The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1899-03-17
!. Colts IS HELD
ToAwait Action by the Criminal
Court Grand Jury, on the
CHARGE OF BEING ABARRATOR.
Colonel Arnctt and Mr.. Ryan Made
the Arguments In Behalf of the Ac-
cused man, While Er.Congrcssman
Pendlcton Presented the Case ofthe
Prosecution, and Denounced Cots
In ScathinS Manner.

yesterday afternoon, IN the criminal
court room, the barratry hearing in
which w. ]. Colts figures as the defen-
dant came to Its conclusion, and Jus
ttce Greer decided to hold Colts for ac-
ton by the criminal court grand jury.
Mr.. Colts gave $500 bond for his ap-
pearance and was released. Colonel
i w. w. Arnett and Mr.. Richard Ryan
argued the case for the defense, and
Colonel Arnetts plea was one of con-
siderable strength. For the prosecu-
ton, ex-Congressman John o. Pende-
ton made the best speech Of his legal
career; his denuncation Of Cots meth
DDS was severe and unrelenting
throughout, and u was not to be Won
dered at that Mr.. Colts at one or two
points squirmed under the merciless fire
directed at him, and protested by word
OF mouth. The arguments were heard
by the iargesttcrowd that has been I'm
evidence since the barratry hearing be-
gan. Next week the barratry proceed
ings against ]. e. w. McCulley and
Justice John G. Habertieid will be heard
by Justice Greer.
Mr.. Pcndlcton Opens.
In opening, Mr.. Pendleton said It was
fine showing for the people of Ohio
county that in but one former instance
had there beenanarrest for barratry. He
then read the language OF the warrant
served on Mr. Colts. Earrat6r was de-
lined in law as common mover of suits
and quarrels, whereby discord and dis
quiet are the outgrowth. There are two
classes Of charges against Colts, the
stirring up the tax informer suits and
the bringing of the suits in courts hav-
ing no jurisdiction. Proceeding, Mr.
Pendleton showed the illegaIity of the
tax informer proceedings, and alleged
that Colts, McCuilcy and Bird entered
into a conspiracy with certain justices
of the peace and dragged citizens before
them.
, Mr.. Colts, he said. likes law suits, and
bought up the John Anderson fee
claims and entered suits to collect some
OF them. Here again citizens were
dragged before the squIres to enforce
illegal claims. Legally, he said. there
was no foundation for these old. stale
and Improbable claims. Cots did these
things knowing the justices had no jur-
isdiction.
Mr.. Ryan's Remarks.
Mr.. Richard Ryan opened for the de-
feIse. He claimed barrator Is one
who is noe interested In the suit; other
wise every banker is barrator. Colts
has won every suit he has brought in
the courts of Ohio county, does that
.1tftt no 1,n. IA ~. "
ccpt in the tax cases Mr.. Colts has been
directly interested. and there Is nobody
except Mr.. Pendlcton. who has testified
lle was connected with those cases; he
was only the clerk of Bird. Colts had n
right to sue Bishop Donohue: he had n
right TO protect his interests In the Nc
Colloch street lot, and the Wheeling &:
Elm Grove Railway Company and the
1seymann Brewing Company are the
barrators In this case II there are any
such. There IS no act in this state, COW
erinS barratry; the only authority Is
Blackstone. and times have changed
since Rlackstone's time. Mr.. Colts had
as much right to buy the Anderson
claims as 4 bank has to deal in notes.
There Is no evidence Mr.. Colts collected
any unjust claim; the only unjust claim
was that Of ]. =. Henry which was not
"a collected.
80 Col. Arnctts Address.
5. Colnel w. W. Arnett next spoke for
the defense. He spoke OF the manner of
the iustituting OF this charge of bar
ratry. Bachmann, he said, had been
ruled by feelings OF malice and spite.
There IS no element Of barratry in this
case. and he challenged criticism OF this
\ J. a hnl no
vince the court of the truth of his
claim. There wGs one case OF barratry
in this county, and the judgment of the
lower court was only sustained because
the appeal was not taken within thirty
days. So there is no conviction on bar
,ratry in this state. In New York and
Pennsylvania and some other states
there are statutes on the subject; In this
state there Is none.
So far as the case of Colts Is con-
cerned there can be no barratry. He
read from Mayo's Guide ut some length
In support Of his position. There is. no
barratry where the accused sues in his
own right. even though the contention
is groundlcss. This dispuses OF all OF
the cases brought in Cots own name.
Anyhow, any citizen has the right to
assert his own rights as Mr.. Colts has
done. The speaker said the reason the
case against ClemanS was, not set ut
the last term Of court was that he was n
candidate for Office at the time.
As TO the case OF Bishop Donohue, he
should be prosecuted IL he violated the
law. The law WAS violated In the put
ting down OF the steps ut the Cathedral.
In the Sloan case, the accusation was
with foundation, said the speaker. and
cited the law bearing on the matter.
No court can assert any citizen cannot
prosecute n just claim. and the case
against Sloan was Just claim. In
every litigation instituted by Colts
there was cause. BGrratry is the STIR
ring up Of quarrels between other pco-
pie. the act of the busybody, and there
is no such instance In this case. Such
4 thing Is charged In the tax Informer
cases. but he would dispose OF that ac
cusation. But even II suits are cncour-
aged between others and the motive Is
not for gain. there Is no barratry.
As 10 the tax cases. II a man acts con-
scientiOusly he Is not guilty of barratry.
Here every man In the state Is invoked