Charles Hutchinson Private Letter-Book, May 11 1878 to January 21 1880
p. 982

Dec 31 79

James Grant Esq. J.P.; Granton

Dear Sir -

re Donelly

It matters now who brought the charge of perjury — whether Carroll or somebody else — The fact is that Donelly has been subjected twice to prosecution before a magistrate on the same charge — I do not say this is illegal — but I do say it is inadmissible unless there are very particular circumstances to justify it, which I do not think exist in this case — I think you had no right to accept oral evidence or copies of examinations in lieu of the original documents — The only legal evidence of Donelly's oath & testimony where the alleged perjury was committed, is the original deposition signed by him, & attested by the Justice of the peace — You had no right to convict in the absence of the original deposition — I am not aware of the examinations being filed in my office -- They have no occasion to be so — as it is not necessary nor is it the practice for magistrates to return examinations when cases are dismissed — There will be no possibility of proceeding with this case vs Donelly, without the original sworn deposition on which the prosecution is based -- & it is your duty to see that it is returned to me, & filed with the other papers in the case —

Truly yours,
Charles Hutchinson, County Atty