The weekly register. [volume] (Point Pleasant, Va. [W. Va.]) 1862-1909, 1907-11-13
NO STEAL
But a Square Deal
Is What the Taxpayers OF Point
Pleasant Get in the Case of
the state of West Virginia
against John Harden.


it goes so far out of the way as to
charge the public officials of our
town with stealing" from the
treasury of the town, without war
rant or authority of law and to as
sert that it's untruthful charges are
backed by the records of the town,
the time has arrived to call a halt.
The article referred to was pub
lished in last weeks Issue Of said
paper and charges the Town Coun-
oil of Point Pleasant with paying
certain attorneys fees illegally in
the case of the State of West Vir-
ginia sgainst John Harden. Our
readers are familiar with the Har-
den case. He was indicted in the
Circuit Court Of this county for
selling spirituous liquors without
first having obtained State Ii
censs therefor according to law.
The sale was made by Harden who
was acting under license regu-
larly issued by the Town Council
of said town. The license tax Of
two hundred dollars to the town
and FIVE hundred dollars to the
State had been paid, but this as
commended by those representing
the State afforded no protection,
or in other words the sole question
raised by the indictment was
whether Harden had a legal license
or not He was tried in the Dir
Quit Court of this county and the
license under which the sale of
liquors was made was excluded by
the court from the jury, and Har
den thereupon was found guilty
and sentenced to sixty days in Jail
and to pay fine OF $25,
1t will thus very clearly appear
that the purpose of this indictment
was to make a test case and de-
termine whether the Town Council
had the sole right to grant a liceese
for the sale of liquors in the Town
of Point Pleasant or not We have
never understood why Harden was
picked out among all the other 3D.
loon keepers and indicted for illegal
selling of intoxioants, although he
was acting under license just the
same as the other licensed dealers
in Point Pleasant. He was no
more guilty than John G, Stortz.
Homer Smith or any of the other
licensed dealers in liquors. Was
it because he was poor or because
he might not have as much polit-
ioal influence as the othersf
AS we have shown Harden was
found guilty, but his case was ap-
pealed to the Supreme Court of
this State, and that court upon q
re-hearing and re argument of the
case at the June term thereof, 1907,
in Wheeling, reversed the Circuit
Court, holding in effect that Har-
den was acting under a valid IL
oense and therefore not guilty.
And the Supreme Court goes far
ther in that case and holds that the
Town Council of said town has the
right under it's charter to grant all
Licenses in said town. This deois-
ion therefore, settles the charter
rights of the town as to the grant
ing licenses and the legal effect
is to restore the town those rights
which it has enjoyed for the last
quarter of century, and which
the great majority of the citizens
of our town most heartily approve
But it is alleged that the Town
Council had no right to employ at.
torneys in that case. The Town
Council certainly was not expect.
ed to ait idly by when it's charter
rights and authority became in
Volved in the case. But it is said
the town was not indicted. That
is true, it was just plain John Har.
den who was indicted, but if that
decision of the circuit Court had
not been reversed by the Supreme
Court, the Council of said town
would have been branded as doing
an illegal business all these years,
and not only Harden but every one
accepting license from said town
was criminally liable.
Let US see further upon this sub.
ject. 1t is said the Council had
no moral right, much less a legal
right to employ attorneys in the
Harden case. A little item of a
loss of $1,000 Of revenue to the
town yearly derived from licenses
is not much to the town if we listen
to the knockers apainst the town