Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-03-17


JURY-THE OTHER CASES.
The argument in the barratry cases
were heard by Justice Greer yesterday
afternoon in the Criminal Court room.
There was large number of specta-
tors, who manifested a great deal OF
interest in the speeches. Each SIDE
consumed an hour in argument. The
speech of Mr.. Pendleton was particu-
larly earnest and forcible, and was a
scathing arraignment Of the defend
ant. When the arguments were con-
Guided the Justice held Colts, who
probably furnished bond.
The opening argument was made by
John o. Pendleton. He said the pro-
ceedings had been novel and it was to
the great credit of the reputation OF
Ohio county that only twice in It's his
tory have citizens been charged with
being common barrators. He regarded
it is necessary in the first place to nave
a proper definition of the term par
ratry." He read from the American
and English Encyclopedias of Law
which defined barrator as common
mover, EXETER or maintainer OF suits
and quarrels," and also clause stat
ing that it is not material whether the
courts be courts Of record or not.
He then took up the tax questions
and declared that the interest OF de-
PENDANT and his 'co-cons pirators" in
the execution of the law, lay in pro-
vision of the law which gives five per
cent of the amount collected to the in
former or informers. He read from the
statutes bearing on the question.
He then took up what he termed the
"stale, doubtful and unworthy fee
bills which defendant, who was very
anxious to get into law suits purcnas-
ed for a small consideration from Con-
stable John Anderson. He directed at
tention to alleged improper and unlaW-
full methods in collecting these claims.
THE DEFENSE.
The first speech for the defense was
made by Richard Ryan. In his open
ing remarks he advanced the PROPOSE
ton that the bringing of suits in which
a man is personally interested does
not come within the accepted legal
definition of a common barrator. He
called attention to the fact that de-
PENDANT has won all of the suits which
he brought and which have been de-
termined. The only cases in which
Colts did not have personal interest
were the Bird tax cases, and there has
not been a line of evidence that con-
nected him with those cases.
Replying to Mr.. PendletOn's state
ment that there was but one proceed
ing heretofore in Ohio county, for bar
raty, he ventured the assertion that
this is the first charge of the kind in
two hundred years. There is no pro-
vision in the statutes of West Virginia
for the punishment OF barratry. 1t is
not a crime under the laws of this
State. If it was it would be IN the
code. The prosecution has found II
necessary to go back to the time OF
Blackstone, when they punished scolds
and hung witches, and did it all under
the law.
Mr.. Ryan spoke briefly and was fol-
lowed by Col. w. w. Arnett. He as
serted that there was no evidence TO
sustain charge of barratry, as it is I'M
derstood by those who have made
study of it. No man can be convicted
of barratry upon the evidence OF anum-
Der of cases in which he was party.
He said it was questionable whether
common law barratry was a crime
which fell under jurisdiction of Courts
in West Virginia. He referred to the
McGlumphrey barratry case, which he
defended, upon which there was a con-
viction, and upon which the Supreme
Court OF Appeals never passed, because
OF technicality.
THE CITY SUITS.
Col. Arnett took up the matter of
the litigation between the city and
Colts and asked if defendant was to be
prevented from securing his legal
rights, by the cry of ''barratry!" tie
went over the different cases involved,
and alleged that every decision which
has yet been rendered, has been favor
able to Colts. He also stated that he
had declined to prosecute the suit
against Mr.. Clemans, although himself
a Democrat, because Clemans was
candidate.
With reference to the Cathedral
steps controversy, Col. Arnett stated
that the evidence proved that there
was violation of the law in the occupa
ton of the sidewalk by those steps,
and Colts had a right to complain.
Colts had been arrested for main
tanning his rights, had taken recourse
to the law, and had been sustained in
every instance. Col. Arnett laid down
as a proposition which he thought
could not be disproven, that if man
brings suits in his own name, which are
not groundless, there can be no convic-
ton for barratry. What is meant by
the term is stirring up strife between
others, and melting them to litigate.
If man is quarrelsome himself, he IS
not barrator. There is a statute for
that. 1t is called "contending with