The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1899-02-24
A new FACTOR
Has Been Introduced Into the
Hissom Insane Case.
THE WHEELING LODGE, K. OPP.

I'LL NllLLLllNu LUDUL3 hs vi .
Takes Hand, Having Employed two
Lawyers to, Assist in the Effort TO
Secure Young Hissom's Release.
The Argument on the Writ Of Pro-
hibltion Partially Heard Yesterday
and will Conclude To-day.
a new factor has been introduced in
the fight the young physician. DR.. S. X.
Hlssom. is making to prevent the sue
cuss OF his relatives in their effort to
have him declared insane. When young
Hlssom's attorney. Mr.. S. G. Smith, ap-
peared before Judge PAUL. of the cir
cult court, yesterday to argue the applI-
cation for a writ Of prohibition. pre-
venting further action In the case by
Attorney Ewing. Justice C. S. Greer
and Sheriff Richards, he was surprised
TO find two other lawyers, Messrs. Dry
den and Schuck, on hand. and 1t was
learned that they were to appear in
support Of Mr.. Smith, as representatives
OF Wheeling lodge No. III, knights Of
Pythias. OF whom young Hissom Is a
member. The lodge not only desires to
see Hissom given a chance to demon
strate his sanity, but also desires to es-
cape the payment of sick benefits which
would become due upon Hissom being
declared insane.
Messrs. Smith and Ewing made ex-
tended arguments on the writ of prohi-
btion proceeding before Judge PAUL
yesterday afternoon. First. though,
Mr.. Smith moved rule of contempt
against Justice Greer, on the ground
that he had completed his record in the
case and turned it over TO Sheriff Rich
ards after he had been served with the
writ of prohibition on Wednesday even
Ing. The court said 1t would hear this
phase of the case argued after the main
questions at issue had been deter
mined.
The argument on the sufiiciency of
the writ OF prohibition was then pro-
ceeded with. Numerous citations were
made by Messrs. Smith and Ewing, and
they united In asking for postponement
Of further consideration until they
could cite additional authorities this
morning. This suggestion was given
favorable consideration by the court
Some novel legal questions are in
volved in the present proceedings in the
case of Hissom. especially whether or
not a writ OF prohibition lies In a find
ing in iunacy. No case has been passed
upon by the supreme court In reviewing
the finding of hearing in lunacy be-
fore 4 justice OF the peace. but that
tribunal has passed upon such hearings
had before county courts. In the course
OF his argument. Mr.. Smith said:
1T lies at the foundation OF justice in
all legal proceedings that the person 10
be affected have notice of such pro-
ceedings. AS such an appointment
takes from the person the possession
and control of his property, and even
his freedom of person. and commits his
property. his person. his liberty to an
other. stamps him with the stigma of
insanity. and degrades him in public
estimation, no more important order
touching 4 man can be made. short Of
conviction OF infamous crime. Will 1t
be said in answer to this, that he Is In
sane. and that notice to an insane man
will do him no good? The response is
that his insanity Is the very question
10 be tried. and he the only party inter-
ested in the issue. Often. IL given no.
tice, he will be prompt to attend. and in
his person be the .unarswerable witness
OF his sanity: often. II not given notice.
those interested in using or robbinS
him OF his property will effectuate plan.
Ir,bt y,
OF crime without notice. There is
abundant authority for this position.
Even though the statute be silent as 10
notice. as ours as to appointment OF
committees by county courts is. though
that as to circuit court appointment re-
quires notice, yet the common law steps
in and requires 1t. In Moulton v. Hen
dershot, g.. Ala. 426. held that inquisi-
ton OF lunacy without personal notice
to the alleged non compos is void. and
so IS the appointment By the probate
| court OF a guardian for said lunatic,
and the proceedings by such guardian
for sale belonging to said lunatic'"
III 1t was unreasonable, in the opin-
ion OF Roman governor. to send n
prisoner, and not signify withal the
crimes alleged against him. the law
judges 1t to be equally SO to pass upon
the dearest civil rights OF the citizen,
without first giving him notice OF his
| adversary's complaint. The truth Is
| that At the door of every temple of the
| laws In this broad land stands justice,
with her preliminary requirement upon
all administrations: You shall condemn
| no man unheard. The requirement Is
as old, at least. as Magma Charta. II Is
the most precious of all gifts OF free
dom. that no man be disseised OF his
property, or deprived of his liberty. or
in any way Injured. nis per legale
judicium suorum. vel per leSem terrac.
| It Is a principle Of natural justice which
courts are never at liberty to dispense
with, unless under the mandate OF posi-
tive law, that no person shall be con-
demned unheard?
This practice. I say, as was said by
the Louisiana court in Stafford V. staff
ford. supra. might put the wisest man
In the community under the control OF
n curator. and hold him up to the world
as adjudged insane Both constitution
and statute confer this power on the
county courts as jurisdiction. Before
appointing, the court must determine
whether or not the fact which alone
gives 1t power to act exists: that Is,
whether the party is in any of the
phases or conditions Of mind TO be con-
sidered insane under the statute. II
must inquire into the fact. and. in de-
Gliding. exercise Judgment. and of this
legal investigation, all important TO
him, he ought to have notice. He
wants to deny the very basis of the pro-
posed order-his insanity. 1t is an I'M
portnnt question TO him. Shall he have
no notice OF IL? Am / told that the
statute does not In terms require notice
I answer rs shown in Lance V. Mccoy.
"a W. Va. 4l6, as circuit court cannot
nnnnini r.IthnnI 80 by nrnnnr rnnstruC-