The Wellington enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 1867-188?, 1884-09-10

In our last issue of the ENTERPRISE,
we expressed determination 10 take up
the Hinckley case in detail in this num-
Der of our paper. 1t was our intention to
give plain recital OF the bottom facts OF
that now notorious case; 10 expose the
fallacies, inconsistencies, absurdities and
mis-statements contained in "a Fair Hear
ing" and, in short, TO shed such light upon
the whole subject as would convince every
candid reader not only Of the truthfulness
of our narrative, but, also, that the posi-.
tions we have taken concerning the matter
were both sensible and just.
We are, however, satisfied, from reports
that come to us from various parts OF the
county, that "a Fair Hearing" is being
estimated by the general public at about
its real value; that the voters of Lorain
county are analyzing the statements and
positions Of that peculiar campaign docu-
ment with tolerable correctness; that the
ludicrous and absurd positions taken by
"a Fair Hearing" are being generally
appreciated, and, finally, that the good
Republicans Of our county do not find in
the document referred 70 any valid reasons
for boiling the regular nomination and for
supporting Democrat for prosecuting
attorney
We do not, therefore, feel called upon,
at this time to give "a Fair Hearing" so
thorough review as we had intended.
Reserving the liberty Of going into the
matter more fully in the future, in case
circumstances require it, we will now
take up only such points as seem to re-
quire immediate attention.
Mr.. A. r. Webber has been fairly and
squarely nominated as candidate for pros
ecuting attorney. He has been well
known throughout the county for several
years as an upright, worthy, painstaking
young attorney, and he Is universal
recognized, by all parties, as thoroughly
competent TO perform satisfactorily the
luties Of the Office for which he has been
nominated.
II is now claimed by the "bolters"
that Mr.. Webber was engaged with
ther counsel, In the settlement of the
Iinckley case, and that he has sworn
falsely in his affidavit wherein he de.
.clares that he had no knowledge of the
terms of that settlement and was in no
way responsible for II. Now, we consider
that In our last issue every particle and
shred oil evidence connecting Webber
with said settlement was entirely and
conclusvely disposed of, unless 1t be the
testimony Of Mr.. Terrill, the father of the
yirl whom Hinckley was accused OF Sc
aucing.
In order 10 place before our readers the
monstrous conduct of this man, and TO
expose the utter and irreconcilable incon.
sistences Of his various allldavits, we
give the following history OF his connec-
lion with said case.
II will be remembered that Hinckley
was teacher and Miss Terrill his pupil.
rerrill became suspicious that criminal
relations were existing between Hinckley
and his daughter, and procuring the assis-
lance Of neighbors this high.minded %
rather proceeded TO watch the supposed
guilty pair. AS result of this espionage
ainckley and Miss Terrill were discovered
llone in n school.house on June 11th, 1882
under circumstances deemed suspicious.
This discovery was referred to by the cor.
respondent of the Elyria Republican and
published in the issue Of that paper dated
June 22d, 1882, and was referred to as occur.
ng "last Monday, but as the affidavit on
which Hinckley was arrested was dated
June 18th, and as the proof at the examina-
lion corroborates this, the letter, which
vas without date, was evidently written
Turing the latter part Of the week of the
discovery referred 10, and publication
therefore necessarily delayed until the
following week. Now bear in mind that
.Hinckley's school had closed before the