Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1889-03-28
FOUR CASES
DISPOSED OP INTHRUNITBD STATES COURT,
YESTERDAY.
Vsrdic.s Of Not Guilty in Three Election Gases and
One Revenue Csss-Rsnswed Evidences
Of "Partisanship."

States District Court, yesterday anu vel
diets of not guilty were rendered in all OF
them.
Oae of the indictments was for a viola
ton of the internal revenue laws, and the
Others were election cases.
All the defendants in the cases last
named had cast ballots at Wellsburg
at the late election, and were each
charged with being nOn-residents OF
the State, it being claimed by the Govern
ment that they were citizens of Ohio and
had no right 10 vote in West Virginia.
In each of the election cases the defen-
dAnt was a Democrat, ard it is supposed
the esteemed InteLigeneer will have its
daily psroxism of j. j. this morning
at this renewed evidence of the frank
partisanship" of the grand jury, in find
ing indictments and prosecuting Republ-
cans n and will come out with scare head,
totally at variance with the text, as usual,
over its Court report Any failure to
handle yesterdays events in Court in this
way, and the omission of the customary
''scsthing" arraignmept of everybody
connected with the Court, will be regarded
as convincing sigos of editorial apd re-
portorial paresis and be the signal for pub
lie manifestations Of coincidence at the
going to seed of once bright and vigorous
intellect.
The case of the government V. j. W. Nc
Coy, charged with violation of the pen
sion and postal laws, was called the fret
thing after Court opened, and was laid
aside until to-day, to permit the trans
mission of certain checks from Washington
City.
The case of the government Y. w. B.
HUMPHREYS, indicted for violation of the
internal revenue laws, was then called and
the following Jury was selected Messrs.
Thomas Sweeney, S A. Wilcox, M. K.
Hobbs, Thomas O'Brien, John White, J.
G. Kirker, R. E. Fleming, James McNa-
mara, Jesse W. Piattenberg, Jacob
Sweiizsr, William Chslfant and p. Ken
nedy. The defendant is q resident of
Moundsvi!le and member of the firm of
Weaver, Bsrdell & Co. The allegation was
that he had sold tobacco without license,
but j: was not substantiaIed, and the jury
returned verdict of not guilty.
The first of the election cases was then
called, it being that of John Craig, of
Welsburg, who was charged with casting
a vote in that town, while being non
resident The counsel for the def4nee was
Ek-Judge j. J. Jacob. The jury was the
same "a given in the preceding case, both
parties bsiug content 90 90 ahead with it.
The case of the government was that the
defendant had removed from Msrii1's
Ferry about the first of the year 1888,
aud going TO Wellsburg had voted there in
November. The defense claimed that
Mr.. Craig was not citizen of Martins
Ferry, bat was living on the Island, in
Weat Virginia, although doing business in
Martins Ferry.
The Jury WAS only out few moments,
returning verdict Of not guilty.
The next case wag that of p. II McOon-
ahua, alao charged with being a citizen of
Ohio, but having voted at WellsbuTg The
jury wes J. D Stanton, P. W. Bosley,
DtuUnA cav JUN tAisNof W. hANA
gan, Seman wells, Hamilton Hill. George
w. Phillips, John Roemer, T. G. Britt,
William Chalfant and J. c. Kirksr. The
Government claimed that defendant was a
resident of Brilliant, but failed TO make
the claim good, and the Court instructed
the Jury 20 return a verdict of not guilty
without leaving their seats, which they
did.
After the verdict had been returned, the
Court made little address, stating il
deemed tprOper 10 say that there were often
excellent grounds for the returning of on
indictment, and yet, when the case came
to be heard in open Court. il was ssen st
glance there was nothing in it. The grand
Jury, of course, heard only one side of
case, ard was bound to return bill if
there was probable cause, but on investi-
cation, with all the facts before the Court,
would show the charge without proper
support.
The case against Edward Mccormick
WAS then put on, the same jury being re-
tanned. There we're but two witnesses for
the government, the case being that de-
fendent had made his home with his par
ents, at Brilliant, up 10 January, 1888,
aud had then removed 20 tie home Of his
sister, in Wellsburg, where he had voted
in November. The defense showed, by the
testimony of the father, sister, and defend
ant himself, that he had made his home
with the sister since 1882, and that the
longest visit be had mode to his father in
that time was of weeks duration. Be-
fore the evidence wac all in, the District
Attorney. addressing the Court, ssid he
was satisfied there was nothing in the case,
and asked that the jury be directed to
bring in verdict for the defense, which
was done. This ended the business Of the
Court for the dav. In the two last named
cases, IS IN the Craig case, Judge Jacob APP
peaIed for the defendants.