print Volume Location
JSP, D6:225–229
Handwriting on This Page
  • Austin A. King

Footnotes

  1. [1]

    Missouri law permitted magistrates to set recognizance amounts “not exceeding one thousand dollars.” (An Act to Regulate Proceedings in Criminal Cases [21 Mar. 1835], Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri [1835], p. 472, art. 1, sec. 4.)

    The Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri, Revised and Digested by the Eighth General Assembly during the Years One Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty-Four, and One Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty-Five. . . . St. Louis: Argus Office, 1835.

  2. [2]

    That is, 29 November 1838. Missouri law specified that the fifth circuit would hold a session in Daviess County “on the first Thursdays after the fourth Mondays in March, July and November.” (An Act to Establish Judicial Circuits, and to Prescribe the Times and Places of Holding Courts [21 Jan. 1837], Laws of the State of Missouri [1836–1837], p. 57, sec. 23.)

    Laws of the State of Missouri, Passed at the First Session of the Ninth General Assembly, Begun and Held at the City of Jefferson, on Monday, the Twenty-First Day of November, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty-Six. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Chambers and Knapp, 1841.

  3. [3]

    Perhaps riot, a misdemeanor for which the two men were later indicted. (An Act concerning Crimes and Their Punishments [20 Mar. 1835], Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri [1835], p. 202, art. 7, sec. 6; see also Indictment, [Honey Creek Township, MO], [ca. 10] Apr. 1839, State of Missouri v. JS et al. for Riot [Daviess Co. Cir. Ct. 1839], Historical Department, Nineteenth-Century Legal Documents Collection, CHL.)

    The Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri, Revised and Digested by the Eighth General Assembly during the Years One Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty-Four, and One Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty-Five. . . . St. Louis: Argus Office, 1835.

© 2024 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of UseUpdated 2021-04-13Privacy NoticeUpdated 2021-04-06