The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1900-06-01
WHOLE NO. 2O5S

board, WV. Brannon Esq, states
that he regards 1t as inexpedient TO
! pass upon the case while 1t is pending
upon writ of error before the SUI
preme Court OF Appeals Mr.. Brannon
also raises the question as to whether
defendant Boughner is under convic-
tion within the meaning OF our Con-
stitution and statute relative to such
cases, and adds that he does not desire
to express an opinion on these two
points. He further states that for
these two reasons only respect
fully decline to concur In the recom-
mendation Of my associate, and desire
to express no opinion on the merits OF
the case This expression is rather
ambiguous, and Is not peculiar to Mr..
Brannon, who Is u very able lawyer. 1t
is difficult for me to determine, there
fore, whether he meant by the ex-
preston for these reasons only j re-
spectfully decline In the recommends
tion OF my associate, that Is TO say, the
reason that the case is before the SUI
preme Court, and that there is a prob
ability alsothat Boughner lsnot under
conviction within the meaning of the
statute. lam inclined To the belief,
therefore, that II 1t were not for these
two reasons, Mr.. Brannon would have
concurred In the views expressed by
his associate, Mr.. Morris, and yet the
last clause Of the memorandum made
by him wherein he states that he de-
sires to express no opinion upon the
merits OF the case, would lead ne to
infer that 1t was not his purpose TO
express any opinion at all.
II have carefully read the opinion
by President Morris, and have also
read with equal carefulness the testi-
mony taken at the trial. lam clearly
OF the opinion that Mr.. Morris opin-
ion OF the lawand the facts are cor
rectly stated. The killing Of Young
was most unfortunate occurrence,
which, under all the circumstances,
seems to be an unavoidable mishap.
While it maybe true, and most likely
is true, that young Boughner fired the
fatal shot, 1t was done under excite
ment and without malice, and with
the belief that the young man who
was slain was murderer. 1t is also
true that every one OF the party who
was In pursuitof Mr.. Young is him
self guilty ofthe crime OF murder as
particeps criminals, II q murder was
committed. Ny conclusion, therefore,
is that the killing of Mr.. Young was,
under all tile circumstances of the
case, no more crime than excusable
homicide. The young man Boughner
has been confined in the county jail
for number Of months, and has been
taught lesson which will be0f great
value to him In the future, and also to
those members OF the community who
participated 10 the raid after Mr..
Young, who, according to the facts,
had committed no crime whatever. l
can say, therefore, that the confine-
ment of Mr.. Boughner in the State
penitentiary will not cause the people
to respect the law to greater extent
in the future than the punishment he
has received already has accomplish
ed. Deploringas l do the Staying OF
an innocent young man, yet feeling
that this is a Just case for the exercise
of the executive clemency, it is, there
fore, ordered that an unconditional
pardon be granted to the said defend
ant, Vale Boughner.
The papers for the pardon came
Thursday morning but were addressed
to the warden of the peuitentiary.
The sheriff was powerless to release
Boughner and his attorneys went be-
fore Judge Maxwell with habeas cor
pus proceedings, setting out the fact
that in law he was in the penitentlary
but in fact in the county Jaily.
Judge Maxwell ordered Boughner's re-
lease from custody and he was given
his liberty about IL O'Clock a. IN.
Thursday.