Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1908-06-23
THE LANCASTER CASE.
Interesting Observations on Recent
MobIey- Welsh Trial.

MobIey- Welsh Trial.
There seems to have been some
monumental swearing done in the
Welsh trial in Lancaster. Several wit
nesses, including some ladies, sWcre
that when Mobley started out Of the
coach Welsh jumped up from his seat
and ran down the aisle with a pistol
in his hand. Some of them made an
effort to stop him and one Of the la
dies called Mobley in an effort to give
him warning. In reporting the case
further the correspondent of The State
says:
THE defense resumed it's testimony
this morning in the case of the State
vs.. Grover G. Welsh by putting up the
defendant, who denied having his pis-
tol in his hand when he followed the
deceased down the aisle Of the car or
that he went out of a natural walk.
He said he left his seat not knowing
that Mobley was ahead Of him; that
when he got within two or three steps
of Mobley, Mobley turned around and
presented his pistol at him, which he
knocked up with his left hand, at the
same time grabbing Mobley by the
lapel of his coat. He jerked Mobley
around and fired three shots in quick
succession in the back of his head, and
The State replied by putting up Mr..
L. E. Cauthen and Mrs. l.. E. Cauthen,
Mr.. Jeffreys and Frank w. Hunter,
who testified that they heard the
Misses Bell, two of defendants wit
nesses, say shortly after the homicide
that they did not know why Welsh
ran down the car with his pistol,
these young ladies having stated in
their testimony for defendant that
Welsh had no pistol when he ran
down the car. John s. Riddle. i'm re-
ply. testified for the defense that he
was on the train with the Misses Bell
at the time Hunter and JeffreyS refer
red to and did not hear the young la
dies make the statement"
There is nothing i'm the testimony of
the other witnesses to indicate who of
them were swearing falsehoOds: some
of them must have been doing so
knowingly. AS to the reaSOnableness
of Welsh'S testimony, however, the in
telligent reader can form some opin-
ion. According to his statement, he
had no pistol i'm his hand, Mobley had
his pistol leveled on him while he was
two or three steps away, yet MoDley
did not shoot but allowed him to ap-
prOach. knock up his pistol, catch his
coat, turn him around. get out his
DlStOl ana S0OOl MIN lllltt III
the back of the head. One can al
most see Mobley standing through all
this proceeding as if he were in
clothing store being fitted with coat.
And vet Welsh shot to save his own
life? Some of the witnesses. we be-
lieve. testified that Mobley's pistol
showed that one cartridge had been
recently fired and the mark of bull
let was found in the top of the car,
which indicated that he fired after he
fell. Perhaps the theory is that the
shot was fired when the pistol was
knocked up, but it does not explain
why MObley did not shoot sooner and
why he did not shoot again while
Welsh was arranging him in position
to be shot in the back. If Welsh had
lust thought to fire away without tax
ing trouble to turn him around, his
defense would have made better
story. But he is not the first man who
has shot another lin self-defense'
and then had To explain how the de-
ceased came to be shot i'm the back,
but this is about the cleareSt-moSt
tranSparent-eXpl we remem-
ber to have Seen.-CheSter Lantern.