Docloer D "Doc" Mahon [A1374]
b.1854 ca - Logan Co, West Virginia
d. -
----- Parents -----
James Mahon
Elizabeth "Bettie" Curry
----- Siblings -----
Pliant Mahon [A1379]
Docloer D "Doc" Mahon [A1374]
Sam Mahon
Sally Mahon [A1348]
----- Marriages -----
m01. 1876 23 Nov - Logan, West Virginia + Sarah Ann Hatfield (1 Child)
----- Children -----
Valentine Mahon [A1375]
Name: Docloer D Mahan
Age (Expanded): 22 years
Birth Year (Estimated): 1854
Birth Date:
Birthplace: Logan Co, West Virginia
Spouse's Name: Sarah A Hatfield
Spouse's Age (Expanded): 16 years
Spouse's Birth Year (Estimated): 1860
Spouse's Birth Date:
Spouse's Birthplace: Logan Co, West Virginia
Event Type: Marriage
Event Date: 23 Nov 1876
Event Place: Logan, West Virginia
Father's Name: James Mahan Parent Im 28 P25
Mother's Name: Elizabeth
Spouse's Father's Name: N Hatfield
Spouse's Mother's Name: J Mainard
Marital Status: Single
Previous Wife's Name:
Spouse's Marital Status: Single
Spouse's Previous Husband's Name:
GS Film number: 571278
Digital Folder Number: 4130636
Image Number: 30
Reference ID: p 32 ln 56
Affiliate Repository Type: County Records
http://www.wvculture.org/vrr/va_view2.aspx?FilmNumber=571278&ImageNumber=3
0
"West Virginia Marriages, 1853-1970," index, FamilySearch
(https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/FRNW-C3R : accessed 07 Dec 2013),
Docloer D Mahan and Sarah A Hatfield, 23 Nov 1876
---------------------------------------------------
Name: D. D. Mayhon
Event Type: Census
Event Date: 1880
Event Place: Magnolia, Logan, West Virginia, United States
Gender: Male
Age: 25
Marital Status: Married
Occupation: Farmer
Race (Original): W
Ethnicity: American
Relationship to Head of Household: Self
Birthplace: Virginia, United States
Birth Date: 1855
Spouse's Name: Sarah Ann Mayhon
Spouse's Birthplace: Virginia, United States
Father's Name:
Father's Birthplace: Virginia, United States
Mother's Name:
Mother's Birthplace: Virginia, United States
Page: 299
Page Letter: A
Entry Number: 122
Affiliate Film Number: T9-1406
GS Film number: 1255406
Digital Folder Number: 004244691
Image Number: 00699
Household Gender Age Birthplace
Self D. D. Mayhon M 25 Virginia, United States
Wife Sarah Ann Mayhon F 19 Virginia, United States
Son Valentine Mayhon M 1 West Virginia, United States
"United States Census, 1880," index and images, FamilySearch
(https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/M6RY-H7Q : accessed 07 Dec 2013),
D. D. Mayhon, Magnolia, Logan, West Virginia, United States; citing sheet
299A, family 0, NARA microfilm publication T9-1406
---------------------------------------------------
HATFIELD v COMMONWEALTH
MAYHORN v. COMMONWEALTH
(Filed Nov. 9, 1889-Not to be reported.)
1. Criminal law-Competent to prove acts done in another State--Under an
indictment for a crime committed in this State it is competent to prove
acts done in another State for the purpose of showing the criminal intent.
2. Jurisdiction where defendant was in another State when crime was
committed--Where a crime is committed in this State one who puts into
operation
the force or power that caused the wrong is punishable in this State. al-
though at the time of the commission of the offense he was in another
State.
3. Aiders and abettors--One who aids and abets in the commission of a
murder is as guilty as he who actually does the killing.
4. Evidence-Declaration of co-conspirators--Under a joint indictment
against several defendants for murder, charging a conspiracy, their decla-
rations while in charge of the persons killed. after the latter had been
taken
from the officers of the law, were competent against each defendant in so
far as such declarations referred to the purpose the defendants had com-
bined to accomplish.
W. M. Connolly. A. J. Auxier, R. M. Ferrell and P. A. & J.S.
Cline for appellants.
S. G. Klnnesr and P. W. Hardin for appellee.
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court.
Opinion of the court by Judge Pryor.
The appellants, Valentine Hatfield. and Doc. Mayhorn and Plyant
Mayhorn, were indicted, tried and convicted in the Pike Circuit Court
for the murder of one Tolbert McCoy. The verdict and judgment
fixed their punishment at confinement in the State prison during
life, from which they have appealed to this court.
The two Mayhorns were tried together, and a separate trial had
for the accused, Valentine Hatfield,
As the facts of both records apply to the one charge of murder,
and the legal questions in many respects are identical, we will con-
sider the case as If there had been no separate trial.
At the August election, in the year 1882, a personal difficulty orig-
inated between three of the McCoy boys and one Ellison Hatfield,
the brother of the appellant, Valentine Hatfield, in which Hatfield
was stabbed or cut with a knife, and died in a short time from the
effects of the wound. What caused this trouble between these par-
ties is not disclosed by the record, nor was it proper for the court be-
low, in the trial of these appellants, to have made such an inquiry.
After the fight had terminated between the McCoys and Hatfield,
the McCoys were at once arrested by one who is termed "a Special
constable", and named Floyd Hatfield, and placed in the custody of
Tolbert Hatfield and Joseph Hatfield, two justices of the peace of
Pike county. These officers of the law in connection with the con-
stable, all of them related to the man killed, thought it proper to
carry the prisoners, the three McCoy boys, to the county seat to be
tried. and had the precaution to have with them a guard to protect
their prisoners against any attack that might be made upon them
by the Hatfields, who had remained behind. They had not pro-
ceeded many miles in the direction of Pikeville before they were
overtaken by Valentine Hatfield, one of the accused, Elias Hatfield
and others, who, according to their own statement, wanted the law
enforced, but. as a matter of public convenience, thought the officers
of the law should try them In the magisterial district where the
fight took place. The accused, Valentine Hatfield, was also an of-
ficer of the law (a justice of the peace), but lived in the State of West
Virginia, a short distance from the Kentucky border. The officers
of the law, having these boys in charge, seem to have had but little
hesitation in surrendering their jurisdiction to the Virginia justice
of the peace, who, in conjunction with a posse of armed men, re-
turned with their unfortunate young prisoners, that they might
have their trial, as the defense new contends, in the civil district
bordering on and near the Virginia line. These parties had not gone
far on their return before they were joined near the mouth of a
branch, by a man called Ans Hatfield and his squad of men, and
among them the two Mayhorns (appellants). who are the son-in-
laws of the other appellant, Valentine Hatfield.
This squad of men were armed with guns when they met these
Kentucky justices, who had been divested of their jurisdiction by
the Virginia justice, and, after proceeding to the residence of Jerry
Hatfield, the party obtained a rope and tied the three boys together,
and in this condition carried them to the Rev. Anderson Hatfield.
where the party was entertained at dinner. While at the home of
the Rev. Hatfield, Ans. Hatfield stepped forth and directed "all of
Hatfield's friends to form a line," and, from the testimony, although
there is some conflict in the statements, these appellants all went
into line, and, if doubt exists in this particular, that they were all
present is a conceded fact.
The prisoners were then taken across the river, or the line bound-
ing the two States. and confined in a school-house on the Virginia
side. There they were guarded by armed men, the defendants be-
ing among the number, who, now on the stand as witnesses, Pro-
test against any criminal intent on their part, and avowing their
purpose to protect these boys from injury by others. They kept
them confined in this room until they heard of the death of Ellison
Hatfield, who, it was said, had been stabbed by the youngest of the
McCoy boys, and then the clamor for human blood began. Tolbert
McCoy was twenty-one years old, Pharmer, nineteen, and Randall,
fifteen.
In the meantime they permitted the mother of the boys to visit
them, and this old lady seeing that human law was powerless to
save her boys, on beaded knees implored the interposition of
Divine Providence for the protection of her offspring from the bru-
tal resolves of these merciless men; and the appellant, Valentine
Hatfield, in mocking of her fervent appeals, required her, using the
language of the witness, "to make less noise and leave."
After learning of the death of Hatfield they took these boys from
the school-house to the Kentucky side of the river, the two appel-
lants, the Mayhorns, being along with the armed force, and when
reaching the spot where they were to carry into execution their
murderous intent, they surrounded their victims for the purpose. as
they proclaimed, of having "a shooting match" and, cocking their
guns, blew the top of the smaller boy's head off, shot Tolbert some
fifteen times and Pharmer eleven times, and then made the night
hideous by hooting, as the owl, in contempt, doubtless, of the law,
and those who administer it. The appellant, Valentine Hatfield,
was not actually present when this wholesale murder was commit-
ted, but with his gun on the opposite side of the river, some two or
three hundred yards distant, ready and near enough to give aid and
assistance should an attempt be made to rescue the prisoners, and
to administer an oath to each one of his forces, on their return from
the murder of this little boy, that they would never reveal the
action of any one connected with the brutal act. The oath was ad-
ministered. and, doubtless, the greater portion of the band proved
- faithful to their chosen leader.
The indictment in this case charges a conspiracy on the part of
these appellants and many others (who are indicted with them) to
commit this crime, and those not guilty of the actual shooting as
being present, aiding and abetting in the commission of the offense.
It is argued that what transpired, with reference to this offense, or
the custody of these boys on the Virginia side of the line, is incom-
petent, because it constituted an offense against the laws of that
State and not that of Kentucky; and that the accused, Valentine
Hatfield. being on the Virginia side of the boundary line, could not,
in contemplation of law, have aided and abetted a murder in Ken-
tucky so as to bring him within the jurisdiction of the Kentucky
courts. Again, that he was not near enough to the parties on the
9th of August, when the wrong was perpetrated, to have aided and
abetted in its commission, an , therefore, cannot be convicted as a
principal; and lastly, there is not only a want of evidence connect-
ing him with the actual offense, but a want of evidence showing any
criminal intent.
It is not pretended that the courts of our State can enforce its laws
beyond the State boundary, but it is well settled that when one puts
into operation the force or power that causes the injury, he is re-
sponsible where the wrong is perpetrated, although he may not be
actually present. If either of the appellants had stood on the Vir-
ginia side and shot the deceased on the Kentucky side, the offense
would have been against the laws of Kentucky. 1 Bishop's Crim.
Law, 111. Such legal questions, however, do not arise in this
case. The appellants, or those living in the State of Virginia, came
to this State and took from its jurisdiction the deceased, who was
charged with violating the law of the State, and under the pretense
of having them tried in a district convenient to the witnesses sum-
moned, or who would likely be summoned for prosecution took them
from the custody of the officers of the law and transported them to
the Virginia side of the line where they were held as prisoners until
the result of the stabbing of Ellison Hatfield could be ascertained,
and the latter dying from his wounds, the boys were brought back
to Kentucky and murdered on the night of the 9th of August, l882,
by a band of men under the leadership of Valentine Hatfleld, who,
from the inception of this reckless violation of law to its conclusion.
could, at any time, have stayed the hand of the murderers and
saved the lives of these young men. From the time the officers of
the law in Kentucky made to him, as the record shows, a willing
surrender of their bodies, he, as the presiding judge of this murder-
ous clan, follows them to the bunk of Loy river, on the night of
the 9th, and there, with gun in hand, awaits their coming from the
scene of murder, that he may, in the darkness of night, administer
to each and all of them an oath never to reveal the names of those
guilty of this heinous crime.
He was as much u principal in the murder as the man who fired
the gun that took the life of the fourteen year old boy. These appel�
lants had combined to do an unlawful act in conjunction with others.
and that was to punish the deceased for his assault on Ellison Hat-
field. and to take his life if Hatfield died from the wounds received.
Their declarations while in charge of these prisoners, after they had
been taken from the law officers, was competent against each one
when spoken in reference to the purpose they had combined to ac�
complish. The instructions in this case embraced the whole law.
The one for murder is in the usual form, and so in regard to those
present aiding and abetting in the act done. The case, so far as the
appellants, the Mayhorns, are concerned, depends solely upon the
testimony establishing their guilt. We forbear to discuss it further,
and have recited the facts as detailed by the witnesses for the State,
sustained in many instances by the testimony for the defense, show-
ing that they were present during: the entire period that these young
men were in the custody of this lawless gang. While each one of
the accused has testified as to his innocence of any purpose even to
commit crime, and have been to some extent corroborated by others
who were their friends and associates, it is sufficient to any that. the
jury trying each case, after hearing all the testimony, had no reason-
able doubt as to their guilt, and after in careful reading of the record
it would be difficult, in our opinion, for any rational mind to reach
a different conclusion.
The history of crime. whether committed in this State or out of
it. Will present no state of facts more clearly establishing guilt than
is found in this record, applied to either or all the parties convicted,
and to find a more cruel and inhuman murder we must leave our
civilization and resort to the annals of savage life. It is needless,
however, to comment on the enormity of the crime or the helpless
condition of the young victims of this murderous band. The law
has been enforced in these cases and, in its administration. the ap-
pellants can truly say the jury, in inflicting the punishment by im-
prisonment for 1ife "has tempered justice with mercy."
The judgment of conviction, as to each one of the appellants, is
affirmed.
"Kentucky Law Reported" Volume XI, July 1, 1889 to June 15, 1890,
Frankfort, KY., Geo. A. Lewis, Book and Job Printer, 1890.
http://books.google.com/books?id=rnMsAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA469&dq=valentine+hatfie
ld+prison&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QytMUvbkEobkyQGCroGQDQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ
Thomas Dotson replies:
"While court records are among the best evidence for historical research,
they are not perfect. In Wall Hatfield's case, the Kentucky Court of
Appeals decisions states NINE times that the state across Tug River from
Blackberry Creek was Virginia-not West Virginia. The Supreme Court, in
Mahon v Justice did, as you say, refer to Tolbert and Joseph as "Justices
of the Peace." That is not correct, as anyone familiar with the area
knows. Justice of the Peace was an elected office, the main function of
which was judicial. There were only seven in the entire county."
"Preacher Anse Hatfield held that office for District 7, which included
Blackberry, at the time in question. He was not running for another term,
and Tom Stafford was elected to replace him at that fateful election. For
there to be two Justices of the Peace there on Blackberry, at least one
of them would have come from at least as far away as Pikeville. No JP
would be that far from home on Election Day.
Tolbert and Joseph Hatfield were deputy sheriffs, while Floyd was
constable. The Court was in error in calling them 'Justices of the
Peace.' The constable was elected from the same district as the justice
of the peace."
https://www.facebook.com/groups/hatfieldmmcoy/permalink/512844318793110/?c
omment_id=514728995271309&offset=0&total_comments=28
--------------------------------------
1900 United States Federal Census about Doca Maghon
Name: Doca Maghon
[Doca Mahon]
[Doc D Mahon]
[Dock Maybon]
Age: 43
Birth Date: 1857
Birthplace: West Virginia
Home in 1900: Kentucky Branch Penitentiary, Lyon, Kentucky
[Lyon]
Race: White
Gender: Male
Relation to Head of House: Inmate
Marital Status: Married
Father's Birthplace: South Carolina
Mother's Birthplace: Kentucky
Occupation: View on Image
Neighbors: View others on page
Household Members:
Name Age
Cicero King 26
Sandy Kelley 51
Walter King 22
Frond Keever 22
Horace Kemp 25
Powell Kuiley 20
Jessie Lawler 24
Will Lytton 21
Will Lytle 31
James Lewis 42
Robert Love 22
Sam Leach 22
Oscar Logsdon 31
Mose Levree 18
William Lindsay 41
Wm Lee 30
Will Loving 23
Shed Lewis 26
Jno Lancaster 24
Richard Long 19
Andy Lovelace 22
Ed Lee 28
Raliegh Langston 20
Harry Lorcawood 27
Ed Lindsay 23
Chas Lewis 27
Gaitor Lewis 22
Pliant Maghon 45
Doca Maghon 43
Alexander Messer 61
Jno H Matt 59
Jno Mullinox 26
Pete Moys 46
Jury Moody 28
Asa Murry 48
Chas Meyer 27
Henry Mongrum 22
Tom Munday 18
Sam Miller 29
Wm Moore 24
Luke Mitchell 24
Lewis Maunius 41
Green Martin 25
Saul H Marshall 39
Noah Mansfield 24
Josh Meyers 23
Logan Marbery 25
Bill Meredith 23
Frank Minor 22
Henry Mcguin 29
Nash Martin 27
Winfield Monsfield 18
Chas B Mansfield 20
Bird Morgan 18
Wm Mayfield 22
Mike Madden 48
Lease Mitchell 20
Harry Miller 38
Bill Martin 23
Sam Martin 17
Jno T Moon 26
Ed Miller 26
Ambrose Mitchell 25
Jno Mcclure 37
Ed F Mcneil 37
Frank Mclaughlin 34
Wm Mcclain 24
Wm Mcintosh 25
Rob'T T Mcgill 34
Eph Mcdougal 37
Ed Mck* 28
Wm Mcgee 45
Jas W Mcclure 38
Jno H Mckee 38
Rufus Mcchesney 17
Pete Mcallister 17
James Mccoy 24
Dolly Mcbride 28
Tally Mcdoniel 37
Lew Mcchesney 23
Thomas Mccain 24
Chas Mcgoughy 20
Bone Mccoy 29
Lon Mcguffy 26
Nathan Mcneal 26
Geo Mcnary 20
Eph Kauce 38
James Norris 26
Matt Nisbett 36
Wm Nelson 35
Geo Neal 34
Jack Newland 21
Will Newmann 40
Ed Kutty 21
Frank Odle 28
Dick Oakley 25
Upsia Obryant 26
Thos L Oliver 26
Gip Allison 47
Tyler G Powers 30
https://www.facebook.com/groups/hatfieldmmcoy/permalink/528089193935289/?c
omment_id=528690573875151&offset=0&total_comments=39
--------------------------------
Name: D. D. Mayhan
Age (Expanded): 46 years
Birth Year (Estimated): 1856
Birth Date:
Birthplace:
Spouse's Name: Nancy Ann Scesco
Spouse's Age (Expanded): 25 years
Spouse's Birth Year (Estimated): 1877
Spouse's Birth Date:
Spouse's Birthplace:
Event Type: Intended marriage
Event Date: 16 Aug 1902
Event Place: Mingo, West Virginia
Father's Name:
Mother's Name:
Spouse's Father's Name:
Spouse's Mother's Name:
Marital Status:
Previous Wife's Name:
Spouse's Marital Status:
Spouse's Previous Husband's Name:
GS Film number: 1753582
Digital Folder Number: 4130902
Image Number: 378
Reference ID: 166
Affiliate Repository Type: County Records
"West Virginia Marriages, 1853-1970," index, FamilySearch
(https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/FRF4-M4N : accessed 07 Dec 2013),
D. D. Mayhan and Nancy Ann Scesco, 16 Aug 1902
