Wayne County, Indiana - Chapter 17: Homicide Trials in Wayne County, 1912

LEGAL EXECUTIONS - HENRY CHRYST - DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE EGGLESTON - -NATHANIEL S. BATES - CASES IN WHICH JUDGE FOX PARTICIPATED AS ATTORNEY - CASES IN WHICH HE OFFICIATED AS J UDGE - INTEM PERANCE THE PARENT OF CRIME.

Salisbury, as is well known, was the first county seat of Wayne county. This was years ago. It has not only ceased to be the county seat, but has ceased to exist. It is now only a matter of memory, for its very foundations have been ploughed up. The courts were held in Salisbury as long as it was the county seat. As far as we have any record, the first court was organized and held in Salisbury on Oct. 3, 1815. On that day, the record recites, the presiding judge, Elijah Sparks, failed to appear. George Hunt, who had been appointed and commissioned as clerk, was present, but no one having authority to administer to him the oath of office, the court for that reason adjourned until the next term.

The next term of court began on March 6, 1816, Judge Sparks being present as presiding judge and Aaron Martin and Peter Fleming as associate judges. John Turner was sheriff and George Hunt was clerk. A grand jury was empaneled. The first case tried was entitled Thomas Nealy vs. Christopher Rodgers, in which an application for an injunction was made. The first criminal case was entitled The United States vs. John Stewart and was a prosecution for larceny. A jury of twelve men were empaneled and the evidence was heard. The case was argued, and after the court had charged the jury they retired for deliberation and deliberated by separating and going home without returning a verdict. The sheriff reported the fact to the court the next morning and asked that the jurors he cited to appear at the next term of court to show cause why they should not be fined for contempt. 'At the next term they all appeared, and after being sworn they each gave their several excuses, which were so 'satisfactory to the court that he excused them upon the payment of the costs. No verdict was ever returned and so the defendant escaped.

The first divorce case ever tried in Wayne county was tried on June 9, 1817, and was entitled Sarah McKee vs. William McKee. The record recites that notice of the pendency of the suit was given by publication in the "Western Eagle" for eight weeks. The divorce was granted and the plaintiff was given the custody of the minor children and $200 in alimony. This case may be regarded as the divorce germ in Wayne county and it has been so well cultivated that it is now wonderfully productive, there being now pending on the docket of the Wayne Circuit Court about forty divorce cases.

I come now to the important homicide or murder cases that have been tried in our courts, especially those that transpired since I have been a practicing attorney, which is now about forty-eight years. Wayne county has had three county seats - Salisbury, Centerville, and Richmond - and in each one a man has been hanged for the crime of murder. While Indiana was still a Territory, Henry Chryst killed his son-in-law, a man by the name of Chambers, in Washington township in this county. He was indicted and tried for murder in the first degree. Tradition has it that his daughter, Mrs. Chambers, had frequently complained to her father about the cruel treatment of her husband. Chryst went to their house, got into an altercation with Chambers, and attempted to stab him with a butcher knife. Chambers ran and as he ran Chryst shot him with a rifle and killed him, The case upon the records is entitled United States vs. Henry Chryst. The case was tried on March 7, 1817, and on the next day the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Thereupon the court, after overruling a motion for a new trial, sentenced him to be hanged in the public square in Salisbury on the first day of the following April, which was done. The principal witnesses against Chryst were his daughter - Mrs. Chambers - his wife and minor son. It is said that when his son took the witness chair, the defendant remarked to him: ' "Now, my son, tell the truth, if it convicts your father." After the execution it is said that the son took the body and conveyed it to the family residence on-a sled in the night time, through the woods, a distance of ten miles.

The next person to suffer the death penalty was Hampshire Pitts, who was hanged in Centerville. Pitts was a colored man and had killed another man of the same race named William Mail, the crime being committed about four miles north of Richmond, on what is now known as the Strawbridge farm. He was promptly arrested, indicted, and tried for murder, James Rariden prosecuting. The trial began on Nov. 6, 1822, and on the 8th a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree was returned. The court in that day consisted of three judges - a presiding judge who, as a rule, was an educated and trained lawyer, and two associate judges, who were usually farmers and without any legal training whatever. The theory seems to have been that justice could not be administered properly unless the learning and ability of the presiding judge was hampered and handicapped by the inexperience of two associate judges who knew nothing about law. After the verdict was returned against Pitts a motion for a new trial was promptly filed. The court at the time consisted of Judge Miles C: Eggleston, who was an able lawyer and an upright judge; and the two associate judges were William McLain and Jesse Davenport, who were farmers and had no legal training. These two associate judges, without any good reason for so doing and over the earnest protest of Judge Eggleston, set the verdict aside and granted a new trial. This action evidently greatly provoked the presiding judge, for he at once prepared a dissenting opinion and had it entered of record, where it now appears. This opinion is well worth reading. It has never been published and but few persons know of its existence. Judge Eggleston was evidently not inclined to tolerate the "law's delays," for he immediately reassigned the case for trial and on the 13th day of the same month another verdict was returned against Pitts for murder. Upon this verdict he was sentenced to be executed on Dec. 6 following, which was done. The dissenting opinion given by Judge Eggleston was as follows:

"In dissenting from the opinion of a majority of the court in granting a new trial, I beg leave to give my reasons for so doing and to have the same entered upon the records of this court:

"First, the prisoner being arrested in September last, had a sufficient opportunity to prepare for his defense; that he went to trial with the advice of his counsel, not only with a tacit acquiescence but the express declaration of his counsel that he was ready for his trial.

"Secondly, that after a long and laborious trial by a jury of his own selection and the assistance of counsel, who contested every step in the progress of the trial, he was found guilty by the apparently reluctant voice of the whole jury. : compelled to yield my full and entire consent to the verdict as found. That my opinion may not rest on general assertion, I will give succinctly the evidence disclosed on the trial on which that opinion has been founded:

"It appeared in evidence that on the day the deceased was killed he was at a neighbor's house in company with several of the witnesses, engaged with a spelling book in his hand, in the laudable endeavor to enlighten his mind by education ; that while so engaged he was informed the prisoner was approaching, who, it seems, had on that morning used some warm words to him on his return from fishing, about the manner of his eating his breakfast. To avoid any quarrel with the prisoner, he stepped behind the door on the prisoner entering the house. The first words he spoke were to inquire if the deceased was there. Receiving no answer he looked around and, discovering him, exclaimed: 'You are there, are you? Damn you.' And observed to him: 'Bill Maily, you have been in the habit of calling me Old Man; my name is Hampshire Pitts; you may call me Hampshire Pitts, or General Pitts, but if you call me Old Man again, I'll put this into you,' flourishing in his hand the dagger with which he afterward executed his bloody and malignant threat. The man being from home, the woman told them she hoped there would be no quarreling in the house. On going out, the prisoner followed him, The deceased, discovering him, said: 'Old Man, don't follow me.' On reaching the corner of the house, the woman, who was sitting at the door, heard a noise and discovered the prisoner, with one hand hold of the deceased, who was staggering in the agonies of death, and the other with the bloody dagger in the attitude of striking, and when the deceased had fallen, the prisoner brandished his blade, red with the blood of the dying man, and exclaimed triumphantly: 'I am the boy that can fix him.' After the deceased was left alone, the prisoner went to him and showed the place in the pit of the stomach where he had stabbed him, without giving any other reason than they were all against him. To these facts the witnesses with one voice agreed.

"This, then, is the evidence upon which the conviction is supported and, in my mind, carried with it a conclusion of guilt beyond the possibility of doubt. I will go farther and say that a more wicked, deliberate, and atrocious murder was seldom, if ever, committed by man, and that the testimony discloses no alleviating circumstances which can mitigate its atrocity in a single particular. In a case then pregnant with such monstrous depravity and stamped with every feature of full and desperate revenge, I ask if it is the province of the court to grant a new trial? I am constrained irresistibly to say that it is not; that in doing so we should exercise an arbitrary and wanton discretion unknown to the law and ungoverned by any established or orthodox principle known to the code of this or any other civilized nation professing to be governed by a regular system of laws, and not the uncontrollable, capricious and voluntary discretion of a judge; that the exercise of such a power is both dangerous to_the citizen and alarming to the State; that it assumes to control the law by depriving it of its operation and usurps and drowns within its engulfing vortex the sacred functions of legislation which the people have alone confided to their representatives. Sitting here, I utterly disclaim all right to the exercise of such a power - a power which, in my mind, is fraught with so much mischief and deserving the strongest reprobation. Concede it to the courts and you break down the constitutional barriers which separate them from the legislature - you countenance an encroaching jurisdiction and an invading ambition that would ultimately undermine the government and reduce us to anarchy and bloodshed. But such a monstrous power was never vested in the judicial body; and I, for one, will never consent to exercise it. I hold we have no right to interfere with the regular execution of the laws unless we have a rational doubt of their infringement; that the discretion that we may use is such only as is sanctioned by established law and usage of courts, and that any other would be dangerous to liberty and free government. Having then in my mind no doubt of the guilt of the prisoner (and the other judges say they have none also) - on the contrary, the strongest convictions that he committed the offense with all the circumstances attending the crime of wilful murder - and believing it to be a mistaken humanity to give the indulgence asked for, I am constrained to disagree to the opinion of the majority and am for refusing a new trial."

After Pitts was condemned he was very anxious that his body should not fall into the hands-of physicians for the purpose of dissection. While in jail he made a contract with another colored man to take his body after the execution and privately bury it where it would not be disturbed; and in consideration of this agreement, gave him all the property he had. This man, as soon as he got possession of the property that Pitts gave him, made a contract with some physicians to deliver to them the body after execution for $10, which was paid him, and then left the country. When Pitts heard of this he sent for a man by the name of Christopher Roddy, a worthless character who lived in Salisbury. This man agreed to take the body and privately bury it where no one could find it. On the day of the execution, Roddy appeared with a horse and sled and a rude coffin. After the execution he got possession of the body, put it in the coffin and took it to Salisbury, kept it until night and then buried it in a secluded spot. Fearing that the grave would be discovered, he dug it up the next night, took it farther into the forest and buried it, and concealed the grave with leaves and bushes, so that it was never discovered, and to this day no one knows where Pitts was buried.

The next case in which the defendant suffered death was the case against Nathaniel S. Bates, who was hanged in Richmond. This was an atrocious murder. In the morning of the day on which Bates killed his wife he was seen to sharpen his pocket knife while in the country. He then went to the house where his wife was and while they were alone he committed the deed. After doing it, he appeared upon the streets and told what he had done. He was at once arrested, afterward: indicted and put upon trial. The trial commenced on May 5, 1886, and lasted four days. The jury found him guilty and inflicted the death penalty. The court sentenced him to be hanged on Aug. 26, following, which was done. Bates went upon the witness stand and, while testifying in answer to questions, said that when he went into the house he struck his wife with an axe handle and knocked her down; then took her by the hair, dragged her head upon his knee, and cut her throat with his pocket knife. He further answered that in doing so he believed he was guilty of murder in the first degree and deserved death.

The first homicide case with which I was in any way connected was a case against one Daniel Reisor. This was soon after I was admitted to the bar. I was at the time in the office of Judge Nimrod H. Johnson, who, with the law firm of Bickle & Burchenal, defended Reisor. Reisor was a young man living near Abington, in this county. He had an altercation with another young man by the name of Grove, in which he displayed a revolver. Grove took the revolver away from him, which greatly angered Reisor. A few evenings afterward Reisor met Grove at a dance near Phylomath and without further provocation shot. him dead. Reisor was promptly indicted for murder in the first degree. He was tried in Centerville and on Feb, 12, 1863, was convicted of murder in the second degree. On the 14th day of the same month he was sentenced to the State prison for life, and in a few years afterward he

The next case that I engaged in was against a man by the name of John Noah, familiarly known as "Jack" Noah. Noah killed a man in the town of Milton, whose name I have forgotten. David Sutton, who then lived near Milton, took an active part in the prosecution of the case. He furnished me with the facts and the names of witnesses and sat by and prompted me during the trial. I assisted in the prosecution. The jury returned a verdict of murder in the second degree, with life imprisonment. I never heard of Noah after he was taken to prison and do not know whether he is living or not. The trial commenced on Aug. 8, 1867, and lasted two days.

The next case tried was against a colored man by the name of Frank Gulliver, who killed a man by the name of Fossenkemper in the south part of Richmond, stabbing him with a knife. Fossenkemper lived a few days and then died. Gulliver was indicted and the trial commenced on May 6, 1868, lasting two days and resulting in a verdict of murder in the second degree, with life imprisonment. I am not sure, but I think Gulliver died in the penitentiary.

Next in chronological order was the case against Francis and Granville Holler, who were charged with killing a man by the name of Tibbitts in Abington. This occurred in a time of great political excitement. Francis Holler threw a stone which struck Tibbitts, from the effects of which the latter died. J defended the Hollers when tried. The trial of Francis Holler began on Oct. 30, 1871, and lasted four days, resulting in a verdict of manslaughter, with imprisonment for ten years. This case was appealed to the Supreme Court and reversed. The trial of Granville Holler commenced on Nov. 6, 1871, lasting three days and resulting in a verdict of not guilty. The Supreme Court having reversed the judgment against Francis Holler, his second trial began April 5, 1872, and lasted five days. He was again convicted of manslaughter and again -sentenced to ten years in the penitentiary. He was pardoned in a few years and afterward died.

The case against Budd Tindall for the killing of Russell was the next in order. This took place about four miles north of Centerville, near Olive Hill, on a public highway. The parties had been in Richmond and were returning home with some friends. Russell and Tindall quarreled and commenced fighting, and in the struggle Tindall drew a razor from his pocket and killed Russell by cutting his throat. Tindall's trial commenced Oct. 23, 1878, and lasted six days, resulting in a verdict of manslaughter with imprisonment for ten years. This case was appealed to the Supreme Court and was reversed and remanded for a new trial in the court below, Tindall's second trial commenced on Oct. 17, 1881, and continued for three days. The jury returned a verdict of manslaughter with three years' imprisonment. During his imprisonment Tindall contracted consumption, was pardoned and came home and died:

We come now to the case of Levi Goldman. Goldman killed a man by the name of Boyer, "by throwing a stone and hitting him. This occurred near East Germantown, on the turnpike. The trial commenced Dec. 1, 1880. The jury found Goldman guilty of manslaughter and sent him to the penitentiary for two years.

Next in order comes the celebrated trials of the Smith family. These trials caused great excitement at the time, because of the atrocious character of the act committed. There were three defendants: Susan Smith, who was the wife of the man killed; and Jacob and Daniel Smith, his sons. It appeared that the old man Smith was killed by his wife and his son, Daniel. His body was thrown into an old well and covered with stones. The fact was concealed by the family. After several days had elapsed, the absence of the old man Smith, who was a cripple, was noticed and a search was instituted by the neighbors. His body was found in the well and taken out, but the family at first denied all knowledge of how it came there. They afterward confessed, were arrested and indicted. The cases were taken on a change of venue from this county to Randolph and there tried. Susan Smith, the wife, was first tried and convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Daniel Smith, the son, was then tried and received a like sentence. He was under twenty-one years of age. The other son, Jacob, was never put upon trial, there being no evidence against him. After being imprisoned a number of years, both Daniel and his mother wete pardoned. This was the hardest case to defend that I ever engaged in.

The case against Levi Beard, who, in a quarrel in his bar room, shot and killed a young man by the name of Straub, comes next. This occurred in Cambridge City, both of the parties belonging to respectable families and were not regarded as bad men. The trial of Beard commenced Feb. 27, 1888, and lasted nine days, being hotly contested. Beard was convicted of manslaughter and was given seven years' imprisonment.

Next comes the case against Henry Haner, who shot and killed a colored man by the name of Hunter, in Haner's saloon, on Main street in the city of Richmond. Haner was indicted and his trial

The case of the State of Indiana vs. Lee Morgan is next in chronological order. Morgan and his wife resided in a house of bad repute in Cambridge City. A young man by the name of Carroll, who resided in Connersville, together with some friends, went to the house, got into a quarrel with Morgan and was shot and killed by him. Morgan escaped for a short time, but was soon arrested and was put upon trial, May 6, 1889. The trial lasted six days and resulted in the conviction of Morgan for manslaughter, and he was sentenced to the penitentiary for five years.

The case of James A. Woods, perhaps, caused more excitement than any other case that was ever tried in the county. Woods was an attendant at the East Haven Hospital for the Insane, near Richmond. A lawyer named Blount, from Henry county, was confined in the asylum as an insane person. He was a large, well developed man, and while in the asylum was at times violent. On the day he was killed he became noisy and troublesome, and Woods claimed that in attempting to pacify him, Blount attacked'him, and that he simply defended himself. However, he evidently did more than this, for Blount was badly beaten, his body was seriously bruised, and several of his ribs were broken. He died shortly after he was beaten. Woods was arrested in the northern part of the State, was indicted, and his trial commenced Jan. 13, 1890, lasting ten days and resulting in a conviction of manslaughter, with twenty-one years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. This case was taken to the Supreme Court and reversed and remanded. He was never retried and was finally discharged. This case became the subject of much political controversy, for which there was little reason.

The last murder case in which I took part as an attorney was the case of the State vs. Jennie Boone. Mrs. Boone was a colored woman, living in Cambridge City. A young man named Rears, with a party of friends, went to her house and tried to get in. This was in the night time. She denied them admission and warned them to goaway. This they refused to do and forced the door open. When this was done, Mrs. Boone fired a revolver through the open door, seeing no person at the time. The ball struck young Rears in the head and killed him instantly. Her trial commenced Sept. 23, 1893, lasted two days, and resulted in a verdict of acquittal.

In all of these murder trials I took part, either on the side of the prosecution or the defense, with the exception of the first two mentioned, which were tried long before I was admitted to the bar, and in fact before I was born. I come now to the cases that

The first case I tried was that of the State vs. Thrawley. This case was brought to Wayne county from Henry, on a change of venue. On account of some domestic trouble, Thrawley shot and killed a man named John Shoemaker, on the public highway. It appeared that the man was unarmed and was taken by surprise- The ball passed entirely through his head. The trial commenced May 23, 1898, and continued nine days. Thrawley was convicted of murder in the first degree and was sentenced for life to the penitentiary, where he is now confined. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and affirmed.

The next case heard was that of John O'Neill, who shot his brother Dennis on the sidewalk in front of the family residence and in the presence of the family, in the city of Ri¢dhmond. John claimed that his brother Dennis had made a great deal of trouble in the family, and this was his excuse for shooting him. The trial began Sept. 12, 1898, and lasted six days. He was found guilty of manslaughter and received an indefinite sentence of from two to twenty-one years in the penitentiary. He was pardoned, for some reason that I never understood.

The trial of Benjamin F. Simmons for the killing of a man named Webb in a livery stable at Richmond, came next in order. This trial commenced Oct. 16, 1899, lasting five days, and resulted in an acquittal. It appeared that Webb charged Simmons with being intimate with his (Webb's) wife, and for this had threatened him. Webb went to the livery stable to see Simmons, and when standing near the entrance of the stable, after some words had passed, Simmons seized a shotgun and killed him. After the trial Simmons married Webb's widow, which turned public sentiment much against him and made his acquittal a matter of regret.

Next in order comes the trial of William Gates. Gates, with his wife and some friends, went to gather blackberries south of Richmond. They entered on the land of Rariden Meek, without his consent. Meek saw them and ordered them to leave his premises. Some hot words passed between Gates and Meek, when Gates struck Meek with his fist. As a result of the blow an artery in the brain of Meek was ruptured, causing him to drop dead. Gates was arrested in Richmond, was indicted for involuntary manslaughter, and put upon trial, Dec. 3, 1900. The trial lasted four days, resulting in a verdict of guilty. A new trial was granted on account of the misconduct of one of the jurors. Gates' second trial commenced April 28, 1901, and resulted in a verdict of assault and

The trial of Robert Futrell, a colored man, who, becoming jealous of his sweetheart, killed her in a room on South Sixth street, in Richmond, comes next in order. This was a willful, deliberate, and cruel murder. Futrell desired that he should suffer the death penalty for his crime and so said. His trial began March 11, 1901, and lasted two days, resulting in a verdict of murder in the first degree, with life imprisonment. Futrell was much dissatisfied with the verdict and desired a new trial, in order that he might receive the death penalty.

The next trial was that of James Shook, who shot and killed a man named Ryan in a saloon at Cambridge City. The trial commenced April 9, 1902, and lasted four days. He was found guilty of manslaughter and received an indefinite sentence of from two to twenty-one years in the penitentiary, where he is now confined.

We now come to the case of the State vs. John Knapp. A young man named Leonard Geisler was marshal of Hagerstown, and against him, so it appeared, Knapp had a grudge. One night Knapp armed himself with an iron rod, laid in wait for Geisler, and without any warning struck him a blow on the head, from the effects of which Geisler died. The act was unprovoked and without any excuse. The trial commenced Oct. 4, 1905, and lasted ten days. The jury returned a verdict of murder in the first degree, with life imprisonment. This case was appealed to the Supreme Court and affirmed.

Mack Proffit was the next man tried for murder. He shot and killed a colored woman for disturbing him in a disorderly way after he had gone to bed and desired to sleep, shooting her with a revolver. The trial commenced April 19, 1906, and continued four days. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to from two to twenty-one years in the penitentiary.

The next case of homicide tried in Wayne county was that of Alonzo Fisher, a colored man, who shot and killed his wife in a fiendish and brutal manner on Main street in Richmond. Fisher was indicted and pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree, July 24, 1907. Upon this plea I had the power to sentence him to death or to imprisonment for life in the penitentiary. I did not care to take the responsibility of takirig the life of the prisoner, so I sentenced him for life to the penitentiary, where he is now confined.

life. Charles A. Revalee was a young man about nineteen years of age who was born near Milton, Ind., and reared there. In the year 1910 he came to Richmond and obtained work at the Brunswick Hotel. Before uve time he had worked for a family named Allison, who lived near Milton. Being out of work and in need of money, on April 5, 1910, it seems he mate up his mind to go to Allison's house and rob them. He had always been treated kindly by Allison's family. Being out of money, he walked to Cambridge City and from thence to Milton in the evening, and hid himself in Allison's barn, where he slept until morning. In the morning, after he saw that Allison had gone to work and the children had gone to school, he went to the house, where he met Mrs. Allison, who kindly invited him into the house, and after some conversation she went into the kitchen to attend to her work. While she was there he searched the drawers in the room, in order to obtain money or whatever valuables might be there, and while he was doing this Mrs. Allison came into the room, saw what he was doing, and at once approached him. After some altercation he picked up a stick of wood, struck her on the head, knocked her down and killed her. After he saw what he had done he went into the kitchen and got a can of coal oil, poured it over her clothes and set them on fire, with the intention of burning the house and the body of Mrs. Allison, for the purpose of concealing the crime. After taking what money he could find and Mrs. Allison's watch, he left the house and went to Cambridge, and from there to Richmond. The case at first was shrouded in a great deal of mystery because no one saw him leave the door or had any suspicion that he was the guilty person. After he returned to Richmond, Isaac A. Gormon, chief of police, who had charge of the case, ascertained some clue and circumstances that led him to suspect young Revalee. He interviewed him as to where he was the day of the murder and afterwards, and at first was thrown entirely off his guard, but after investigation he was convinced that Revalee was the guilty person and finally charged him squarely with the commission of the crime, and under circumstances by which he obtained a written confession, which was afterward published. Revalee was indicted by the grand jury and on April 30, 1910, pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree, and was sentenced by me to the penitentiary for life. He is now confined there.

A large majority of the homicide cases mentioned in this chapter, to my certain knowledge, were the results of the use of intoxicating liquor. Intemperance is the parent of crime.