Conference tecrus::mormonism

    I don't claim to be informed on this trial. I do know, however,
    that Joseph Smith was arrested over 40 times during his lifetime.
    Of course, most of the time the charges were totally ludricrous,
    trumped-up attempts to embarrass the prophet and divert him from
    his work.
    
    Of all the times he was brought to trial, he was actually convicted
    only once. In New York City, he was convicted of casting a devil
    out of a person. He was set free without sentencing though, when
    the judge noted that there were no laws against casting out devils!
    
    Although I know very little about the content of the trial, I do know
    the outcome.
    
    David

    
    How could these 40 trials be "trumped-up attempts to embarrass the
    prophet" when some of them came about before he was "a prophet?"
    Specifically, he was put on trial for gold digging (charging people
    money and claiming he could find gold for them) a few years before
    he wrote the Book of Mormon.
    
    Anyone out there know the details?
    
    
    
    
    

    Joseph translated the BOM, he didn't write it.  Scibes wrote down
    the translation.
    
    Where did you read of the gold digging trials?  Didn't they provide
    you with details?  I remember reading something about gold digging
    in an AP story regarding the Salomander papers, but I believe they 
    were part of the forgery scam that happened last year.  I used to 
    have the article but lost it I think.
    
    Why do you ask?
                                                  

    Hi
    
    I have never heard of Joseph Smith ever being tried for gold digging.
    There were many times in his later life when he was accused of being
    a treasure hunter or gold digger.  When he was a young man he did
    work for another man who employed him and others in digging and
    searching for gold.  Joseph finally convinced him he was wasting
    his time.  If you want more detail I will try and find where I read
    this information.  But again Joseph was never was in the
    "business" of digging for gold, and I don't think he was ever tried
    specifically for gold digging. 

    
    Later
    Russell

    
    Thank you, Russell.
    
    I too will try to find where I ran across this information.  Maybe
    it was associated with the salamander letter and therefore is moot.
    However, as I mentioned in my initial note, I think BYU studies
    touched on it as fact in an issue about the salamander letter.
    
    	--daniel 
    

This is interesting, so I've done a little research:

According to my information, which is not as complete as I would 
like, on March 20, 1826, Joseph Smith Jr. was convicted of being 
an "imposter" and a "disorderly person", as a result of his practice
of hiring himself out as a treasure finder by use of a seer stone.

This is from a book which refers to the Court records of Palmyra, NY.

If this information is correct, then it predates his role as prophet.

Ed

    The money digging trial will be detailed in my report in Notes 38,
    as well as where you can get copies of the arrest report on Joseph
    Smith.
    
    Leza

This is from the following booklet

    Response to "Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?", Mormon Miscellaneous response
    series #6, p. 9,27.  Mormon Miscellaneous, 8530 South 1300 East, Sandy,
    Utah 84070, (801) 566-5401.

-----------------------

In drawing conclusions from the evidence they do present, the Tanners [Jerald
and Sandra Tanner, authors of "Mormonism--Shadow or Reality"] are often
guilty of the 'non sequitur'.  In other words, the conclusions arrived at
are not supported by the evidence.  For example, they state (on page 33) that
the recently discovered bill of charges from the 1826 trial of Joseph Smith
proves that the published court record is authentic.  The published "court
record" appeared in contradictory versions in 1831, 1873, 1877, 1883, several
of which allegedly quote detailed testimony from this trial.  The Tanners'
statement would lead the reader to believe that the bill of charges
substantiates the entire published versions of the trial (including all
alleged testimony--p. 34), whereas these recent discoveries verify quite
limited facts: there was a trial in 1826 in which Joseph smith described
as "The Glass looker" was charged with a misdemeanor, twelve witnesses
were subpoenaed, a mittimus was issued, and the total court costs were $2.68.
The evidence of the 1826 trial, like many other historical issues the Tanners
discuss, invites something more than their uncompromising conclusions. (14)
(p. 9)

(14) An effort by an anti-Mormon to present a moderate interpretation of the
significance of these trial documents is found in Wesley P. Walters, "Joseph
Smith's Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trials," 'The Westminster Theological
Journal' 36 (Winter 1974); 123-55.  An alternative view of the 1826 trial is
found in Marvin S. Hill, "Joseph Smith and the 1826 Trial; New Evidences and
New Difficulties," Brigham Young University Studies, (Winter 1972): 223-33.
(p. 27)

This is from the following book.

     Gilbert W. Scharffs, "The TRUTH about 'The God Makers'", Publishers
     Press, Salt Lake City, 1986. p. 139

-----------------------

Page 94, lines 27-34 [referring to 'The God Makers' book]

Referring to evidence that came to light in 1971 as a devastating blow
to the LDS Church the book charges, "[This] proved once and for all that
Joseph had indeed been arrested and found guilty on March 20, 1826, of
pretending to find buried treasure by 'glass looking.'"*

The LDS Church has never denied that Joseph Smith was arrested numerous
times during his life.  These arrests were obviously mostly harassments,
since I am not aware of any official record that Joseph Smith was ever
convicted of criminal charges.  The authors [of The God Makers] do not
mention that this new evidence of "conviction" was included in the next
LDS history written after the evidence came to light and in LDS
periodicals.  The authors in their footnote do give reference to this
LDS source, but fail to mention that it brings out that there is much
contradictory evidence on this point: "Stoal [Joseph Smith's employer]
stood fast by his employee.  Some accounts have Smith being acquitted"
(Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, 'The Mormon Experience', p. 11).
Oliver Cowdery said Joseph Smith was acquitted.  One scholar has recently
made a strong case that Joseph Smith on March 20, 1826, only appeared at
a pre-trial hearing.  The money he paid was for "fees of examination,"
and not a fine levied against him, this writer shows (Paul Hedengren,
'In Defense of Faith', pp. 195-234.

Considering the harassment potential and the arguments the illintentioned could
bring to a charge like this, even if there was a conviction, why is this a
fatal blow to the LDS Church?  History is filled with religious leaders who
were arrested and "convicted."

Many early Christians, the early Apostles, Martin Luther, John Huss, Jesus
Christ and others were accused, arrested, and in many cases convicted of
violating prevailing laws.  Does that invalidate any of their work?  Is
Christ's work any less true because he was charged and put to death for what
the Sanhedrin considered a crime?



*A term used in early U.S. history to describe the activity of looking for
hidden treasures by someone claiming supernatural powers.

    As I mentioned in my report, there is an additional letter that
    was found written by a judge JK Noble.  His account was that Joseph
    was found guilty (condemned was the word he used) and that he took
    Leg Bail (skipped bail) and never paid his fees.  I have a copy
    of the original letter that was sent to me from the Illinois State
    Historical Library.
    
    So, as you say, who cares?  Many godly men have been arrested. 
    Yes, and even convicted (just as Jesus himself was).  The difference
    is, no one lied about their arrests and convictions.  It was argued
    for years that although Joseph had been arrested, all the charges
    had either been dropped or through trial found not guilty.  But
    not once had he been convicted.  Yet, Joseph had been convicted
    here, as well as at least five other occassions.  
                                   
    So, the problem isn't that he was convicted - it was that is was
    lied about.  Is not a lie a lie?  Hugh Nibley, himself said, "if
    this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in
    existence against Joseph Smith."  This would be because he would
    be found to be a liar.  And a true prophet of God does not lie.
    Especially one that claimed to see God face to face! The court records
    were found to be authentic and so is the letter I have.
    
    It makes one question Joseph's credibility - and that's what is
    the most damaging about this evidence. 
                                                                    
                                                           
    Leza

    Just because a letter is authentic, does it mean that it does not
    contain a lie?  Do judges ever lie?  Do they do what serves their
    own purpose?  Should we believe everything a judge tells us?
    
    Do innocent people ever get convicted?
          
    
    

    I have moved my reply 18.12 to a new note, entitled "How perfect
    do prophets have to be?"
    
    I did this because 18.12 - my response to Leza's note 18.11 - did
    not talk about the Gold-digging thing at all, and thus should not
    be in this topic.
    
    Sorry to digress.
    
    /kevin

    
    
>    Considering the harassment potential and the arguments the illintentioned could
>bring to a charge like this, even if there was a conviction, why is this a
>fatal blow to the LDS Church?  History is filled with religious leaders who
>were arrested and "convicted."

>Many early Christians, the early Apostles, Martin Luther, John Huss, Jesus
>Christ and others were accused, arrested, and in many cases convicted of
>violating prevailing laws.  Does that invalidate any of their work?  Is
>Christ's work any less true because he was charged and put to death for what
>the Sanhedrin considered a crime?
>
    
 
    What is in question here are not the violation of prevailing laws,
    but rather Joseph Smith's character.  The Apostles, Martin Luther,
    and Christ were not arrested on "get rich quick" types of schemes.
    
    Money digging (a.k.a. gold digging) was quite common in upstate New
    York and New England in the early part of the 1800s, and was also quite
    illegal because unsuspecting folks were being consistently duped by
    charlatans. For a good subjective discussion of this subject, refer to
    BYU Studies Fall 1984. 
    
	--daniel

Re .11

> Yet, Joseph had been convicted
> here, as well as at least five other occassions.  
                                   
Leza, would you kindly post your references for the other occasions so I
can check them out.


>    So, the problem isn't that he was convicted - it was that is was
>    lied about.  Is not a lie a lie?  Hugh Nibley, himself said, "if
>    this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in
>    existence against Joseph Smith."  This would be because he would
>    be found to be a liar.
    
>    It makes one question Joseph's credibility - and that's what is
>    the most damaging about this evidence. 
                                                                    
I don't recall from memory that Joseph Smith said he had never been
convicted, but I haven't specifically researched his history from that
viewpoint.  It is true that LDS historians have maintained that he had
not been convicted, but that is another issue.  Leza, would you kindly post
your references for Joseph's statement(s) that he had never been convicted
so I can check them out?

Allen

Leza kindly furnished me with the information needed to obtain the Nobel letter.
I'm posting the information for those who may wish to obtain their own copy.
The letter comes with a disclaimer prohibiting reproduction of it, so persons
must obtain their own copy from the historical society.

In the next reply, I will give my impressions about the letter.

Ask for the:

letter, Joel K Noble to Jonathan B. Turner, March 8, 1842
Turner Papers, box 1, Folder 2

Request the original letter and the typed transcript (parts of it are 
difficult to read due to handwriting style).

Send $2.00 to:

Illinois State Historical Society
Old State Capital
Springfield, IL 62706

The letter by Judge Joel K. Nobel is dated March 8, 1842.  It is part of the
papers of Jonathan B. Turner and was presumably written to him, although the
letter itself does not identify him.  Nobel referred to a book being written
by Turner and expressed great desires that the book be successful.  He
encouraged Turner to be determined and to march onward to completion of the
book.

The Nobel letter is a historical document and should be analyzed from that
viewpoint.  If you have not already read note 69 on evaluating historical
documents, I suggest that you do so.

The Nobel letter was written in 1842 while the trial was in 1826.  Thus, the
letter is a secondary document.  Nobel said he "thought" there had been 43
witnesses at the trial, indicating he was writing the letter from memory
rather than by reference to a journal or other primary record.  Thus, the
value of the letter depends on the accuracy of his memory and on any personal
bias he may have had in the matter.

In addition to giving information about the trial, Nobel gave information
about activities of Joseph Smith Sr. (father of Joseph Smith) in Vermont,
opinions about the origins of Mormonism, and his character evaluation of the
people from his area who had become Mormons.

Concerning the trial, Nobel said that Joseph Smith was "brought up" under
the vagrancy laws of New York and was "condemned".  Joseph took or gave
"Leg Bail" and was gone for two years.  When he returned, Joseph was arrested
and pleaded that the statute of limitations had expired.  He was released
and then arrested again and brought before Judge Nobel (the Judge of the
first trial was not identified).  Nobel thought 43 witnesses were called and
proved Joseph was a vagrant, idler, lazy, now and then drunk but not a drunkard,
and a nuisance to society.  Joseph was supposedly asked by a witness if he
could see or tell more than others (in reference to looking for buried
treasure) and Joseph's response was that he could not but would say anything
for a living and occasionally got a shilling.

Concerning Mormonism, Nobel said that Joseph Smith was not the power behind
Mormonism.  He did not think that Sidney Rigdon was the power until after the
Book of Mormon was published.  He said there were two people who were the power
prior to the Book of Mormon being published, but he did not name them.

At the beginning of the letter, Nobel talked about Joseph Smith Sr. and said
that while living in Vermont, Joseph Sr. was associated with a band of
counterfeiters, and that Joseph Sr. had seduced and eloped with a married
woman.  This is information that Nobel did not have first-hand knowledge of.
This is significant because it indicates that Nobel was repeating hearsay and
rumor.  We know that Nobel's comments about Joseph Sr. were hearsay and rumor
because Fawn M. Brodie in her book "No man knows my history (p. 7) brings out
that Joseph Sr. was a victim of the counterfeiters rather than being a
member of the band.  Also, Brodie brings out that upon her marriage to
Joseph Sr. Lucy Mack's brother Stephen gave her a $1000 dowry that "made
the girl--considering that this was Vermont in 1796--a virtual heiress." (p. 4)

Because of his accepting and propagating the rumors about Joseph Sr., I have
concern about Nobel's ability or willingness to objectively separate fact
from fiction in the testimonies of the 43 witnesses at the 1826 trial.

Nobel expressed a definite bias in his letter that the Mormons were not a
desirable people.  He described the character of the people from his area
who had become Mormons.  He named the denominations they had left in joining
the LDS church and said they had been rejected by the denominations, an
implication of their being undesirable persons.  Some of the people were, Nobel
said, abandoned drunkards.  He concluded his character description with the
statement that his area had been well cleansed by the departure of those
people to the Mormon church.

This bias of Nobel against the Mormons was evident in his wish of success
of the book being written by Turner; the context of his letter is that the
book is against the Mormons.

I feel that this bias casts a cloud of doubt about Nobel's ability to
objectively and fairly convey information about Joseph Smith and hence casts
a cloud of doubt on the value of the letter as a historical source.  Whether
he was biased against the Mormons when he was Judge 16 years earlier can not
be determined from the letter.  We must be careful to not assume anything
about his bias as a Judge during that trial.

I think the value of the letter is in giving information about the trial at
which Nobel was Judge, i.e. the trial did exist and Nobel thought there were
43 witnesses.  I think his statement that the trial proved Joseph to be an
idler, lazy, now and then drunk but not a drunkard, and a nuisance to society
is his opinion rather than an objective statement.

I feel that because of his bias against the Mormons and his propagation of
rumor and hearsay, Nobel's letter is not a reliable record concerning Joseph
Smith Sr. and Mormonism.  Nobel also gave two examples of stories about Joseph
Smith that were given by witnesses at the trial, and I think those stories
should be viewed with skepticism until/unless they can be verified from other
sources.

Allen

    ALLEN:
    
    First, I have been away so I am needing to catch up.  Second, I
    will enter, soon, the other 5 convictions of Joseph Smith for your
    study.  And lastly, in regards to the Noble letter.  Judge Noble
    was the judge who tried him the second time (after he returned from
    leg bail).  However, although the letter was written years after
    the original arrest, I believe that Judge Noble knew of the original
    trial because that information is available.  I have received a copy of
    the original arrest information from the Chenango County Courthouse in 
    New York.  I will need to get that from home.  It gives the information on
    how many witnesses were served.
    
    These arrest papers also show that he was arrested a second time.
     The exact dates I will have to enter when I give the other
    information.  From this arrest, Judge Noble could make an accurate claim
    that Joseph was of questionable character, because the arrest had
    to do with Joseph being a "disorderly person."  I am sure he also
    had some personal bias toward the whole thing, but you cannot cloud
    the facts.  Joseph was arrested and convicted.
    
    I will also, in my next reply, include the comments from Joseph
    that he had never been convicted.
    
    Thanks for your patience.  Leza  
    
    Also, you may want to re-read my report note 38.4.  There has been
    a change to it and my next section is there.
    

    I've searched through this conference for Leza's entry of the other
    5 convictions of Joseph Smith and found nothing.  As she no longer
    participates in this conference, is anyone aware of what the sources
    concerning the other 5 convictions were?  Also, it appears to me that the
    only evidence provided so far that Joseph Smith was ever convicted
    in court is the Noble letter and maybe the contradictory court
    documents of the 1826 trial (dated 1831, 1873, 1877 and 1883).  Is this
    really true?  If so, it would seem a pretty good case has been defended
    for the assertion that Joseph Smith was never convicted in court.
    I have seen anti-Mormon literature that stated almost verbatim what
    judge Noble asserts, but no references (other than to the judges letter)
    have ever been cited (sometimes not even that) in the literature I've 
    seen.  Are there any better sources than these secondary references?
    
    Steve

"Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial: The Legal Setting"
BYU Studies, Spring 1990, Vol. 30, number 2, pp. 91-108

Gordon A. Madsen, an attorney in Salt Lake City, discusses the 1826 trial
in the context of the legal statutes in effect in New York at that time.

The article is quite easy to read but contains a lot of detail about the
law surrounding the trial, and if you are interested in this topic, you
need to read the full article (see note 125.2 for ordering copies of BYU
Studies).

The two primary records that refer to the trial are (1) the bill for his
services that was submitted by Justice Neely to the county, and (2) the bill
that was submitted by the constable in the case.  These papers were discovered
by the Rev. Wesley P. Walters in 1971.  In this reply, I will give the
contents from these two documents, and in the next reply, I will summarize
Madsen's comments.

The bill from Judge Neely lists seven cases:

    Chenango County to Albert Neely, Jr.
    People                          Assault & Battery
      vs.
    ----- Brazee [?]
      Trial at G.A. Leadbetter's [?]

    Same                            Justices
      vs.                           James Humphrey
    Peter Brazee [?]                Zechariah Tarbil [Tarble?]
                                    Albert Neely

    Same
      vs.                           To my fees in trial
    John Sherman [?]                of above cause 3.68

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    People                          Assault & Battery
      vs.                           To my fees in the cause 1.99
    Samuel May
      March 22, 1826

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Same                            Misdemeanor
      vs.
    Joseph Smith                    
    The Glass Looker                To my fees in examination
    March 20, 1826                  of the above cause 2.68


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Same
      vs.                           Champerty
    Newel Evans [?]                 To examination of above cause 2.18
    Sept. 2, 1826

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Same
      vs.                            Assault & Battery
    Josiah Evans                     To my fees in above cause--1.46

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Same
      vs.                            Petit Larceny
    Robert Darnell [?]               To my fees in above cause--1.85
    October 3, 1826

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Same                             Assault & Battery
      vs.

    Ira Church                       to fees in above cause--2.53

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nov 9, 1826                      Albert Neely, Just. of Peace $16.37


The constable bill from Philip de Zeng gave the following information:

    Serving Warrant on Joseph Smith & travel...1.25
    Subpoenaing 12 Witnesses & travel........2.50
    Attendance with Prisoner two days &
       1 night.......................1.75
    Notifyting two Justices............1.--
    10 miles travel with Mittimus to take him..1.--

In the previous reply, I gave the contents of two primary documents
pertaining to the 1826 trial, as those documents were given by Gordon Madsen
in his article in the Spring, 1990 issue of BYU Studies.  In this reply, I
am summarizing Madsen's comments about the charge against Joseph Smith.

Oliver Cowdery (who was an attorney as well as Church leader) wrote that Joseph
was charged with being a "disorderly person".  A. W. Benton, who wrote about
the trial in 1831, agreed and characterized the basis for the charge as 
"sponging his living from their [the public's] earnings."  William Purple, who
was scribe to Justice Neely, claimed that Joseph was charged with being a
"vagrant, without visible means of livelihood."  Charles Marshall and Daniel
Tuttle, who claimed to have access to pages of Neely's docket book supposedly
removed by Neely's niece, called Joseph Smith a "disorderly person and an
impostor."

Madsen said the law that seems to apply to this charge was enacted in 1813 by
the NY Legislature and defined "disorderly person" as the following (my
summary, not a quote):

    Leaving ones family without support, not having the means to support
    himself, is idle without employment, begging, all jugglers, pretending
    to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, to tell fortunes, or to discover
    where lost goods may be found.

Madsen doesn't believe the specific charge against Joseph Smith was of being a
"glass looker".  He believes that the notation "The Glass Looker" was
given on the listing as a point of information.  Justice Neely was consistent
in placing the charge for all seven cases in the 2nd column not in the first
column, and the charge against Joseph was specifically given as Misdemeanor.

Continuing with Madsen.

    As Marvin Hill [an LDS historian] has pointed out, all accounts agree
    that Joseph was employed by Josiah Stowell, which largely precludes a
    charge of vagrancy ("not having wherewith to maintain themselves, live
    without employment").  Hill continues:

        A "misdemeanor" might be many things, as the term simply designates
        a minor offense.  Was the charge vagrancy, disorderliness, being an
        an "impostor," or was it deliberately left vague because treasure
        hunting, as Joseph practiced it with Stowell, did not violate any
        specific New York law?  It is generally known among historians
        that digging was common in western New York in this period.  How
        many persons were held accountable, and to what law?  These are
        questions that need answering before any fair assessment of the 
        trial can be made.

Madsen discussed that the NY Legislature has recognized that the Penal Law
used in the 19th Century wasn't clear.  Under the title 'Disorderly Conduct'
the current Code states the following:

    This section partially replaces the former Penal Law's "disorderly
    conduct" statue [provisions cited]....For a thorough understanding
    of the revised section and others contained in this Article, some
    familiarity with the former statutory law of this general area is
    required.

    The former Penal Law and the Code of Criminal Procedure defined a
    host of minor offenses, most not amounting to "crimes," penalizing
    miscellaneous types of conduct tending to create public disorder,
    offensive conditions and petty annoyances to individuals.  Most of
    these appeared in three multisubdivisioned statutes bearing the
    labels of, or known as, "disorderly conduct"...and disorderly
    persons....Many of the Criminal Code provisions in particular, defining
    status offenses such as being a drunkard, a pauper and the like, were
    distinctly archaic and probably unconstitutional.  One of the defects
    of the Penal Law's disorderly conduct statue was that much of the
    conduct proscribes, such as begging and loitering for immoral purposes,
    did not have the "breach of the peace" character essential to that
    offense...thus rendering conviction in such cases extremely difficult and
    sometimes impossible [cases cited].

One of the reasons for a disorderly-person charge was "pretending...to 
discover where lost goods may be found", and since Neely identified Joseph
as a glass looker, I think it is likely that that was the basis for Joseph
being charged with a misdemeanor.  I think we need to look at this charge
in the context of the statement of the current NY Penal Law that the
former Law "defined a host of minor offenses, most not amounting to 'crimes,'
penalizing miscellaneous types of conduct tending to create public disorder,
offensive conditions and petty annoyances to individuals."  In other words,
I don't consider the charge of misdemeanor anything serious.

In my next reply, I will summarize Madsen's comments about the type of Court
that tried Joseph.

In the 1820's in New York, there were three levels of courts.  The highest
level was a court of general sessions or a county court.  These courts were
presided over by trained, full-time judges, and they tried felony cases, and
they acted as appeal courts for the lower levels.

The second level was a court of special sessions and had three justices of the
peace sitting as one court.  Madsen described these courts as follows.

    The statues of 1813 redefined the jurisdiction of these courts and granted
    them power to try criminal offenses "under the degree of grand larceny,"
    except where the accused posted bail within forty-eight hours of being
    charged and elected to be tried at the next session of the court of
    general sessions in the county.  Special sessions courts could impose fines
    not exceeding twenty-five dollars and jail terms not exceeding six months.

The lowest level of court was the justice court which was presided over by
a single justice of the peace.  Madsen described them.

    Justices of the peace were not generally trained in law, but were
    appointed or elected from the more affluent gentlemen of a community and
    had limited original jurisdiction in criminal matters to literally "keep
    the peace"--to hear cases regarding trespass against persons and property,
    breaches of the peace, and misdemeanors (including vagrancy and
    disorderly persons.)

The Rev. Wesley Walters, who discovered the two primary documents being
discussed, infers from the item in Constable De Zeng's bill listed as
"notifying two justices" that the trial was conducted before a court of
special sessions.  Madsen disagrees and thinks the court was a justice court.
Madsen's reasoning is based on the Neely bill.  The first case listed on that
bill was a special-sessions court, and it gives the names of the other two
justices.  The remaining cases on that bill, including Joseph Smith's case,
appear to be justice courts, because no other names are given, implying that
Neely was the only justice involved.

In addition, Madsen notes that the NY statue that defines "disorderly persons"
speaks of "justice" in the singular, indicating only one justice is involved.
In contrast with this, the statue speaks of "justices" in the plural when
referring to special-session courts.

Madsen concludes his discussion of the courts with the following.

    In light of the above, what is the meaning of the De Zeng entry "Notifying
    two Justices"?  I frankly do not know.  Perhaps De Zeng confused this
    case with the earlier three-justice court of special sessions.  Or perhaps
    Neely first thought the Joseph Smith case needed to be heard by three
    justices and later changed his mind.  In any event, the record is clear
    that no other justices are mentioned in the Joseph Smith trial either in
    the Neely bill or in the Pearsall notes or the Purple account.  Moreover,
    there is no indication that a jury trial was either requested or waived,
    nor any fee billed for summoning or swearing a jury.

    At the end of the Marshall rendering of the Pearsall notes, the Neely bill
    of $2.68 in the Joseph Smith case is itemized....There is no hint in that
    itemization of a jury or additional justices.