Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-12-18

not guilty"
This was the written sentence
handed in by the foreman of the jury
in the famous Hissom damage suit.
after celebrating about forty minutes.
At the previous trial the jury hung.
The case has been fought stubbornly
from the time DR.. S. K. Hissom was
first arrested upon a lunacy warrant.
At the first trial Dr. Hissom's counsel
were assisted by VIM. P. Hubbard, who
took no part in the conduct OF the
present trial.
The reading of instructions to the
jury was concluded about 500 o'clock
and the jurors retired. While they
were celebrating upon the verdict
counsel for the plaintiff were rather
dubious as to the result. An attorney
yentured the prediction that the jury
would hang, or give small damages to
DR.. Hissom. THE jury will find for
the defendant" said Mr. Howard. mo
other verdict Is possible
The plaintiff, himself, appeared
rather hopeful. If l don't win the
suit" ne said, I've at least made
father treat mother right
The concluding scenes in the trial
attracted large crowd of spectators.
The court room was we'll filled
throughout the day. The spectators
listened to two excellent arguments by
counsel
Mr.. Howard made the concluding
argument for the defendant, and was
heard at his best He reviewed the
testimony, and his deductions there
from were logical and forceful. He
referred to the numerous incidents
which disturbed the peace Of the His
som domestic circle, dwelling upon
the efforts of the defendant to get out
of the way of DR.. Hissom in order to
prevent the latter from carrying out
the threats which he had made, He
spoke of the several times when j. K.
Hissom actually left his home because
he feared that his son would shoot
him. All these constituted probable
cause, and justified th;, defendant IN
having his son arrested as a lunatic
Yet the father bore a parents natural
love for mis- son, and il was only after
every other resource had been tried
unsuccessfully, that he determined to
have the boy arrested, for his own pro-
lection, as he thought.
Mr.. Howard said the plaintiff rested
its case largely upon the testimony OF
Robert T. McNichol. and he paid con-
siderable attention to this witness,
scoring him upon the threatening let
ter written by McNichol to Hissom
while the former was in Charleston.
He also dwelt upon the value of pre-
Oh trncr hnf
1t was plainly and largely in lavor OF
the defendant in the action. He de-
nounced DR.. Hissom in the strongest
possible language for his alleged as
sault upon the chastity of his own
mother.
Mr.. Howard took occasion to refer
10 the counsel upon the other side,
praising Messrs. Schuck and Robinson,
but severely criticizing Mr.. S. O..
Smith for his connection with and con-
duct of the case. His arraignment OF
this attorney was very severe. He
warned the jurors that II they found
4 verdict for the plaintiff, it would be
equivalent to an impeachment of the
Feracity Of the many witnesses for the
defendant
Mr.. Howard concluded his address
shortly before the noon hour, and
court took recess until the afternoon,
when Charles Schuclt made the con-
Guiding argument He made the best
possible presentation of his side Of
The case, and his argument was lis
tened to with much interest. He first
reviewed the testimony relative to DR.
Hissom's return from Germany, and
took occasion to reply to the STRIFE
lures upon R. T. McNichol made by
counsel upon the other side. He
placed stress upon the fact that pre-
ponderance OF evidence does not mean
simply a preponderance in numbers,
but that the jurors could themselves
pass upon the credibility of witnesses.
Suppose it be true that Dr. Hissom
was insane. was it humane act on
the part OF that father to turn his
poor crazy son loose with $1,000 in his
pocket, to go, God knows where; to dc
God knows what Take the hunting trip
at Fish Greek Island S. X. Hissom
was not insane at that time, else his
father would not have taken such a
chance with him. There is evidence
that just after that.Mrs. Hissom agreed
to write every day 10 the doctor, to
let him know how things were going
She told him in one letter that she
had the $1,000, yet on the stand they
testify that sho sent an order to Dill
lies Bottom to her husband for the
money.
Assuming for the purpose OF argu-
nent, that DR.. Hissom did assail the
chastity Of his mother-we deny that
ne ever did-who was it who communi-
Gated the fact? If there is wretch in
this case it is j. r. Hissom In order
to poison the mind of the boy against
ais mother, he uttered this base SLAM
der, and then he proceeded to poison
the mind Of the mother against her son.
The father was then in dire straits.
Mrs. Hissom wrote her son on Deem
Der 9Th. Do you believe that the wo-
man who wrote such letter on the 9Th
would go to Chief Bennett on the fol-
lowing day and ask for protection
against her son because he was crazy ?
Mr. Howard several times interrupt
ed Mr.. Schuck, for the purpose of cor
rectlng him in his statement concern
ing the evidence, and Mr.. Schuck final
ly appealed to the court to prevent the
Interruptions.
Mr.. Schuck took up the Hubbard
incident, which happened in November.
He showed variance in the testimony
OF one or two Of the members of the
family. He argued the improbability
Of j. R HiSSOm .heing In faor Of the