USA > West Virginia > Summers County > History of Summers County from the earliest settlement to the present time > Part 78
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81
His brother-in-law, Thomas S. Meador, lived in the neighbor- hood, and had become jealous of Lilly. On the 18th day of Oc- tober, 1893, he loaded his shotgun, went into the upper story of his house and took his position to keep an outlook through a crack under the eaves. In the evening Mr. Lilly came by from his school, and, on coming up the path, directly into Meador's house, Meador fired his gun from his hiding-place, killing Lilly instantly.
Meador came to the prosecuting attorney's office in Hinton, stating that he desired to surrender himself, and telling .what he had done. He was placed in jail and an indictment was preferred at the following term of court, and on the fourth day of May, 1894, his case came on for trial, Hon. A. N. Campbell presiding as judge.
799
HISTORY OF SUMMERS COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.
He was prosecuted by Adams & Miller, prosecutors, assisted by Col. James W. Davis, who was employed by Mr. D. G. Lilly, a brother-in-law of the deceased. The trial lasted three whole days. A view of the premises where the killing occurred was demanded, which was a distance of twelve miles from the court house. The judge, jury, sheriff, clerk, attorneys and prisoner were all conveyed, going in hacks, buggies and on horseback to the scene of the tragedy on the mountains beyond Little Bluestone. After viewing the premises the trial was completed, and the accused acquitted. This was one of the most interesting and hard-fought legal matters that even took place in the courts. Thomas Meador, the accused, still resides in the county with his family, near the mouth of Little Bluestone, and is one of the descendants of Josiah Meador, the first known of that numerous family of that name in the county, his wife, as well as the deceased, being descendants of Robert Lilly, the founder of the great family of that name in these parts.
The jury which tried and acquitted Meador were : Granger Hol- stine, W. R. Boyd, Daniel Gwinn, O. P. Jameson, R. T. Grady, Allen F. Brown, M. N. Breen, W. E. Carden, W. R. Taylor, S. W. Owen, J. H. Allen and R. M. Martin.
KILLING OF T. P. WITHROW.
Theodore P. Withrow was a constable of Green Sulphur Dis- - trict elected in 1904, and a very good and efficient officer. On the 26th day of August, 1907, Frank Clark, a son of Alex. H. Clark and a grandson of George W. Dean, who was a brakeman on the C. & O. Railway, was at Sandstone to see a woman by the name of Ward, and was drinking. He was twenty-two years of age. He was not behaving very well, and some of the citizens requested the constable, Withrow, to stop the misbehavior. With- row got off his wagon, went to where Clark was and requested him in a vigorous manner to stop his misconduct and go away, taking hold of him. Clark at once retreated and pulled out a pistol and began firing into the body of the officer, shooting him five times. He died the next day from the wounds. Clark was arrested and lodged in jail at Hinton and sent on to answer an indictment for murder. He denied that he did the killing at first. At the October Term, 1907, he was indicted for murder. He was defended by Messrs. T. G. Mann, W. H. Sawyers and J. A. Meadows, and prosecuted by T. N. Read and R. F. Dunlap. His father and mother both died when he was an infant. He was a bad boy,
800
HISTORY OF SUMMERS COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.
with a kind heart, and had served a term in the reform school at Pruntytown. Withrow had also served a term in the reform school at Pruntytown. Both were grown men, raised up in the same neighborhood. Clark was twenty-two years old, a slim, pale youth with red hair. The first trial came on the 16th day of Oc- tober, 1907. The regular judge of the court, having been guardian for the boy, declined to sit at the hearing of the case, and A. R. Heflin, a practicing attorney at the bar of the county, was agreed upon to sit as special judge. On the 16th Clark made his plea in person of "not guilty." The following were the jurors who tried the case :
1. C. C. Coulter : 2. Albert H. Mann; 3. J. A. Bostic; 4. A. J. Williams; 5. H. W. Flanagan : 6. J. A. Allen ; 7. A. E. Welder ; 8. J. P. Keaton ; 9. A. J. Martin ; 10. Taylor Reed; 11. Francis Buck- land; 12. C. D. Albert.
The evidence was concluded on the evening of the 18th. The instructions offered on the part of the defendant were very volu- minous, numbering thirty-five, all of which were not given, how- ever. The arguments of counsel began at seven o'clock p. m .. R. F. Dunlap opening for the State, and was followed by Messrs. Mann, Sawyers and Meadows for the defendant. The State's case was closed by T. N. Read at twelve o'clock on the 20th. The jury was out five hours, failed to agree, and were discharged. A second trial of the case was set for the January Term, 1908.
Alex. H. Clark, the father of this young man, was a native of Augusta County, Virginia, and one of the descendants of Patrick Miller. He married a Miss Dean, daughter of George W. Dean, of Lick Creek. At the opening of the Oklahoma Territory for settlement, fourteen years ago, he went to that country, took the typhoid fever and died. His wife died some two years afterward, leaving Frank Clark, the defendant in the above named trial, and Lena, a sister younger than Frank. This is one of the most un- fortunate homicides ever occurring in the county. The people connected with both sides were good people. Frank Clark is a youth, and, while his crime is grave. there is a disposition to be- lieve, on the part of many, that there was no malice in the killing. He had not seen Withrow for nine years.
This case came on again to be tried at the January Term, 1908, before A. R. Heflin, as special judge, elected by the bar to try it. The same attorneys were retained as those who tried the case at a former term, except the defendant associated additional counsel in the person of Hon. Charles W. Osenton, a learned lawyer of
801
HISTORY OF SUMMERS COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.
Fayetteville, who took charge of the case as counsel in chief. The case was on trial for three days, and the jury finally returned its verdict about one o'clock, having been out nearly two hours, bring- ing in a verdict of "We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty of murder in the first degree, as charged in the within indictment, but we do find him guilty of murder in the second degree, as therein charged." A motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial was strenuously pressed by the prisoner's counsel, but was overruled, and a sentence of twelve years' confinement in the peni- tentiary imposed. The maximum punishment which could have been imposed was eighteen years. It clearly developed in the trial that it was not a case of cold-blooded, premeditated, malicous mur- der, but grew out of an altercation at the time, and while the court construed it to be a technical homicide of the second degree, it was conceded that elements of previous premeditation were ab- sent, and public sentiment had changed much in regard to the character of the offense. Many exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court, and the accused determined to appeal to the Supreme Court and have the lower court proceedings reviewed. and at this time counsel are preparing bills of exceptions, with a view to an appeal.
CALES vs. MILLER.
On the 29th day of February, 1848, John Miller, son of Robert. and Joel McPherson brought a complaint before a justice of the peace of Greenbrier County against James Cales, that he had un- lawfully ousted them from out of possession of a certain cabin tenement containing forty acres. on the end of Chestnut Mountain. part of a tract of 1,100 acres. The trial came on March 18, 1848. but was continued to June, 1849. The plaintiff introduced a deed from Jacob Maddy to John Miller made in 1846, $40.00, which was the consideration for one-half of said 1.100 acres, which was on New River and its waters on Chestnut Mountain. A decree was accepted in evidence of Richard Thomas and Jacob Maddy against Samuel Pack, made in 1842, and under this decree Jacob Maddy and Joel McPherson were adjudged the owners, the decree being against Samuel Pack for the purchase money. The patent to the land was also introduced, showing a grant to Davis Martin for this land, bearing date March 15, 1798, who was a resident of Wil- mington, Delaware, and he had made deed to John Martin, of Philadelphia, conveying the 1,100 acre tract. A patent was also
802
HISTORY OF SUMMERS COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.
introduced from the commonwealth to Miller and McPherson for the 1,100 acres, dated February 29, 1848. It was also charged that the old Long Bottom on New River, just above the falls, had been in the possession since 1831 of William Bragg, who settled thereon, and he had made a title bond to said Jacob Maddy, Daniel Bragg then living on the mountain back of the river. Joseph Willard also claimed the Old Bottom settlements by deed from Martin. Jacob Maddy had sold to Richard Thomas, and Thomas to Samuel Fox, who failed to pay for some. It was also shown that in 1815 Jeremiah Meadows took possession of the land as tenant of Joseph Williard under the Martin patent. Meadows, in 1821, placed Dan- iel Bragg in possession of 1,100 acres for Williard, and he turned the same over to Thomas Bragg, who held possession until 1847. The tract was entered for taxes in 1816 by Joseph Williard. Judg- ment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the justice of the peace and county court, and then the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. The final judgment was entered in July, 1851. Reynolds represented Cales ; William Smith and Samuel Price represented McPherson and Miller. By the final decree the plaintiffs won, and the lower court's judgment was affirmed. The Old Bottom and a part of the mountain is now owned by J. Turner Moorehead, of North Carolina, which includes the eastern side of Richmond Falls, the water power of which is to be used for generating electricity by a powerful plant to be erected at that place in the near future. The settlement of Abra- ham Bragg on Long Bottom is the first we have a record of in that vicinity. These lands are now owned by many different people, and cut up into many farms. It was a finely timbered tract, but that has been cut off long ago. John Miller was a bachelor, en- terprising in his day, and he and his brother Alex. owned large boundaries of land in that region. After their death, both being bachelors, these lands were parceled out and sold in small farms, principally by Hon. Marion Gwinn as commissioner of the Circuit Court of Greenbrier County. James Cales lived to a very old age on the Chestnut Mountain, and his descendants still inhabit that region, including Riley, John, William H. and others. Jacob Maddy is of a Monroe County family, and the descendants of Abraham and Daniel Bragg still live and inhabit that section, both in Ra- leigh and Summers Counties.
See 15 Grattan for a full report of the case above recited.
803
HISTORY OF SUMMERS COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.
ALDERSON vs. MILLER.
This was an interesting case brought in Greenbrier County by people residing in the territory of Summers, and the controversy, which was unlawful detainer, was over 100 acres of land on the mountains of Lick Creek. The plaintiff was Captain A: A. Miller vs. Asa Alderson, brought in the circuit court of said county for the possession of the 100 acres where Alderson then lived and afterwards known as the Dunbar and then as the Rookstool lands. At the trial Alderson received a verdict in his favor in the county court. Miller obtained a supersedeas to the judgment of the circuit court and a judgment in his favor; Alderson appealed to the Su- preme Court of Appeals of Virginia, and the case was decided again in Alderson's favor in that court on the 31st day of August, 1859. What was known as the Schermerhorn Title Banks Patent came in question, that title involving 28,000 acres of land in then Blue Sulphur District, now Green Sulphur. Miller leased the land to Alderson on the 1st of March, 1858, who declined to give pos- session when his lease expired, and Miller sued. Alderson set up in the defense a decree of the Circuit Court of Henrico County, Virginia, of April 21, 1852, in two causes there pending of Richard B. Smith and David Doyle, plaintiffs. vs. Eliza L. Schermerhorn and others, defendants. The other case named George Alderson, John Alderson, William Miller and others, plaintiffs, vs. Richard Smith, David Doyle and others, defendants. By the decree in this case the sheriff of Greenbrier was commanded to deliver into the possession of Eliza L. Schermerhorn all the lands in the possession of George Alderson and the Andersons or others through them held since May 23, 1837, and the defendant, Asa Alderson's, claim to a title deed executed in 1829. The Supreme Court sustained Alderson's contention, reversed the circuit court and affirmed the judgment of the county court. Samuel Price represented Alder- son ; Borden & Crosby represented Miller. This land was held by Alderson until he sold to Dunbar and moved to Greenbrier, where his son, Samson Alderson, now resides His grandson is Hon. Charles M. Alderson, the lawyer of Charleston. Granville Alder- son, the school man of Alderson, West Virginia, is also a son of Samson. See 15 Grattan, 278.
-
804
HISTORY OF SUMMERS COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.
THE McKELVEY CASE.
Theodore F. McKelvey was a locomotive engineer on the C. & O. Railway for a number of years prior to August 31, 1888. He married a lady of Patterson, N. J.
On the 31st day of April, 1888, while running his engine east from Montgomery towards Hinton, at Sewell Station, having stopped to take on water at that place from the tank, and just having filled the same, the engine exploded, causing the instant death of McKelvey, and almost killing L. N. Bartgiss, his fireman. McKelvey's body was thrown higher than the trees, and part of his remains were left hanging in the trees by the river bank, the river at that place being very deep.
Mrs. McKelvey qualified as administratrix, and the railroad company refused to make settlement or pay anything by reason of the death of her husband. The firm of Adams & Miller, of Hinton, were employed to bring suit for damages, which was instituted in the year 1888, in the Circuit Court of Fayette County, West Virginia. The railroad company was defended by Simms & Enslow, attorneys, of Huntington, West Virginia. Major Brazie sat as special judge at the trial. At the first calling of the case on the evening before, both sides were ready for trial, and so stated. having all their witnesses present. At that time the railroad com- pany was represented by Judge James H. Furgeson, who died before the trial, and was succeeded by Messrs. Simms & Enslow, as counsel for the railroad company. There was an important witness in behalf of the estate by the name of LeGrange, who was a boiler maker, employed in the shops at Hinton. When the case was called, Judge Furgeson announced that they were not ready for trial on account of the absence of LaGrange, who had been there the evening before. Upon a search being made, it was ascer- tained that LaGrange had disappeared. A suspension of the trial was had and a messenger sent to Hinton, but no LaGrange could be found. His absence necessitated a continuance. LaGrange never returned to Hinton, but had cut across the country, boarded a freight train at Gaymont and gone west. After several months he was located in the employment of the East Tennessee & Georgia Railroad Company, at Atlanta, Ga. Notice was given the railway company to take his deposition, and James H. Miller, representing the plaintiff, and Henry Simms, representing the railway com- pany, went to that city and secured the deposition of LaGrange, however, before the attorneys reached Atlanta, a representative
805
HISTORY OF SUMMERS COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.
of the railway company appeared on the ground and in company with the witness. After securing the evidence of LaGrange, an- other witness, in the meantime, had disappeared, and this man was located at Nashville, Tenn. W. W. Adams for the plaintiff, and Major Joseph E. Chilton, for the defendant, went to Nashville and secured his testimony. Great interest was manifested in this case. Four expert boiler makers were brought by the railroad company from Schenectady, N. Y., and a number of practical loco- motive engineers were summoned on behalf of the widow.
A trial was finally had, and the jury gave judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $10,000.00. From this judgment an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, and was reversed by reason of wrongful instructions having been given by the trial judge, and a new trial was awarded. Before the next calling of the case the rail- road company adjusted the differences, and the action was dis- missed.
This case attracted great attention by reason of the character of the accident which caused the death of McKelvey. LaGrange had worked on the engine at frequent times, as well as other boiler makers, and he testified that there was fifty stay bolts broken. These bolts were to hold together the fire box and outside valves. He also testified that the boiler had a quantity of mud in it, which should have been taken out; the crown sheet had been down and had been burnt; the side sheets had given away two or three times, and the bolts were not sufficient, they being three-fourth inch bolts, when they should have been seven-eighths. These de- fects had been reported by McKelvey, and also by LaGrange to the foreman, a gentleman by the name of Butler.
McKelvey had stated on frequent occasions that the engine was dangerous, and that he didn't want to run it. The fire box seemed to have broken all to pieces by the explosion, and was sunk into the bottom of the river. It was claimed that the railway com- pany, after the first trial, had a diver to go into the bottom of New River and find the fire box and examine it, but finding that it showed the defects complained of, they refused to bring it to the surface, and made settlement.
The defence of the railway company was that contributory negligence applied, claiming that McKelvey knew of the dangerous condition of the boiler, and should not have run the engine, know- ing this fact. Plaintiff contended that he had a right to presume that the company would repair these defects after having been notified.
806
HISTORY OF SUMMERS COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.
THE STATE vs. ROBERT PAULEY.
The defendant and W. Harrison Robbins were two young men residing at Pence Springs, in Talcott District, both of whom were poor and labored for their living, Pauley being engaged in ferrying persons across Greenbrier River at his father's ferry, his father, Felt Pauley, owning the ferry at that place.
It was Christmas time. The young men had been indulging in strong drink and were under its influence. Robbins' brother and Pauley had some words, and threats were made. Pauley went to his house and secured his shotgun and returned to Kesler's store, where the Robbins had remained. They again got into words, and it is claimed a knife was used, and that Pauley had cut Cal Rob- bins, brother of Harrison, and, from the evidence Robbins followed Pauley down the road towards the river. Robbins had no weapons. An altercation ensued, and Pauley shot Robbins through the body, the load passing through the thigh of the deceased, cutting a large hole, by reason of the parties being in close proximity, the wound being one and one-half inches in diameter, made at short range. Testified to as a dangerous and deadly wound. Immediately after the shooting Pauley ran swiftly towards the river in the dark, and the next day was standing around at the depot.
The State was given one hour and the defense one and one- fourth hours for argument. Dunlap used thirty-one minutes; Hef- lin, forty-five minutes : Mann, thirty minutes, and Read, twenty- nine minutes.
This occurred on December 26, 1906, at Pence Springs depot. Robbins died within nine days, and Pauley was arrested and held in jail. At the January Term, 1907, on the 8th, he was indicted by the grand jury, and entered a plea of not guilty, and the case was set for trial on the 10th, at which time the case came on to trial. The jury was composed of Charles M. West, C. A. Rich- ardson, Millard F. Withrow, Alfred W. Lilly; S. G. Huffman, J. T. Law, S. J. Michell, H. J. Thompson, W. W. Martin, J. A. Ball, E. C. Grummell and E. F. Thompson.
Judge Heflin and Colonel Mann ably represented the accused, and Messrs. Dunlap, the prosecuting attorney, and Read, his assist- ant, prosecuted with ability for the State. Miss Mary Miller acted as stenographer. The plea of self-defense was interposed by the defense, it being claimed by him that the shooting was done by him in self-defense, and that it was necessary to save his life or to protect his body from great bodily harm. As is usual, all the
807
HISTORY OF SUMMERS COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.
witnesses did not see all the transactions at the scene of the conflict alike, and there was a conflict in the testimony. The taking of evidence occupied a day. The case was argued by each of the coun- sel engaged in the trial, time being allowed to a side. The jury re- turned with a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
Robbins was a son of "Bill" Robbins, who was sentenced to serve seventeen years in the penitentiary for causing the death of his daughter after being guilty of incest, and died some ten years ago.
A motion was made to set aside the verdict of the jury and grant the accused a trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the new law and the evidence, which the court took time to consider, and on the 15th this motion was argued and overruled by the court. Then the prisoner was sentenced to con- finement in the penitentiary at hard labor for the period of five years.
THE CASE OF ELBERT MEDLIN.
Elbert Medlin is a young colored man born in the county. His mother is a white woman of low and degraded instincts. His father was a light mulatto. They claimed to have been married several years ago in Ohio, and have resided for a number of years on the banks of New River opposite Hinton.
At the February Term, 1903, of the Circuit Court of Summers County he was convicted and sent to the penitentiary of the State for two years. He served the term and returned to Hinton, and at the June Term, 1905, of the same court he was again convicted. sentenced and served a term of one year in the same prison. Again at the October Term, 1906, he was again indicted for maliciously shooting Charles Smith through the lungs, and Mary Smith, his wife, in the leg. both light mulattoes and of unsavory reputation. The trial came on to be heard at the March Term. 1907. The accused plead not guilty, and a jury was impanelled to try him. The attorneys representing the State were R. F. Dunlay, prose- cuting attorney, and T. N. Read, his assistant. The attorneys for Medlin were Messrs. T. G. Mann and E. C. Eagle.
It developed that they lived as neighbors near the west end of the new steel bridge: that Medlin was jealous of Smith, Medlin's wife having separated from him; that on the 6th day of October. 1906, Medlin dressed in his wife's clothes, went out into the public road, and called Smith to him, it being quite dark. Just as he came down, Mary Smith came over the bridge, and Medlin shot
808
HISTORY OF SUMMERS COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.
Smith through the body, the ball passing through his lungs; then he turned on Mary and shot her in the leg. They both thought he was a woman who did the shooting, and Mary was indicted also for the offense. The trial came on on the 26th day of March, 1907, before a jury, and a verdict of guilty was returned at ten o'clock that night. A motion was made for a new trial, affidavits were filed, and on the 30th day of March the verdict was set aside by the court by reason of the contents of the affidavits, which went to show that some other party had done the shooting.
The penalty for an offense of this character on a third convic- tion is confinement in the penitentiary for life. This being the third conviction of Medlin, it meant a lifetime imprisonment. The court rendered its decision granting him a new trial, having in mind some doubt from said affidavits as to the guilt of the accused in this instance. He has never been re-tried for this offense, but after the new trial had been granted in the latter case he robbed a man while confined in jail, Carl Shumate, who was then confined for drunkenness in the same cell with Medlin, and broke jail and made his escape by throwing a bowl of bean soup in the jailor's face, blinding him, then knocked him down and broke through the door. Later he was captured, returned to jail, and at the October Term, 1907, again indicted for the robbery of Shumate, tried by a jury, and again convicted. A motion was made for a new trial, which was overruled. This was his fouth conviction of a felony. The motion to set aside the verdict and a judgment of confinement in the penitentiary for life entered, and which he is now serving. His brother, Brad Medlin, is also serving a cumulative sentence of twenty-three years in the same penitentiary.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.