West Virginia daily oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1894-1902, 1898-07-29
CROSS EXAMINED.

with StrlCElug to confess in 10
cases; HOCkinbcrry was present
I went to Sistcrsvil'c; Hockinberry
was in court; Uockinberry tele-
phoncd 10 come over on 10th, and
order was entered on 18TH OF Au
gust to set aside judgments in 10
cases; at first judge refused to set
as:d- judgments in 10 cases; I lett
with impression that Judgments
were entered i'll 10 cases only; it
was before reCo1d was made up in
20 cases, and before 10 cases were
set aside, that check was given; l
told StriCkling that Hockinberry
lad been political friend of 0trick-
Ing, and that he ought to
throw Oft part Of his docket
fees but after talking to him he
finally agreed to throw off $50 and
Hockinbury gave him a check for
$50. The check was dated Aug
ust II. l must have made motion
or the 1I!h Of August to set aside
Judgments IN 10 cases instead Of
the 10Th and came back on the
10th on question Of mistaken iden-
tity OH 10th. I told HoCEinbury
that if l got the judgments set
aside in 10 cases he would have q
credit of $50 on fines but never
said anything to StriCk1ing about
it. Hockinbury would have =
credit Of $50 on fines if 10 cases
should be set aside. The question
of docket fees was discussed be-
fore the check was given. I
asked Strickling to take $3.50
N tabsende of fockinbury r
Copenha7er cases paid $40 dock
ct fees and Strickllng said fines
could be paid in installments; some
thing was said about $50 and fines
by me to Hockinberry; docket fees
were paid prosecuting attorney for
what influence it might have in my
favor: l can not fix place where
conversation took place in the mat
ter of the docket fees. StriCkling
would make no arrangement as to
the matter in a number of cases TO
be confessed in; $3.50 was paid in
compromise of docket fees; if ten
cases were set aside then Strickling
was only entitled to 500 docket
fees; [ never asked Strickling for
$50; l don't know why"
w. A. Strickler was next called
for defense and testified in sub
stance as follows:
II am deputy clerk and was
sworn in Office in 1897; I was pres
ent al July special term and at the
August term. I remember from
my docket memorandum when case
OF Clendenning was called, the
prosecuting attorney stating what
he wanted done at the August
terms and capias in I to IS. I am
not sure whether Judge FreerI
wrote me at my home in EllenboroI
or told me in person in substance
the special term was to try only
such persons as were likely to leave
the county. / either wrote or told
the clerk. made up the docket; |
think 1 told Strickling j. the clerks
Office one evening the Judges IN
structions. He had nothing to
do with making up the docket; the
docket entry at the August term
was, Robert Clendenning capias in
to I5.' Before the order was en-.
tered as noted in docket, the Judge
ordered capias in twenty FIVE cases
instead Of fifteen; I don't remember
whether prosecuting attorney was
present or not. I was here at De.
cember term and was present when
Clendenning's cases were called
and it IS my recollection the cases
were called several times, and went
over from day to day. On the day
the cases were disposed of the pros
ecuting attorney said something
about going to Jail.
CROSS EXAMINED.
Especial order for capias in IS
cases against Clendenning by the
Judge. l have no recollection that
Strickljng ordered capias only by
refreshing my memory by docket
but remember The Judge ordered p