Sistersville oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1896-1901, 1898-03-30
Justice Swans Court the Scene
of the Disturbance.
DISPUTE OF ATTORNEYS
StrickIing and Underwood, Ended in
Mixup-MayOr MOrey Held Court.
The Evidence in FulI-CRse Appealed!

Mrs. S. Y. Seymour VS. Mrs. Mary
Campbell. c. E. Pyle and ]. Il.
Strickling were the plaintiff S coun-
Gil, with G. D. Smith and I. M.
Underwood representing the de-
fendant. During the cross exami-
nation of Mrs. Seymour, dispute
arose between Underwood and
Strickling over suggestion which
Underwood said Strickling had
made and which Strickling denied.
After a few words Strickling called
Underwood liar, and then
they mixed. Mr.. Strickling re-
ceived two blows in the face, one of
them cutting him badly above the
eye and knocking him against the
wall. Underwood was pushed back
ward fell over nail keg and Strick-
ling gave him one on the back OF
the head and they were then seper-
ated. 1t was found then that I'm
derwood had two bad cuts on his
right wrist and was pretty badly
used up. At the time the afray
begun Mr.. Strickling had a small
pocket knife in his hand and was
whiting a pine stick, and it was
with this that Underwood was cut
while Strickling's right thumb was
almost severed. That the cutting
was purely accidental is claimed by
Strickling and is borne out by the
testimony of witnesses who testified
before Mayor Morey. 1t was prob
ably done while Underwood was
stricking at 0trickling and the lat
ter was attempting to ward off the
blows from his face. The Star is not
in the habit of giving,notriety or
publicity to such unfortunate affairs
but as this is an incident, one OF the
chapters in the Court House
trouble, it feels that it is due to
both Mr.. Underwood and Mr..
Strickling that its readers should
be fully informed as to the facts.
This is our excuse and reason for
giving & ,ruu"sis of the evidence
iii the trial. Zach pleaded mot
guilty" and ca q was fned S. 90
and costs, but Mr.. Underwood's
fine was increa ed to $1,000 at his
request in ordc~ to appeal. We do
not give the ev. 1ence OF either par
ty concerned, but Underwood
claims Strickli..g cut him purpose
ly, which StricS inc denies, and in
which he seems to &c sustained by
the evidence.
I.TIDENCE.
w. H Wetzel says that he
thought SLrickling struck the first
blow, but was not sure. Strick-
ling did not strike as if to cut with
the knife, not as witness would use
knife if he wanted to cut a person.
Both arose at about the same time,
but Underwood was a little ahead.
John Wetzel-Heard the lie
passed; Strickling called Under
wood liar. Mr.. Underwood pushed
Strickling thought, but do not
know which struck the first blow.
Think Strickling either pushed or
struck Underwood. They were
about six feet apart sitting. Under
wood took step toward Strickling
and took hold of him as if to push
him; couldn't say that he saw either
strike. Both went down out of my
sight behind the table.
B. Swan-Pyle was between
Strickling and Underwood; Under
wood started to get up after the lie
was passed; Strickling was Tending
off Underwood's blows; Underwood
went backward; don't know which
struck first; Underwood hit Strick-
ling and Strickling retaliated;
Strickliug struck Underwood be-
hind the table while he was down.
1t appeared as if both wanted to get
together; don't know when cutting
was done; Underwood got up first
am stepped toward Strickling.
c. E. Pyle-Underwood said
Strickling did say it; Strickling
says, you lie." The first blow
that saw, Underwood struck
Strickling above The eye; Strickling
struck Underwood while he was
part down; Underwood first arose,