Docloer D "Doc" Mahon [15164] Details

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 0 "West Virginia Marriages, 1853-1970," index, FamilySearch ( : 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 ( : 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. 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." 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 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 ( : accessed 07 Dec 2013), D. D. Mayhan and Nancy Ann Scesco, 16 Aug 1902

Your "back" function should return you to your previous location.


The Webmaster's Pad

Except as noted, foreground and background images are original photos from Minnesota by the webmaster.

Hosted by Delta Systems