The Wellington enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 1867-188?, 1884-09-03
Did Webber Have Anything to do With
the Settlement of the
Hinckley Case!

We have just had handed us copies of
the statements of w. A. Braman, Geo. p.
Metcali, NJ. b. johnson and w. r. Web
Der. They explain themselves, and no
persons who know these men will, for
a moment, doubt the truthGnlness OF their
statements. BY these statements, it is
proven that at no interview, when the
settlement OF the Hinckley case was
talked of was Mr., Webber present
These four witnesses will, and ought to
be, believed. viii you kindly publish
the ailidavits referred to, in connection
with this letter.
Aside from the aflldavits mentioned, we
have the written statement OF Mr.. Avery
made for the express purpose Of showing
Mr.. Webber's whole connection with the
Hinckley case. 1t is taken from copy No.
of "A Fair Hearing" page Sd column.
We quote: "In respect TO the matter of the
Hinclkley case, will state that / was
was employed by Mr.. Metcalf to look
up the testimony and facts preparatory
to the trial OF that case. / consulted
with Mr., Metcalf and Mr. Webber in re.
spect to the case, but l never passed one
word with Mr.. Nye or Mr.. L. G. johnson
in respect TO the matter, until long after
the whole case had been adjusted, and,
so Far as l know, Mr.. Nye had no
knowledge whatever of my connection
with the case" The foregoing is all
that Avery had TO say in the document
entitled, "The Truth Stated" issued just
prior to the primaries.
Remember, that Avery was then called
upon to tell what he knew about Web.
ber's connection with the Hinckley case,
for that statement of his was the proof
that was relied upon TO show that Webber
was party to the settlement. 1t is safe
to say that the author of "The Truth
Stated" made the best case he thought he
could, for this statement Of Avery was
published two days before the caucuses in
hope Of securing a majority of the dele.
gates to the convention. II was not known
that another opportunity would be given
10 make another statement. II is a rule
of evidence, we believe, that if a man
offers proof on subject he must offer
all he has before he rests his case, and
that he will not be allowed 10 open il up
in chief or something like that for further
evidence. Avery told all he knew and
what did 1t amount toH Why, that he
was employed to look up the facts, and
had talk with Metcalf and Webber
about the case, but not word about a
settlcment-not one word. The public
don't care about his looking up the facts
in the case, II is interested in knowing
whether Webber was engaged in the set
tlement Of the case or not, and upon this
point, we repeat, Avery does not say
word. If Webber was at Metcalfs house
when a settlement was talked of, why did |
not Avery say so then' II Shardon |
Terill knew that Weber was at Met. |
calf's, and participated in the negotia.
tions for settlement, why was not that
fact mentioned in "The Truth Stated" a
document issued for the express purpose
Of beating Webber at the caucusesY That
was the proper time and place for such
evidence. II looks as though the state
ments and aflidavits now used in the
desperate attempt to involve Webber in
the settlement Of the Hinckley matter
were made to fit the present necessities
of the campaign against Webber. In
other words, having failed to defeat Web
Der at the caucuses by the use of Averys
statement above quoted, glaring mis.state.
ments have been restored TO, TO
beat him at the polls. In view of a com
plete omission to implicate Webber in the
Hinckley settlement when Avery first
testified, and in view of the fact that two
months ago, Avery told Mr.. Braman all
about the case and did not claim that
Weber was at Metcalfs when the settle.
ment Of the case was discussed, and In
view Of the further fact that less than a
week ago Avery stated that he did not
remember that Webber was present at any
interview about a settlement of the said
case, the evidence in Webber's favor is
irresistible and he is fully exonerated.
Relative to Terrilps statement II may be
fairly said that il falls TO the ground from
It's own weight. The utter ludcrousness
Of his story can but provoke the smiles Of
al who read it. He claims that L. G.
Johnson and Geo. p Metcalf, two of the
best criminal lawyers in Lorain
County, abandoned Hinckley to his fate
IN the charge against which they were
employed to defend him, and Tor which
hey received fee, we are informed, Of
s50' and allowed Terrill to fleece their
lient out of over 800 when thew knew