Today in Wheeling History: July 5—Dr. Samuel K. Hissom files a $100,000 damage lawsuit against his father for allegedly having him wrongfully arrested, tried, and convicted in Wheeling on a charge of lunacy (1899).
After a first trial resulted in a hung jury, a second trial was brought. It concluded on December 18, 1900. The case had been fiercely fought since the plaintiff, Dr. Samuel. K. Hissom, was first arrested on a lunacy warrant taken out by his father, James R. Hissom (the defendant). The second trial concluded with closing arguments from Mr. Howard for the defendant and Mr. Schuck for the plaintiff, who presented their cases to a packed courtroom. Mr. Howard emphasized the defendant's efforts to protect himself from Dr. Hissom's threats and justified his arrest as a means of self-defense. Mr. Howard criticized the plaintiff's counsel and warned the jury against impeaching the credibility of the defendant's witnesses. Mr. Schuck, on the other hand, highlighted inconsistencies of J.R. Hissom’s testimony and argued against the existence of probable cause for Dr. Hissom’s arrest. Mr. Schuck accused the Hissom family of withholding evidence that would support Dr. Hissom's claims. The jury deliberated for about forty minutes before returning a verdict of "not guilty" for the defendant, J.R. Hissom. (https://rb.gy/9uuzm) (https://rb.gy/1slub) (https://rb.gy/eflwc) (https://rb.gy/qdnv0) (https://rb.gy/ismhj)
After a first trial resulted in a hung jury, a second trial was brought. It concluded on December 18, 1900. The case had been fiercely fought since the plaintiff, Dr. Samuel. K. Hissom, was first arrested on a lunacy warrant taken out by his father, James R. Hissom (the defendant). The second trial concluded with closing arguments from Mr. Howard for the defendant and Mr. Schuck for the plaintiff, who presented their cases to a packed courtroom. Mr. Howard emphasized the defendant's efforts to protect himself from Dr. Hissom's threats and justified his arrest as a means of self-defense. Mr. Howard criticized the plaintiff's counsel and warned the jury against impeaching the credibility of the defendant's witnesses. Mr. Schuck, on the other hand, highlighted inconsistencies of J.R. Hissom’s testimony and argued against the existence of probable cause for Dr. Hissom’s arrest. Mr. Schuck accused the Hissom family of withholding evidence that would support Dr. Hissom's claims. The jury deliberated for about forty minutes before returning a verdict of "not guilty" for the defendant, J.R. Hissom. (https://rb.gy/9uuzm) (https://rb.gy/1slub) (https://rb.gy/eflwc) (https://rb.gy/qdnv0) (https://rb.gy/ismhj)
RSS Feed
