Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-08-10

| fees of justices. II a case Is presented
| in which exorbitant fees were charged,
| misconduct is proven. Referring to
specification 9, he said he appeared Ia
| the case. and was familiar with it. One
man had taken an appeal, and Judge
| Campbell decided that writ OF prohi-
bition would lay against justice, as he
| had no Jurisdiction in the case. In the
| face OF an order Of the Circuit Co lrt,
which binds Justice, whether right or
wrong, the defendant went on to exc
cute Judgment against the other four
men.
The statute provides that the Court
must remove for misconduct. For the
! purpose of the motion made, the charges
must be looked upon as proven. IL he
| is charged with trying a liquor case IL
| legally, the Court must only see in the
statutes that be has no jurisdiction,
| that he has exceeded his powers as de-
| fined by statute, and then remove him.
! If he ex seeded his powers, that is mis-
conduct, malfeasance and misfeasance.
Col. Arnett replied TO Mr. Conif, and
closed the arguments. He denied that
il was TO be presumed that the charges
reached the point where IL was expect
ed To deny them. He wanted the speci-
fcations in such shape that they could
be inteIigently denied. He wanted the
Board to pass upon specific charges,
not upon general accusations. He de-
sired, at the very inception, that the
charges should be couched in such
terms that the defense may know spe-
officially what is meant. This is impos-
sibe under the charges as they exist.
The eleventh specification says that
Squire ArKle took consideration for
failure to prosecute. In that form what
earthly chance does George Ankle have
to defend himself? The statutes OF this
State says that man charged
with an offense, shall be fully and
plainly acquainted with the nature or
character of the accusations against
him. II the Board sustains that, as q
specification, it would look like the de-
PENDANT has a very slim chance. 1t
should indicate when and where he took
money illegally, that he may have the
opportunity of defense. The presump-
tlon in law is that a man is innocent,
and knows nothing about the charge.
The code provides that any officer
may be removed for misconduct, incom-
petence, habltusl drunkenness, or gross
immortality. Misconduct only, is
charged here. Now, Justice may de-
eide enormously, but he cannot be held
responsible for such decision. In a
case in the Circuit Court OF Ohio county,
Judge Boyd instructed the jury--if you
find the defendant acted corruptly, you
will find him guilty; but II he acted in
accordance with his best judgment, you
cannot find him guilty." That is in &C.
cordance with the law On the subject.
II a justice knowingly does wrong In
trying case, or In rendering decision,
he is ameDable; but il he acts according
to his best judgment, he is not.
Col. Arnett cited case before Judge
Jacobs fifteen years ago, similar to that
mentioned in specification nine. The
Court then decided that the statute
only applied when the offense was com
mitted in the presence OF constable.
Judge Boyd. one month later, in sim
liar case, decided just the opposite.
Judge Campbell held to the same opin-
Ion as Judge Jacobs. when you review
the Judgment of the defendant you go
outside the province OF law. That ju-
risdiction belongs only to an appellate
court. Ii this is to be trial for mis-
conduct in Office. we want to know that"
Col. Arnet. here asked Mr.. Coniff IL 1t
was proposed to try Mr.. Arkla for mis-
conduct In Office. Mr.. Coniff replied
that the prosecution did not ask his re-
moval for making a mistake, but be
commended that defendant continued TO
fine people after the court had decided
that he had no jurisdiction. That
bears out the assertion l made" said
COL Arnett; that he must be guilty OF
willful misconduct, and the Board can
not try him for making a mistake" He
insisted, therefore, upon having the
charges made specific.
Mr.. Coniff offered to amend the
charges to suit the Colonel, and Col.
Arnett offered no objections. Col. Ar
nett then agreed TO withdraw his motion
90 quash, and the changes were made.
At Col. Whites request, the motion to
quash was expunged from the record,
the record showing only Mr.. Coniff's
motion to amend.
With this understanding, opposing
counsel conferred. and fixed upon the
9th as the day for hearing the evidence.
AS there will be great many witnesses
examined, the hearing will probably
continue for several days. SO
After the noon recess, Col. Arnett
filed bill Of exceptions to the overrul-
Ing of his two motions.