PioAndrew:
Joseph Smith was a man who was actually convicted of fraud.
PioAndrew
A bill for services is not documentation of conviction. Joseph Smith was continually being charged with all sorts of petty things by his enemies. He was acquitted on all things that were brought against him. Since there is not documents to the contrary let’s look at what we do know
In March 1826, Joseph Smith was brought before a justice of the peace in South Bainbridge, New York, and charged with being a “disorderly person.”
An attorney Gordon A. Madsen has analyzes several aspects of the trial in light of the legal context of the day: the charge, the court system, the legal terms, and the elements of the crime. First, Madsen looks at the New York statute that defined a “disorderly person”;
Joseph, who was then helping Josiah Stowell find buried treasure, was likely being charged as a person “pretending to have skill . . . to discover where lost goods may be found.”
Madsen then describes the three types of New York courts with which Joseph dealt. He also determines that the trial notes—those taken by Justice Neely himself and those taken by a friend of Justice Neely—are unreliable, not even stating conclusively whether Joseph was acquitted or found guilty.
However, Madsen uses the notes and an understanding of common court procedure of the day to reconstruct what might have happened in the court.
He also records some legal precedents for Joseph’s acquittal and concludes that Joseph was not convicted of being a “disorderly person.”
If the intent is find disparaging comments about Joseph Smith a person is sure to find them in the type sources that are quoted. There are equally to be found comments about his honorable and kind character by those that lived near him and didn’t have an axe to grind about him.
Paul