Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-08-29
RULE IN PROHIBITION
BRINGS TIE ARKLE INVESTIGATION TO A
SUDDEN TERMINATION.
Il Was Issued BY Judge Paull-Ysstsrday's Pro-
cssdiugs Before the Board Of County
Commissioners


den termination shortly before five
o'clock when rule in prohibition from
Judge PAUL, Of the Circuit
Court, was served on the Board,
and read by the clerk. This action was
a surprise to the prosecution, Col. Ar
nett appeared before Judge PAUL DUR
ing the noon recess with Justice Ankle.
Mr.. Arkle made the necessary affidavit
and the rule was issued.
The effect of the rule will be to put
an end TO the investigation, for the
present at least. 1t raises again the
question Of the jurisdiction OF the
Board. If the Circuit Court decides
that the Board has no jurisdiction in
the case, the matter will in all prob
ability be taken 10 the Supreme Court
OF Appeals. The question is one which
is very interesting TO attorneys, and the
decision of the Courts will be awaited
with interest. The members OF the bar
are divided in their opinions, some al
leging that under the statutes 20 person
or body has the right TO remove from
office Justice OF the Peace.
Following is the full text OF the rule:
VACATION ORDER.
Georgc Arkls Us. Board Of Commissioners Of
Ohio County. In Prohibition.
George Ankle this day presents his petit
ton and affidavit, and moved the Court
for a rule in prohibition against the de-
PENDANT, the Board Of Commissioners Of
Ohio County, Z. b. DObbins, w. j. Bates,
Philip Nollinger, James Baird, ID: Max
well AdoIph Fritz, Otto Tyson, D. KIN
de. berger, and II. Z. McGregor, named
therein. TO show cause why writ
Of prohi oition should not issue,
prohibiting them from proceeding
10 try the charges preferred
against him, before them therein named
and mentioned. IL is ordered that the said
defendant do stay proceedings upon such
charges until the further order OF the
Court, and that they do appear before the
Circuit Court of Ohio county, w. Va, on
Tuesday, the 4th DAY OF september, 1894,
at 10 O'Clock q. IN. of said day, to show
cause, il any they can, why writ OF pro-
hibitioa shall not issue in accordance with
the PRAYER Of said affidavit and petition,
and that a CODY of this order oe served
upon the President of said Board in lieu OF
said rule.
Given under my hand this 2Sth day Of
August, 1894
JOSEPH r. PAUL.. Judge, Etc.
Attest: JoHN w. MITCHELL, Clerk.
Col. Arnett says In regard to the pro-
hibition, that it would not have been
asked for, If the Board Of Commits
sioners had not ruled Sc uniformly
against the defendant in every matter
whether of little or great importance
affecting ArEle's interest. Notwith-
standing the attorneys knew from the
very beginning OF the investigation
that they had the power, by prohibition
to stop the trial, they were determined
TO slow the hearing to continue hoping
and believing, confidently, that
the Board OF Commissioners would
acQuit their client, as they believed
the Board ought to do. But when they,
the attorneys, read the bitter editorial
against their client 10 yesterday morn
ing's HlteLiiggcCr, and witnessed the
feariully unjust manner in which the
Board ruled against their client, they
determined to stop what seemed to them
an unfair hearing by invoking the bene-
fit of prohibition.
The attorneys had and still have. az
solute, unqueStioned, and unimpaired
confidence in the innocence OF their
client, but considering that it was fool
ish il not suicidal to proceed, they could
do nothing else but stop the proceeding.
II they had not had confidence, as they
still have In the innocence of their client,
the attorneys would have stopped the
proceedings in the beginning, and If
il had not been for the unfair rulings of
the Board they would have allowed the
continuance OF the investigation TO the
end. No question exists as to the hon
eStly OF the Commissioners, but their
prejudice, IL may have been uncon-
TO them, was terribly feared"
THE FIRST WITNESS
to 90 on the stand yesterday morning
was Lester Smith, w. & L. G.. conduc-
tor. Mr.. Smith told Of the arrest OF the
four boys at Elm Grove, who were taken
before the Mayor there, and later be-
fore Justice Ankle, who continued the
cases when the defendants were already
for trial. On crOsS-eXamination by Col.
Arnett, witness said be knew OF no rea-
son for the continuance.
August Pestlnger, who conducted
saloon at Elm Grove, was the next per-
son TO testify. Captain Dovener en-.
deavcred to prove by this witness that
be paid S23 so to Squire Ankle, with
the understanding that be would not be
prosecuted on three chrrges of selling
LIQUOR on Sunday. The ceceipt Of Mr..
Ankle for that amount was otfhred in
evidence.
did you ever pay any money to
John Anderson" asked Captain Dove
ner.
The defense promptly objected to
this question, and some time was con-
sumed in argument Captain Dovener
stated that be expected 20 show that
Mr.. Pes,inger paid 50 to Anderson, Of
which s. was for ArG!e, the money be.
ing paid for the purpose Of Quashing
q charge OF selling liquor on Sunday.
tie expected to show also, that Justice
Ankle had directed the action Of the
constable.
wRANGLE BY COUNSEL
Col. Aruett made lengthy argument
q opposition TO the introduction of
such evidence, to which Capt. Dovener
replied that be would be willing TO have
evidence stricken out If il
.ranspired that Justice Arkle did not
authorize tbs collection Of the money
rom PeStinger. Col. White made an
against the Introduction OF
he evidence, bur the objection OF the
defense was oyerruled by unanimous
vote, and an exception entered.
oJohn Walton, Deputy Clerk Of the
Circuit Court, testified that three indict-
nents were found against Pestinger
Ir. Walton then left the stand and the
Examination OF Mr.. Pestinger was re-
umed.
Witness stated that he paid 50 to John
Anderson to drop q charge Of selling on
sunday, and be heard nothing more OF