W. T. KING

W. T. KING was born May 10, 1841, in Henderson County, Ky., the youngest child and only son of Felix G. and Mary (Jones) King. The father's parents were from Virginia, and settled at King's Ferry, opposite the city of Evansville, Ind., at a time when there were but three houses in that place. Felix G. King was the youngest of eight children; was twice married; the first wife, Miss Jones, was a sister of Col. James G. Jones, of Evansville, Ind., at one time attorney-general of the State, and colonel of the Forty-second Volunteer Infantry in the late civil war; she died in 1843. After the death of his wife, Mr. King engaged in mercantile business at Cromwell, Ohio Co., Ky., and married Miss Cynthia Angle, a kind, beautiful lady, of Sumner County, Tenn. His death occurred at Cromwell, in 1846. After the death of his father, W. T. was taken to Henderson County, Ky., and apprenticed to the tinner's trade, but ran away from his employer in 1850, after which he worked at his trade, at farming, and carried the mail from Rockport to Rome, Ind.; clerked in the postoffice in Cannelton, Ind.; boated on the Ohio River; traveled in the interest of the stencil engraving business in various places in Kentucky and Indiana; was in Cromwell, Ky., at the beginning of the war, and in August, 1861, enlisted in Company D, Seventeenth Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and participated in the battles of Fort Donelson and Shiloh, and was transferred to Company H; made an orderly sergeant, and with Capt R. M. Davis, was the first Federal soldier inside the Confederate works at Corinth, Miss. He was promoted first lieutenant of Company F, and honorably discharged in 1863. After returning from service he was engaged in contracting and building and farming in several places in Kentucky until 1870, when he was appointed assistant assessor of internal revenue, with Ohio, McLean and six other counties afterward added to his division, and moved to Hartford same year. In 1872 he was appointed deputy collector of internal revenue, and soon after appointed deputy United States marshal under Eli H. Murray, United States marshal of Kentucky. In this branch of the service he was noted for his bravery, and had eminent success in suppressing illicit distilling. So efficient was he that the last year he served he was allowed extra pay by Hon. B. H. Bristoe, secretary of the treasury. In 1877 he went into the hotel and livery business in Hartford, Ky., which latter he still conducts on a large scale in connection with selling wagons and agricultural implements. Mr. King is a descendant of Whigs, and is himself a zealous working Republican in politics. He was united in marriage with Miss Parmelia Nichols, December 3, 1863. They have four children, viz.: Maggie E., who graduated with first honors from Hartford College, and now with her talented husband, Prof. J. D. Crow, is conducting the schools at Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches Co., Tex.; William M., and the twins, Lulie and Katie — the last three at home.

Source: J. H. BATTLE, W H. PERRIN, & G. C. KNIFFIN 1895

Note.  William T. King died 10 June 1904 in Hartford and is buried in Oakwood Cemetery, Hartford.

ZIBA O. KING

Hartford Herald 12/6/1899 - Hendricks, Render, Hocker, & Watterson; Cicero King

Hartford Herald Wednesday, December 6, 1899

Back to Old Kentucky

            Kentucky is God's country and Ohio county is its choice spot. Some years ago and from time to time, many of our good citizens have sought homes elsewhere. They have profited by experience and The Herald announces with pleasure the return of the following former citizens: T. W. Hendricks, who for some years has made his home at Norman, Oklahoma, has returned with his family to this county and will make his home here. Dee Render, who has been in Texas for five years, is here to reside permanently. LaVega Hocker, who formerly lived at Beaver Dam and went from there to Oklahoma some time ago, has returned and is living at Willlams Mines. Jeff Watterson, who some months ago married one of Ohio county's finest young women and took her to live in Illinois, will return and make his home in Hartford. It is said, upon what we hope is good authority, that John Hocker, who was formerly in business at Beaver Dam and who for some years has been prospering at Norman, Oklahoma, will soon return to make his borne in this county.

            It is likewise rumored that Dr. A. B. Baird, who has been living for some years at Oklahoma City, will soon return to live among the friends of his boyhood. We hope this if true, as nobody would be more heartily welcomed to Hartford than Dr. Baird and his excellent wife. Ohio county is big enough and rich enough to furnish homes for many prosperous immigrants and none will be more cheerfully received than her former citizens.

GAVE HIM TEN YEARS

Such was the Verdict of the Jury In the King Case  - Unfavorable Comment.

            After the speeches by the attorneys on both sides, the case of the Commonwealth vs. Cicero King, for killing marshal Sam Casebier, was given to the jury last Thursday morning just before dinner. The jury had the case under deliberation until Friday morning about 9 o'clock, when they returned a verdict, finding the defendant guilty of man-slaughter and fixing his punishment at ten years in the penitentiary. The verdict came in the nature of a surprise to most of the people, for they were led, from the heinousness of the crime, to expect much severer punishment. There was much general unfavorable comment, though no harsh or incendiary sentiments were expressed. The people of Ohio county are disposed to abide by the law, whether it appears justice to them or not.

            A more cruel and unprovoked murder was never committed in Ohio county than that which deprived brave Sam Casebier of his life. King, accompanied by a companion, both of whom, it is said, were in a drinking humor, was passing down Market street. It was the day before Christmas and Marshal Casebier bad been busy all day in preserving order. The saloons were here then, and there were a number of intoxicated men on the streets. Just as King and his companion got opposite J. H. Patton & Co.'s livery Stable, Marshal Casebier stepped up to King and touched him upon the shoulder. It is supposed the Marshal merely intended to admonish King and his companion to be quiet, or to tell King to take his friend away. Quick as a flash and without an exchange of words, King drew a keen, murderous, spring-back dirk and rushed upon Marshal Casebier, stabbing him a time or two before the Marshal understood the attack. Retreating back into the livery stable, his antagonist dealing him death blows in quick succession, Casebier drew his pistol and fired a time or two at King, but being to badly wounded, his aim was bad, and the bullet bad no effect. King backed Casebier up against the inside wall of the livery stable and stabbed him repeatedly, inflicting wounds from which the Marshal died in less than an hour and before he could be moved from the stable.

            So intent on murder was King that even after he had stabbed the unoffending Marshal to death, and when citizens undertook to arrest him, he attempted to stab everyone who came near him. Mr. G. B. Likens bravely rushed up behind King and grabbed him with his arms around the waist, King all the while wielding his knife. Likens received a deep cut in the leg which laid him up for a number of weeks and came near maiming him for life. Finally King was overpowered by sheer force of numbers, but struggling to the last to use his murderous dirk upon any who came within reach. Briefly, this is the case and these are the facts upon which the jury returned a verdict of only ten years. By good behavior King will be a free man again in less than eight years. There was no evidence adduced to prove that Casebier intended to do anything but speak to King and his companion Wright, or at the furthest, to arrest them for disorderly conduct. An unprejudiced view of the case does not discover that King bad any reasonable cause to stab the Marshal to death. Casebier was a young man of temperate habits, peaceable and unoffending. He never seemed disposed to enforce his authority as Marshal only when the occasion demanded it. He was not of an overbearing nature, but was generally genial and pleasant. And yet be was compelled to give up his brave young life in the simple discharge of his duty.

            In view of the law and the facts in the case, which were certainly not disguised, it seems to be the general opinion that the verdict in this case was a travesty upon justice and a perversion of the law. The jurymen were no doubt conscientious in the discharge of their duty, but we believe we simply give voice to a general expression by stating that, in the main their verdict in this case was almost unanimously condemned. Most of the people seem at a loss to understand how human life and the crime of taking it, could be so lightly regarded.