Macon County, Missouri - Chapter 12, 1910

Tur Law - Tue Line or Circuit JUDGES - STRANGE MURDER Case, Yer UNRAVELED - Tue Tracy Kir.ins - A Gorp Brick GAME AND A TRIAL AT Macon - Boarp's Criticism or A ScHooL TeAcHEer - 'Tue Unwairren Law'' - Wnay Dip George Anperson Kitt His Wire? - Jvuper Exuison's SENTENCE or Deato - Tue First Lecar Exeov- TION - INCIDENTS ON THE Day or Hancinc - A Norep TRIAL FROM SHELBY County - Wuirecorron's REMARKABLE APPEAL TO THE Juny - BirH or THE Turee-Fourrus Jury Rute - A Hancine WrrnHovT Treiar - Two THousanp Worps Wirnour a PUNCTUATION Mark - A Norep Steer Case - La PrarA Crrcurr Court.

Thomas Reynolds was the first judge of the cirenit of which Macon county was a part. He afterwards became governor of Missouri, and committed suicide while in the Executive Mansion, at Jefferson City, on February 9, 1844. Judge Reynolds was born March 12, 1796, in Bracken county, Kentucky. But very little is known regarding his early education, but it was no doubt as good as could be obtained in the schools where he resided. He certainly was not a classical scholar, though he had some knowledge of Latin. He was admitted to the bar in Kentucky about the time he became of age. In early life he removed to Illinois, where he filled the several offices of clerk of the House of Representatives, speaker, attorney-general and chief justice of the Supreme Court. In 1829 he came to Missouri and located at Fayette, Howard county. His high reputation as a jurist had preceded him, and he soon enjoyed a good legal practice. He was sent from Howard county to the Legislature, and became speaker of the House. After serving for some time in the Legislature, he was appointed judge of the cireuit comprising the counties of Howard, Boone, Callaway, Randolph and Macon. In 1840 the Democratic party met in state convention at Jefferson City and Judge Reynolds was nominated for governor.

"Tt was at this convention that we made Judge Reynold's acquaintance, and formed a very high estimate of him, as not only a man of ability, but of undoubted integrity and honesty of purpose. As a dele- gate in the convention we gave him our support, and had occasion frequently afterwards to meet and transaet business with him, as we were in the Legislature during most of the time he was governor. He was elected over J. B. Clark by a handsome majority."

**Shortly after breakfast, on February 9, 1844, a report of a gun was heard from the Executive Mansion in Jefferson City, and some persons passing by at the time went into the Governor's office to ascertain the cause of it, and there found the governor lying in his blood, dead. Just previous he had sent out for a rifle. The muzzle of the rifle he had plaeed against his forehead, and by the aid of a strong twine he discharged the weapon. On a table near where he fell was a letter addressed to Colonel William G. Minor, an intimate friend, which read as follows:

'In every situation in which I have been placed I have labored to discharge my duty faithfully to the publie; but this has not protected me for the last twelve months from the slander and abuse of my enemies, which have rendered my life a burden to me. I pray God to forgive them and teach them more charity. My will is in the hands of James L. Minor, Esq. Farewell. - Th. Reynolds."

Following Judge Reynolds came Judges Burch Clark Leland and William A. Hall, the latter of Randolph county, and then George H. Burckhart, of Huntsville, Randolph county. Many attorneys of the Macon bar remember Judge Burekhart distinctly when he presided on the bench here and in after years, when Macon was separated from the Randolph county distriet.

Judge Burekhart was born on the family homestead, six miles southeast of Huntsville, September 11, 1823. In his early manhood he taught school. In 1862, having had considerable experience as a lawyer at that time, he was elected judge of the Second Judicial Circuit, which included Macon county then, and was re-elected in 1864. Subsequently he was appointed judge of the cirenit by Governor Fletcher, when the convention of 1865 ousted all the judges in the state, and was again re-elected in 1868.

Judge John W. Henry was on the 27th Judicial Bench, as it was then ealled, from 1872 until 1876, when he was elected as one of the judges of the Supreme Court. Judge Henry was born in Cynthiana,

Kentucky, January 29, 1825. He died while occupying the eireuit bench at Kansas City, Missouri, December 12, 1902. Judge Henry was on the bench here in the beginning of the litigation over the Missouri & Mississippi railway bonds. His decision was favorable to the county. Judge Shelton gives this description of the late Judge Henry:

**He was a remarkable man in many respects. At first the lawyers of the cireuit did not take to him kindly, but when they got better aequainted with him they learned to love him. Judge Henry was not a man to be trifled with at any time. He was plain, almost blunt in expressing his opinion of things, but at all times guided by a keen sense of justice and honesty. He could listen to the statements of both sides of the case and, while doing so, would form a elear-eut theory between the two, which was nearly always right. He was one of the most conscientious and fearless men I ever saw on the bench."

Judge Andrew Ellison, of Kirksville, was appointed to preside over this cireuit by Governor Hardin in 1876, to fill out the unexpired term of two years, occasioned by the resignation of Judge John W. Henry. Judge Ellison remained on the bench for twenty-two years, when he retired to enter the practice of law. He associated himself with M. D. Campbell, a bright young attorney of Kirksville, and the firm developed an extensive business, which was considerably increased until the date of Judge Ellison's death, which occurred June 27, 1902. Judge Ellison was a brother of Judge James Ellison, of Kansas City; Judge William C. Ellison, of Maryville, and Judge George Ellison, of Canton, Missouri. He was born at Monticello, Missouri, November 6, 1846. The last official act of Judge Ellison occurred in Macon just before Christmas. A young couple was before him, each asking a divorce. The judge listened to both parties with great attention, and then decided that there was a case of temporary estrangement. He delivered 2 memorable opinion, in which he denied the divorce and urged the husband and wife to make up and give their little children the benefit of their united love.

Judge N. M. Shelton, the present incumbent of the Second Judicial Bench, was born in Troy, Lincoln county, Missouri, March 17, 1851. He was educated in the common schools of Lincoln county; then attended the Parker Seminary at Troy; from there he went to the William Jewell College and finished his education in the State University at Columbia. He studied law, was admitted to the bar in 1875, and in 1884 was elected to the Legislature, serving in the 33d General Assembly as chairman of the Committee on Education. In 1886 he was re-elected and in the succeeding Legislature was chairman of the Committee on Criminal

Jurisprudence. In 1888 he was elected Senator from the 7th District and served four years, being chairman of the Committee on Judieiary. In 1898 he was eleeted eireuit judge for a term of six years. In 1904 was re-elected. Judge Shelton has frequently been called to other cirenits to preside as special judge. The business of the circuit is large and growing, his courts being open in one or the other of the counties nearly all the time. The present Second Circuit is composed of Sehuyler, Adair, Maeon and Shelby counties. (A more complete sketch of Judge Shelton will be found in the biographical department of this work.)

B. F. Drinkard, who had leased a large farm in Callao township, was tried and eonvieted of the murder of a man named Nichols, on the morning of August 28, 1879. Drinkard was sentenced to ninety-nine years in the penitentiary. Pending his appeal to the Supreme Court he escaped from jail and has since remained at large. The circumstances of the killing are given in the former history of Macon county as follows: Drinkard had leased a farm from the Widow MeVickar. Nichols was a farm hand living near Mrs. MeVickar and Drinkard. From some eause ill-will had developed between Drinkard and Nichols. On the morning of the killing Nichols loaded his wagon with sorghum cane and started with it to the mill. He drove through Drinkard's loi. Drinkard objected, but Nichols went on. Returning from the mill Nichols again proceeded through Drinkard's lot and, as he checked his team for his little son to get in the wagon, Nichols was shot in the back with the contents of a rifle. Nichols fell from his seat to the bottom of the wagon. He was found by Mrs. MeVickar, Mrs. Nichols and James Mott, who had heard the boy seream and the shot. After the shooting Nichols? boy saw Drinkard running to the house with his rifle. Nichols died within a few hours. Drinkard gave himself to the officers, was indieted at the September term of the Cireuit Court and tried in the May term, 1880.

The state was equipped with elaborate plats of the ground and a figure illustrating how the ball had ranged. This was to prove that the deceased had been shot from behind. A pistol was found in Nichols' pocket. 'The defense was that Niehols eame driving through the lot with his pistol presented, threatening Drinkard, who reached in the door for his riffe and stepped out in front; that he fired at Nichols in defense of his own life.

It has been stated frequently that there were parties in Macon county who knew all the time where Drinkard was. While H. N. Graves was sheriff, a party reported to him that Drinkard was living at Hobart, Oklahoma. In June, 1907, Sheriff Graves went to Hobart and arrested a suspected party whose name was W. F. Davidson. Davidson told the sheriff he had made a mistake. Sheriff Graves was confident that he was right, but, owing to a failure to secure requisition papers, he was unable to bring Davidson back to Macon with him.

In February, 1909, Davidson came to Macon with his lawyer, T. J. Madden, for the purpose of conclusively proving that he was not Drinkard. Some parties here, who were well aequainted with Davidson, testified to the faet that Davidson and Drinkard were two separate parties.

While the matter of Drinkard's arrest was under consideration in 1907, some Macon county parties, who were friends of the exile, got up petitions requesting the governor to pardon Drinkard, but as Drinkard has never been apprehended no official action was taken in the matter.

There was a peculiar killing in Ten Mile township on August 24, 1883. The parties to the tragedy were George Stewart and Walter Tracy. It seems that Traey, with several others, was at work on the road near a bridge, when Stewart rode up and began shooting at Tracy, using a double-barreled shotgun, and afterwards a pistol. Tracy ran, Stewart following him, shooting as opportunity presented itself. Finally, Traey fell and Stewart completed the work of death. Then he mounted his horse and rode away. His whereabouts have never been ascertained. The coroner's jury rendered this verdict:

"We, the undersigned jury, summoned to inquire of the death of Walter W. Tracy, in Ten Mile township, Macon county, Missouri, do find that he eame to his death by means of three pistol shot wounds, inflieted at the hands of one George H. Stewart; and further, that said shooting was done without any provocation or just cause."

Cora Tracy, wife of the man who was killed, testified at the inquest that she was forty years of age. She said she had known Traey a little over two years; that they were married May 4, 1883. The witness was a sister of the man who did the killing.

"Mr. Tracy asked me to marry him in January," said the witness, "at my house; no one else was present. My brother was in the lot. I never consented to marry him. I told Mr. Tracy I didn't want to marry him and that I didn't believe it would be any account. He begged and pleaded with me. When I was married there were present my mother, brother, the minister and ourselves. Mr. Tracy forced me to marry him. George H. Stewart, the man who did the shooting, is my brother. He was at home this morning and went to the blacksmith shop about eight o'clock. He came back about nine or nine-thirty. Then he went to the shop after the wagon tongue. 1 didn't see him leave the house. He said he wanted to fix the wagon to go to Clarence. When he came home the second time he had a weapon or a stick or something in his hand. He has a gun, but I don't know what sort of a gun it is. My brother did not speak to Mr. Tracy before this. Soon after we were married they had some sort of a settlement, since which time they have not spoken. I don't know what they fell out about. I know of no difficulty except the one between me and Mr. Tracy. I never heard my brother make any threats against Mr. Tracy. The reason I married Mr. Tracy was he treated me badly about a month before we were married. Our family consists of my mother, this one brother and myself. I never told what had happened to me until we were married, in the presence of Mr. Tracy and my mother and brother the morning before they went to Macon after the license. Isaid: 'Mr. Tracy, you have treated me badly.' He said: 'I know I have; I did it to make you marry me.' Itold him I would rather be buried alive than to marry him under these eireumstances. He said: 'If you will marry me, I will make you a lady all your life.'

"There was no indication of anger in my brother after I told this. Tracy proposed to go after the license to Macon, and they went of Mr. Tracy's own free will. No angry words passed. They went from Macon to Clarence after a minister. My brother never asked me to marry Mr. Tracy. I married him just because he begged me to and because he had treated me the way he had. I was not living with Mr. Tracy at the time of the killing, and have not lived with him since twenty-five days after we were married.

"When my brother eame home this morning, he said to me: * *Jaek"' - that is what he always called me - 'I have killed Tracy.' I said: "Why, brother George" He just turned and went off and I haven't seem him since. We moved from Logan county, Kentucky. Middleton, in Simpson county, was our postoffice. My brother never had a diffieulty before this that I know of. He never gets intoxieated, but he is mighty high-tempered. Mother heard George say he had killed Tracy."

"James P. Powell, David Miller, Clay Hubble, Day Griffin and myself were at the bridge across the draw, between my house and David Miller's, about 10:30 this morning. I looked up the road and saw George Stewart coming. He rode within about thirty steps of the bridge, hitched his horse and got off. He eame right down to the bridge and stopped within twelve or fifteen feet of where Traey was. Stewart said: 'Every damned one of you, get out of the way! I have nothing against any of you except Tracy. When he married my sister he agreed to treat her like a lady and he has not done it." Tracy raised up and started aeross the bridge, bent over, and, just as he did so, Stewart fired. When Tracy got across on the south side, about ten feet, Stewart fired the second shot from his gun. Tracy got into a treetop that was lying twenty or thirty feet from the bridge. Stewart pulled out a pistol and fired again. Traey erossed on the west side of the bridge and Stewart followed aeross and fired a second shot from the pistol. "This shot hit him in the back. At this time Tracy was throwing up his hands. He stopped, staggered and fell on the left side. Stewart followed right up and put the revolver in about one foot of Traey's neck and fired twice, each shot taking effect in Tracy's neck. Then Stewart turned, walked back across the bridge, and Miller said to him: 'You will be sorry for what you have done.' To this Stewart replied: 'Boys, Tam already sorry, but I had to do it and I have done it.' Stewart then got on his horse and went slowly out east towards his home. He did not seem angry or excited when he killed Tracy. He went away cool and quiet."

A goldbrick game, played in Macon county, became the subject of a most sensational trial in the Cireuit Court in 1890. W. A. Atkins, alias George Morgan, a St. Louis man, was arrested by Sheriff James W. White, in 1889, on a charge of attempting to sell a brick to Hiram K. Bargar, a banker of Linn county. It was said that Atkins ran with a gang of erooks known to the police as Dave MeCord, James Murray, Doe Kerns, John Boquet, Bartley Kelly, Thateh Grady and Billy Boquet. Atkins told Bargar that he was the discoverer of and owner of a fabulously rieh mine in the west. He said that his partner, a half-breed, was in a wigwam on the banks of the Chariton river in Macon county, and that he had threatened to sealp Atkins if he would dare to breathe the seeret to a living soul. After some parley with the banker, Atkins produeed some samples, which he told Mr. Bargar that he could take away with him and have tested if he would deposit $1,500.

It seems that the meeting took place in Macon county. The gold brick, which was offered in evidence at the trial, contained several drill holes imit. The gold for the test was from drillings made in a $20 gold piece, which had been drilled with a dozen or more holes. Sheriff White secured the $20 gold piece and for many years wore it as a watch charm. Of course, when the samples were shown to a jeweler he pronounced them gold, as they really were, having been taken from Uncle Sam's money. But the briek itself was only worth its weight in brass.

Mr. Bargar went home to get his money, and casually told the eashier what he was going to do with it. Then the cashier informed him that he was in the toils of swindlers and the thing for him to do would be to institute prosecution at once. Atkins was arrested before he knew that he had been suspected, but the Indian accomplice managed to get out of the country.

Atkins was ably defended. His wife, who lived in St. Louis, was a fine-looking, intelligent woman. She retained ex-Governor Charles B. Johnson and she was a most interested spectator at the trial. Mrs. Atkins ereated a scene when the jury found her husband guilty and assessed his punishment at two ye in the penitentiary. She shook her white fists into the jurymen's faces, exclaiming: ''You wicked, wicked men! How could you send my poor boy to the penitentiary !""

She became very excited and her screams could be heard for blocks. With great difficulty she was prevented from accompanying her husband to jail and spending the night in his cell. She constantly wrote notes to Judge Ellison, imploring him to pardon her husband. Atkins was released on a $3,000 bond. Pending his appeal to the Supreme Court, he jumped his bond and no one heard of him for ten years, when he was apprehended at Portland, Oregon, and brought to Missouri by Marshal See of the Supreme Court. While Atkins was a fugitive from justice the Supreme Court had affirmed the finding of the lower court.

A part of the evidence introduced at the trial here was the gold brick, the $20 gold piece with the holes in it, a blanket, wig and hat worn by the **Indian," and a bottle of gold dust which was used to color the brick. The brick weighed forty-two pounds. To make the thing appear perfectly fair, the Linn county speculator was permitted to select the place for the drilling. The dust was then carefully wrapped in a small piece of paper and the prospective purchaser thought he had in his pocket from that time until they reached the jeweler the identical particles which he had seen drilled from the brick, but, in the meantime, Atkins had changed the samples and substituted therefor the real gold, which he had obtained by drilling the $20 gold piece.

Atkins denied that he was the party who conducted the transaction, but his identity was clearly established by the jeweler, Mr. Bargar and others.

' This was the most daring swindle game ever pulled off in Macon county. In speaking of Atkins and his fellow-crooks, Detective Herrington, of St. Louis, said:

"They were the slickest and most daring confidence men in the country. They stayed in bands and worked together so well they often fleeced the shrewdest men. The game was a good one in the old days, but they couldn't fool anyone with it now.

** MeCord, who is one of the most prominent members of the crowd, originally came from the West, and was thoroughly conversant with all the customs of the Indians. He talked their language fluently. It was their game to select one man - sometimes Atkins and sometimes MeCord - to act the part of the Indian. He would dress in a wild custom and paint his face like a savage. When they eame to a town where they were going to operate they established a tepee on the outskirts. The Indian was installed therein, and everything about him, campfires, etc., were made to look as realistic as possible. The other members of the gang would then go out and hunt up a vietim, who would be brought to the Indian and a bargain would be struck through an interpreter. It was explained to the 'come-on' that the Indian eame from the far west, where he had mined the yellow stuff in ehunks and did not know its real value. "They only asked a slight rake-off on the deal for steering a man against it. The victim would ask to examine the brick, whereupon some genuine specimens of gold would be presented to him, which stood the test at the jeweler's. As a usual thing, each operation netted the gang from $2,000 to $5,000.

A number of interesting trials over school matters have occurred in the Cireuit Court of Macon County. Several of these were the result of complaints against teachers for overzeal in chastizing pupils. In nearly every ease of this sort the verdict has been for the teacher. Perhaps the most significant trial took place at La Plata, in May, 1896. Judge Andrew Ellison was on the bench then. Miss Lizzie Spencer, who taught the school in Distriet 1, Township 60, Range 13, sued some of the patrons of the distriet for $7,000 for libel. Her petition alleged that the defendants, William H. Billings, George W. Billings, Thomas J. Billings, James Huffman, Mathias MeHenry and John Trout, Jr., sent to the school board on June 15, 1895, the following note: ask the said school board to withdraw Miss Lizzie Spencer as teacher of said district, as we consider her wholly unable to teach our school."

The petition was freely eireulated in the distriet, but only the names above given were secured as signers. The school teacher complained that the cireulation of this petition was an act of malice. The defendants denied this. Considerable oral testimony was taken. The ease was tried in the opera house and attracted a large number of spectators, many of them being women and girls. All the parties to the litigation were well-known in La Plata, and were people of good character. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendants offered a demurrer. Then came the arguments by the attorneys, which were very interesting. These lasted for a greater part of the day and then Judge Ellison delivered this memorable opinion:

* After hearing you gentlemen, with a great deal of interest and pleasure, I will state that it is, in my opinion, a matter of regret that the defendants should have cireulated this petition about the young lady. Ithink it is a matter equally to be regretted that this suit should. have been brought. It is a thing naturally trifling in itself. But, passing that cireumstance as not one of concern to the Court, the charge in this ease that the defendants said of Miss Lizzie Spencer, as a teacher of said district, that *we eonsider her wholly' - not incompetent, as quoted here by counsel a while ago - but *we consider her wholly unable to teach our school.'

"Now, the question is, is it a libel for patrons of the distriet to say about a man or woman that we consider him or her *wholly unable to teach our school?' Is it a libel for patrons to publish of and concerning a man or woman that 'we consider him' - or her - wholly unable to teach our school?'

"Tt is not, in my opinion, any more than for any lot of electors or voters to say of a man running for the Legislature that we believe him wholly unable to discharge the duties of a legislator - or as to a congressman or as to a sheriff or a publie school teacher. The teacher of a publie school is an officer drawing publie funds, concerning which every tax-payer and resident of the district has some interest, the same as in the office of sheriff or other official position.

**T do not wish to be understood as saying that persons ought to always speak their minds on this subject, but if they choose to avail themselves of the privilege of the law they may do so if their communications are couched in decent and proper language. This language

"Again I think, under the uncontradieted law in the ease, that it is a privileged communication; that, while it is to be regretted, people always avail themselves of their privilege, yet the law confers it upon parties interested to say verbally, or put in writing, if couched in decent language, that they oppose such and sueh person because they believe he is incompetent to discharge the duties of the office in question. If they had said of this girl, "we think her no lady,' it might have been different; or if they had said, *we think that she is a professional failure'; it might have been different, though some courts would have justified even that. But they simply say: *We eonsider her wholly' - not incompetent - but *unable to teach our school."

An "unwritten law" case, which became somewhat noted in Missouri, was that of the State vs. Sealous Grugin. Grugin was a farmer living four miles southwest of Atlanta. Walter Hadley was a son-in- Jaw, having.married one of Grugin's eldest daughters. Hadley ran a small farm not far from where his father-in-law lived. Grugin's youngest daughter, Alma, was sixteen years of age at the time of the trouble. The Hadleys lived in a ill frame house of two rooms. On one occasion, Alma went to visit her sister and brother-in-law and spent. the night there. It is said that she was engaged at that time to a young man named George Stephens, whom she afterwards married. A few days after Alma returned to her home she told her father that her brother-in-law, Walter Hadley, had abused her. Grugin, it is said, had bitterly opposed the marriage of his other daughter to Hadley and had never been on very good terms with his son-in-law. On May 6, 1896, Grugin took a double-barreled shotgun and went to the field where Hadley and his wife were working. Mrs. Luella Hadley, wife of Walter Hadley, testified that her father had shot twice at her husband, the second shot killing him instantly. Grugin promptly came to Macon and surrendered himself. On the way to town he met the sheriff coming after him but, as neither knew the other, they merely passed the salutation of the day and each went on to his respective destination. Grugin was defended by Dysart & Mitchell and Guthrie & Franklin. R. W. Barrow prosecuted. Grugin told his story frankly. He deseribed the journey he had made to the Hadley home and the shooting.

written law," a man's right to protect his home to the death. Judge Ellison was on the bench during the first trial of Grugin. When it came time to argue the case the court room eontained many who were not in the habit of attending murder trials. Ethelbert Talbot, Episcopal Bishop of Wyoming and Idaho at that time, was in the audience.

In summing up on behalf of the state, Mr. Barrow made a remarkable address, portions of whieh were printed in some of the leading newspapers of the west. Mr. Barrow said:

"Gentlemen, my talented friends at the other table have spent a most profitable half-day in instructing you and in endeavoring to lift your minds to holier thoughts. You cannot but feel improved by what you have listened to - I know that I feel so. I shall not attack a quotation they have made from the Bible; they are all true. They might have added one, which, possibly, in the rush of ineidents before them they necessarily omitted - Thou shalt not kill I give it to you now, so as to complete their argument.

"The history they have eited is also authentie; I do not question a line of it. In my humble judgment there never was a much better poem written than 'The Cotter's Saturday Night.' It emanated from the heart of a Samaritan - not a murderer. All these things are beautiful and we are under obligations to our friends for bringing them before us. But in their remarks they have negleeted one little thing - the case at bar.

"There will not be found a scintilla of the ancient history in the stenographie notes lying on the reporter's table. The quotations so graphically referred to by the attorneys for the defendant were not sworn to by a single witness on the stand. The tears which Captain Guthrie caused us to shed were over a piece of poetry not admitted or even offered in evidence. The weeping wife of the prisoner is no greater object of eommiseration than is the young widow of the dead man. The alleged ruined home of Mr. Grugin is not as desolate as is that of Mrs. Hadley.

"You are here to right a wrong; for, as I see it, a great one has been done. Let us read the Bible, history and poetry - they are all good - but let us try this ease simply on the cold facts introduced in evidence; there our only duty lies."

At that trial the jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree and fixed his punishment at fifteen years in the penitentiary. At this, Alma Gurgin, the daughter over whom the killing oceurred, rushed into her father's arms and cried:

An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court and the ease sent baek for re-trial. On the second trial Judge Shelton, the successor of Judge Ellison, was on the bench. The evidence was pretty much the same as it was on the first trial. The jury this time acquitted the defendant and he returned to his family.

On the 26th day of May, 1896, George Anderson, a farmer living south of Atlanta, stabbed his wife to death and then attempted to kill himself. Parties who entered the room direetly after the tragedy say that it was splattered with blood and the furniture knocked about everywhere. This indicated that there had been a fierce fight before the man succeeded in overpowering his wife, who was a large, strong woman. Anderson was a small man. It was never known just why he committed the crime, though it was said there had been oceasiona! disagreements, at one time a separation. Anderson was a man of good habits. He and his wife attended Sunday-school and ehureh regularly and they stood well in the community. The murderer was brought to Macon on a stretcher. He refused to employ counsel or to make any defense. Judge Ellison requested Judge R. S. Matthews to defend him. When Anderson was arraigned in court Judge Ellison asked him:

Anderson refused to go upon the stand. His lawyer made a splendid fight in his behalf, trying to show that the defendant was crazy. One man on the jury refused to bring in a sentence of guilty. The other eleven were unanimous for eonvietion. Judge Ellison immediately ordered another venire and next week Anderson was re-tried. The same evidence was gone through with, and the same hard fight made by the defendant's lawyer and the same instructions given. Anderson still preserved his stolid indifference, sometimes lying with his head upon a table and never speaking to his lawyer or assisting him in any way. In this second trial the jury was unanimous for conviction. When the day came to sentence Anderson, Judge Ellison called on the prisoner to come forward and listen to what he had to say.

"George Anderson," said the judge, ''you have been tried and found guilty of murder in the first degree, the result of which, without further intervention, will be a sentence of death pronounced upon you. Have you anything further to say why the sentence of the law should not be pronounced?'

"Mr. Anderson," said Judge Ellison, in a voice vibrating with emotion, ''I am but a humble instrument of the law in this painful ordeal. It has been my hope that my long service upon the bench, soon to expire, would close without facing an hour like this. But it has been deereed otherwise. Your plea of guilty was rejected by the court, thinking that probably a fair trial would elieit some fact showing your mental irresponsibility for your awful deed, proven and confessed. No such proof was adduced. One of the most intelligent juries I ever saw has found you guilty. I approve of that verdict. That you committed the deed is eonfessed; that you were at the time conscious of the act as well as of its wickedness is elear beyond a doubt.

"I shall not, as is too commonly the case, avail myself of the opportunity of reading you a long and painful lecture. Your remorse is evident and natural. Into other hands I commit you for spiritual aid and comfort, and, obeying the mandate of the law, I pronounce sentence of death; that the sheriff of Macon county, Missouri, take you hence to some plaee of safety until the 21st day of August, 1896, when, between the hours of 8 a. m. and 4 p. m., at or near the county jail of. Maeon eounty, you be hanged by the neck until dead, and may the God of mercy and justice have compassion upon your soul."

Anderson received his sentence with the same indifference that he had shown to all the other proceedings. A few days before his death he sent for a newspaper man and requested him to write up something. The reporter tried at that time to get Anderson to confess his purpose in killing his wife, but he refused to diseuss the subject. All he wanted was a sort of card of thanks to those who had been kind to him while he was in jail.

Missouri. The condemned man seemed to be in excellent spirits on the morning of his last day on earth and he ascended the gallows with an almost buoyant step. Elder G. W. Buckner delivered an earnest invocation, but Anderson made no statement whatever. The execution was in the courtyard north of the old jail. A small erowd was admitted by tickets secured from the sheriff. It is estimated that something like 2,000 people were in Macon that day, but none of them witnessed the hanging. The body of Anderson was taken to an undertaking establishment, and then the crowd was allowed to file by to take a last look at him. While the crowd was in town a dramatic incident oceurred on the streets. Hon. L. A. Thompson, the lawyer, stood on the rear step of a band wagon, which was being driven around through the principal streets of the city. In the wagon was Henry Marshall, a negro, who, it is said, had been run out of Macon a few days previous because of his ''preaching'' Democratic doctrine. Mr. Thompson had sent word to Marshall that if he would come back to Macon he would guarantee his protection. The streets were full of people, all wondering what the curious sight meant, until the wagon completed its tour of the town and then was stopped on the square at the head of Vine street. Mr. Thompson, in his shirt-sleeves and cooling himself with a palm-leaf fan, stood on the lower step of the band wagon and explained the meaning of his procession. He told the crowd that Marshall had been run out of town for talking on the side of the Democrats and that he had guaranteed him protection if he would come back and make a speech. Mr. Thompson said that he had never heard of Marshall before, but as soon as the incident was brought to his attention he had become interested. The Democrats in the big crowd applauded Mr. Thompson, who then introduced Marshall. Marshall made a little talk without any interruption whatever and went on his way rejoicing. He was not molested in any manner on the occasion of his second visit.

A case involving two prominent families of Shelby county was tried in Macon, on change of venue, in December, 1897. The defendant was A. Tolbert Smock, a druggist. He was accused of having shot and killed M. L. Cheuvront, on the streets of Shelbina, the night of July 22, 1897. According to the testimony, Mrs. Smock, who was young and very good-looking, had been attending an iee-eream social in the park, and was returning home with her friend, Miss Nellie Hopper. Mrs. Smock testified that Cheuvront had been looking at her at the park and that as she and Miss Hopper walked homeward Cheuvront had followed them. On reaching home Mrs. Smock said that she called to her husband, who came out, and, noticing her agitation, went out on the street where Cheuvront was. Smock, the defendant, stated that ashe went out he had his revolver in his hand and that as he stumbled Cheuvront put his hand in his pocket and raised it in an attempt to strike. Smock says he then fired two shots to protect himself. j

J. H. Whitecotton, of Paris, Missouri, was the leading attorney for the defense. He was assisted by J. D. Dale, of Shelbyville, George Humphrey and Sam Elliston, of Shelbina and W. H. Sears and R. W. Barrow, of Macon.

Robert A. Cleek, proseeuting attorney of Shelby county, V. L. Drain, of Shelbyville, H. Clay Heather, prosecuting attorney of Marion eounty, and Ben Franklin, of Macon, represented the state.

A good many witnesses were sworn on both sides. The state sought to prove that Cheuvront was a man of good standing and that he had no thought of accosting or of following Mrs. Smock. The memorable event of the trial was the closing speech by Mr. Whitecotton. It was made just before Christmas. Among other striking illustrations used by the eloquent attorney was the following:

'Ah! Gentlemen! I may be wrong in my figures and in my deduction from this evidence. I may have made mistakes, for which I trust you will pardon me. But there is one person who testified and who must be believed if anything on earth is true. You saw her carried into this eourt room in the arms of her husband. "Today, gentlemen, she lies upon her deathbed. 'The angels of heaven fluttering aeross the great blue vault above us are preparing to receive her. Her mother - long since gone - with yours and mine, is there with arms outstretehed to receive poor Mrs. Swift! You wonder how she was able to reach this court room from her home far off in the country. Why didn't she die? What great unseen power fanned the ebbing life in her bosom until this session came on? Ah! I will tell you what kept the dying spark alive. It was because the Great Father of the Universe, who always stands by poor, unfortunate humanity, deereed otherwise, and issued the fiat that she should live to save her boy - to save her boy! Thanks to the great mereiful God of heaven for it! Take her now from her misery; take her away to her heavenly home, for she has said before a jury of her countrymen, * My boy was assaulted there, and what he did was done in defense of his life." And she told you exactly how and where this tragedy occurred." choked with emotion and many of the speetators eried. Especially was this noticeable among the women, whose handkerchiefs were bobbing against their eyes all over the court room.

In spite of the very effective speech the jury hung, four standing solidly and determinedly for eonvietion. The defendant was released on a bond of $3,000. Smock was tried again at the Macon Circuit Court and all of the witnesses, except Mrs. D. B. Swift, who had appeared at the first trial, were re-examined. At the second trial the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter and punishment fixed at six months in jail and a fine of $100. Some indignation was manifested over the verdict, and the Macon Times-Demoerat expressed itself as follows:

"The verdict is an outrage upon this community and it is just such mockery as this that disgusts people with juries and courts and causes them to take the law into their own hands and mete out justice."

At the April term, 1897, of the Macon Cireuit Court, the juries disagreed in three of the largest cases tried. At the June term there was a similar result on two important cases. The big actions, all for re-trial, loaded up the already heavy September docket. Lawyers began discussing a method for insuring a result in big cases. Some advocated one thing and some another. It was pretty generally admitted that one of the great causes of the delay and expense was the inability to seeure twelve men who would think alike on an issue whieh had been elaborately presented by the contending lawyers. Letters were sent out to the prominent attorneys of the state, asking for their views regarding better methods than the one in use. The matter was discussed extensively throughout the state and in 1900 a constitutional amendment was adopted providing for a verdiet from three-fourths of the jury in civil cases. This feature alone has been a long step towards relieving the lower eourts of aceumulated business, "There has been no change, however, in the rule requiring a unanimous verdiet in eriminal cases.

1. Would it not be to the great advantage of the legal fraternity, as well as litigants, if a plan were adopted that would insure a result on every case that went to trial? 2. What suggestion eould you offer to improve the jury system or plan of substitution?

Major A. W. Mullins, Linneus: (1) I think so; but the judgment of man is so imperfect that final judgment or even a verdiet cannot he obtained in the first trial in all cases. (2) I believe in the jury system, and would not abolish it, but it may become advisable in civil cases to

J. E. MeKeighan, with Lee & McKeighan, St. Louis: (1) Certainly. (2) In every case where the jury of twelve do not agree let a majority verdiet be returned, which, however, shall require the express approval of the court on motion of the successful party before such party shall be entitled to a judgment thereon.

J. D. Dale, Shelbyville: (1) Yes. (2) I have long entertained the opinion that nine jurors selected should make a verdict, except for erime punishable by death. I have in my mind another change that would facilitate litigation, and from which the publie would derive very great benefit; to-wit: The abolition of the Cireuit Judge's office and the seleetion of a Judge for each county, to be clothed with the same powers and jurisdietion that Cireuit Judges are now elothed with, and to require said Judge to hold terms of court as Probate Judges are now required to hold them.

Judge R. S. Matthews, Macon: (1) Yes. (2) Three-fourths of the jury to make the verdiet and that County Courts and sheriffs be required to seleet intelligent men for jurors.

W. O. L. Jewett, Shelbina: (1) Yes, but how is this to be accomplished? It can only be achieved by having the jury composed of an odd number and a bare majority allowed to make a verdiet. I do not believe the time has come for so radical a change in the jury system. An experiment may be advisable to allow in eivil eases a two-thirds verdiet. After the experiment has been tried we could better judge of its advisability. (2) I have no suggestion other than the above, except to throw every safeguard around the summoning and impanelment of juries. Our officers and County Courts are not always careful enough in the selection of jurors. All human systems are imperfect, and will always be so. We can only approximate perfection. The jury system has its faults, but it is the best system yet devised for adjusting human disputes.

Captain Ben Eli Guthrie, Macon: (1) It would certainly be a good thing if it could be accomplished. But the great question is, ean it be accomplished with a reasonable show of justice? The experience of mankind has furnished a negative answer. The jury system in some form or other has been on trial from the earliest dawn of history. It has been improved and modified as the intelligence and experience of the race indicated. But a satisfactory substitute has nowhere appeared. It may be bold to say it will not appear, because all things seem possible to the human race. But it is reasonably safe, however, to say that a substitute will not be found. (2) The only apparently practically efficient improvement of the jury system is to improve the intelligence and integrity of the jurymen. All optimists think this is going on from day to day, as the general average of intelligence and integrity of eitizenship advances. This is the remedy. General increase of the intelligence of the body of citizens raises the standard of the sense of justice and inereases the demand for honest and intelligent verdiets by an enlightened publie opinion, and renders more efficient the jury system. Advance the standard of general intelligence and the moral sense of the people, intelligent and honest jurors follow as a necessity, and they insure an intelligent and honest verdict and enhance the chances of a result in every trial.

Nat M. Shelton, Lancaster: (1) Unquestionably, yes. (2) I have thought for some time that it might be safe to so modify our jury law that the concurrence of nine out of twelve should constitute a finding. This would be a conservative move in the direction suggested, and if the trial gave better results the reform could be enlarged upon. Under our constitution, however, I am of the opinion that any reform of the system having for its objeet anything other than the unanimous coneurrence among the twelve eould only be made to apply to civil proceedings, the provision as to the inviolability of the right of trial by jury being evidently an adoption of the system as a common law, and having special reference to eriminal procedure.

B. R. Dysart, Macon: (1) I would oppose a majority verdict, except by agreement of the parties. (2) Many unjust verdicts have been prevented by less than a majority and even by one juryman.

W. H. Sears, Macon: (1) As I understand the matter, our jury system can be changed only by a constitutional amendment to that effect. I am in favor of the present system. Jurymen, like other people, do not always see things alike, and, unfortunately, it results in many hung juries in important cases. But, in my opinion, it is better to have it this way than for a majority or two-thirds to have the privilege of deciding the matter. Juries are frequently discharged from the consideration of cases when, if held longer, they might reach a decision.

George A. Mahan, Hannibal: (1) Yes; whenever a suit is brought it should speedily come to trial, and it is best for all parties concerned that a decision should be had. The failure of a jury to agree brings eourts of justice into disrepute, and prevents the citizens from leaving disputes to such arbitration with any assurance that justice will be done. Under the jury system as now applied it is very seldom that any decision is had under the law and evidence. The courts fail to afford jus- tice to litigants. (2) I am inclined to the opinion that the jury system in all civil cases should be abrogated, and all such cases tried before a court composed of three judges. While the expense would probably be no greater than now, such a court would try cases much more rapidly and always certainly, and hence, in the end, with more satisfaction to litigants and lawy When you come to consider the delay in obtaining and selecting a jury and the time consumed by the jury in agreeing or failing to agree, it may be safely said that the business of the court would be disposed of in half of the time by three judges. As it now stands, any civil ease may be tried before the court by agreement, and many cases are so disposed of at each term of court, leaving the jury without work and under full pay. I see no good reason why all civil cases should not be tried and disposed of by a court composed of three judges, and the jury system abolished.

Gardiner Lathrop, Kansas City: (1) I should say that it would unquestionably be of great advantage to the legal fraternity, as well as to litigants, if a plan were adopted that would insure a result on every case that went to trial. With frequent mistrials, the costs amount to more, in many cases, than the whole sum at stake. (2) I have been for several years very much in favor of a two-thirds or three-fourths verdict, if not a majority verdict, in civil cases. All other questions in life affeeting important interests are decided by a majority, and I see no reason why the same rule should not obtain in eourts of justice. I think extensions of the referee system would also be an improvement on the present jury system, making the finding of the referee equivalent and jury after jury fails to agree, as criminals go unpunished on that account, as bills of costs are piled up for taxpayers to settle, as charges and rumors of bribery are from time to time circulated and believed, as the absurdity of allowing one or two cranky or corrupt jurymen to stand in the way of the punishment of crime force themselves upon the minds of the people the conviction becomes more general that the system should be changed, and people are rapidly coming to the conclusion that a substantial majority of a jury, say, two-thirds, or even something less, ought to be permitted by law to decide in civil cases.

R. W. Barrow, Macon: (1) Yes. (2) One of the primary causes of hung juries is, of course, that all jurors most unanimously concur in the verdict. A system that permits one juror to thwart the judgment of eleven other jurors, equally as good, is jllogical. If our jury system were changed so that in all eivil cases nine out of the twelve could return a verdiet, I believe that justice wonld be done in a greater number of cases than under the present plan. Under clear instruetions from the court defining the law, it seems to me that the judgment of three jurors against one, as to the facts, would furnish a safe and conservative basis for a judgment, and that the great majority of hung juries would be prevented. When we eonsider that eourts have the right to refuse security for costs, that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff and that present possession is regarded as prima facie right to property and that courts have the power to set aside verdiets when unsupported by evidence, with the right of appeal to higher tribunals, it seems that eivil rights and status quo are sufficiently protected without giving to one juror, against the wishes of eleven others, the power to tie the hands of the court.

N. A. Franklin, Unionville: (1) I can scarcely say yes to the first question. We should be careful how we make inroads on established forms and ancient eustoms, I think that sueh a ehange as your question implies would result in a serious strike at the whole jury system. Our jury system could be vastly improved without impairing its usefulness as a safeguard to life and liberty. I would amend the law so as to disqualify any citizen from acting as a juryman who could not readily read and write and who did not understand the English lan guage. 1 would disqualify any citizen from serving on a jury more than twice in one year, and thus abolish the professional juror. It is a familiar sight to see a dozen or twenty men standing around in the sheriff's way when the court calls for a jury, and who frequent our courts from time to time to get their names on the jury list. I would go after the business man. Of course, he doesn't want to act and will refer the sheriff to half a dozen men who do. The very reason I would make the business man serve is because he doesn't want to, and the reason I would disqualify the other fellow is because he does. I would likewise disqualify all ministers and justices of the peace; also all liquor men. Most of these reforms could be made by our county courts and trial court officers, but a statute as a reminder would not be a bad thing. I do not believe a man should be disqualified because he had read of the ease at bar in the newspapers; all intelligent men read newspapers and intelligent men make the best jurymen.

In May, 1898, there were a number of mysterious oceurrene Macon homes and in those near the city. Houses were entered and women frightened. In most of the plaees invaded there were no men in the house. Sometimes small articles of food and other things were stolen. The intruder seemed to have no partieular purpose, but he was most active. Nearly every night some residence was the subject of his attentions. Finally, the night prowler committed a ferocious deed. He went to the home of Mrs. Ann Browitt, about a mile west of Macon, and attacked Mrs. Browitt's two daughters, who were sleeping in the same bed. In talking of the occurrence one of the girls said that the man entered the room, making a noise like some wild animal. He struck her several times in the face with a sharp-edged, short-handled hoe. The girls jumped out of bed and fled. "The assailant followed Ethel, the older girl, and chased her out into the yard. He caught her and brutally beat her in the face with his eurious weapon. The girls stated that the man seemed to be actuated by some crazy ferocity. There seemed to be no partieular reason in what he did, except to hurt them as much as possible. "There were no men in the house.

This affair created wild excitement. Detective Ed Turner took hold of the case, but for a long while could not get a start on it. The Browitt girls were unable to identify the man who had attaeked them.

During the latter part of June there was a report that a man had entered the home of John Keochel, the blind broom-maker. Two of Mr. Keochel's daughters were aroused, and the man, grasping the arm of one of them, said: **If you holler, I'll do to you as I did the girls at the water-works'' (the Browitt girls).

The man, it seems, didn't harm either one of the Koechel girls, but in leaving the house he picked up a sack of flour, which he found downstairs. Detective Turner noticed tiny white specks leading from the kitehen pantry out into the yard and on southward. He followed it to the home of Henry Williams, a negro, who had quite a while before been arrested for annoying some white girls, but who had been aequitted. In spite of the damning evidence by the trail of flour, Williams protested that he had not been out of his house that night. They took him to jail and during the day he was interviewed by a reporter. Williams said:

"I used to be a member of the Methodist church at Marceline, but I never joined out here. My present wife, though, belongs to the church. I am going to tell the truth about this matter if it kills me. My wife and I went down to the doctor's street concert Tuesday night. After that we came home and went to bed. I never got up until morning. When I woke I went over to the Rev. MeDonald's house to attend to his horse. Then I eame back home and the policeman arrested me. T didn't know a thing about this water-works business and the little girls down there. I never told the little Koechel girl anything about treating her like I did the water-works girls. I was not in the Koechel house that night. Iam not that sort of aman. I never killed anybody in a fight in Alabama. You see Mr. McDonald and he will tell you what sort of a man I am. I positively deny that I have been in this house. They wanted me to say, 'yes,' but they can kill me before I will do it." There was considerable talk during the day, and as night came on it became very well settled that the negro was to be hung. A. J. Glenn, was sheriff, at the time, and he stationed one of his deputies out in front of the jail. The citizens quietly formed about the jail and in the eourt house yard, talking in groups but making no violent demonstrations. The Rev. G. A. Robbins, pastor of the Methodist church, appeared on the scene and urged the crowd not to hang the negro. He referred to an incident where a man had been hung by vigilantes, and afterwards found to have been innocent. Mr. Robbins was making quite a talk but the crowd became impatient and refused to listen. They went to the jail and made a formal demand of Sheriff Glenn for the prisoner. The sheriff said he would defend the prisoner with his life. Someone brought a long rope and the crowd cheered. When the mob's determination beeame apparent a Mr. MeVicker got up on a box or something and tried to speak in favor of letting the law take its course. Someone threw a brick at him and he was knocked senseless. He was standing right along-side the sheriff at the time. Sheriff Glenn argued with the erowd and promised that a full investigation should be made next day, but the people knew what they wanted and they rushed over the fence. The officers were disarmed and the front door smashed in. The key-box was found and someone unlocked the iron door to the corridor. Williams was trembling in his cell. His appearance in front of the jail was greeted with a wild shout by the mob. The first plan was to hang him to an electric light pole in front of a residence, but someone suggested that this would be an unwelcome sight for the women folks in the morning, and so they hustled the victim south on Rollins street and then up Weed to the Wabash viaduct. As the crowd went along with its prisoner in its midst a policeman was encountered going in an opposite direction. Someone called his attention to the fact that they were about to hang a man, but the policeman was not interested. A tall fellow, whose name is pretty well known in Macon and who is now living here, acted as master of ceremonies. He stood holding to Williams under the bridge. He threw a rope aloft and some boys standing on the bridge caught it and fastened it to the balustrade. Then a well-dressed little fellow, standing close to Williams, and who evidently wanted to attract attention to himself, addressed the prisoner: "Henry, you have showed yourself a man; you are a brave man

Williams replied that he had nothing to do with the ceremony ; that hé had not been eonsulted in regard to it and was not in favor of it; he said they could go ahead and arrange things to suit themselves, and that they needn't think they eould throw any responsibility on him by making him answer questions.

"Now, Williams, you are at the end of the journey and I want to do this thing to suit you. Would you rather that the boys would take you up on the bridge and let you jump off so it will erack your neek in a hurry or shall I give "em the order to hoist away where they are?"

Williams absolutey deelined to say yea or nay on the proposition and the tall man signaled to the boys on the bridge to pull the rope. The vietim died without a struggle. Next day the body was eut down, the eoroner impaneled a jury and evidence was taken, after which the jury returned this verdiet :

** An inquisition taken at Macon, in the county of Macon, state of Missouri, on the 30th day of June, 1898, before me, Dr. Guthrie E. Serutehfield, Coroner, upon the view of the body of Henry Williams, colored, then and there lying dead, H. W. Doneghy, J. D. Smith, S. A. Patterson, H. M. Rubey, J. P. English and C. D. Sharp, good and lawful men, householders of Hudson township, eounty aforesaid, who being sworn and charged diligently to inquire and true presentment make, how and in what manner Henry Williams eame to his death, upon their honor do say that he came to his death at Macon, Missouri, at the hands of two or three hundred men, whose names, identity and residence are to these jurors unknown; that said Henry Williams was hanged by the neck until dead, between the hours of 12 and 1 o'clock a. m., June 30, 1898, with a rope attached to the bridge of the Wabash Railroad Company, in the city of Macon."

When E. Smith Gipson of College Mound, died on April 2, 1901, he left a will which was one of the most unique documents ever filed in a Missouri eourt. Mr. Gipson was a son of Robert Gipson, a farmer whose sketeh is printed elsewhere in this work. Smith Gipson was a plain, hardworking farmer, who was noted as a good judge of horseflesh and had amassed quite a fortune through shrewd trading. His education was not derived from books and contact with scholars, but from praetieal toil. About ten years before his death Mr. Gipson was kicked by a horse, and for a while it was thought he would die. He recovered, and before long made a will, which he verily believed would thwart the lawyers. He said there should not be a ''whereas,'' an *'aforesaid," or an ''on or about" in it. He knew how he wanted his property to go and he intended to put it down in plain blaek and white so everybody could tell just what he was driving at. But soon after his death his will was made an issue in court by some of the heirs who did not get what they regarded as a fair divide.

Soon after the litigation began the will was published in some of the newspapers. It instantly became a subjeet for wide discussion. Some contended that it meant one thing and some another and others held that the will was void because of its lack of elearness. A man in Iowa wrote to Probate Judge Buster that he knew eleven different languages, and that for a consideration he would come down to Macon and construe the will in such a way as to satisfy everybody. Following is a literal eopy of the Smith Gipson's last will:

Know all men that Preasants Grieting that Beeing sond in mind & Good Bodly Helthe in the year of our Lord, A. B. 1890 and Beeing in Good Bodly Helthe and of sond minde and memory knowing the insertinty of Life and the certainty of Death Having my prefference in what way my effects should Be setled among my heirs and my wife first this is my last Will and testament. that I appont my Wife catherine gipson to have the hom Residents where we now and have for the greatest part of our livs in maeon county mo on section 22 town-ship 5 Rang fifteen or as much their of as will suport Her comfortably Deuring: Her natural Life & a Decan Burrul at Deathe the form to Be Rented to the Hiest and Best Bider for cash at the end of each year or the first Day of march of each year Binding the Rentor to give Bond and aproved seurty for the Rent of said Lands the guerrduan Here after beeing named to Have 10 per cent of all moneys for Rents and the monney that Remains over the Decen support is to Be loaned out on eeeurity after each years Rents after the first year so that if there is enny Remaning from need & wants all so the Rentor pay all tates on the farm & the 2 track of Lands on each sid of the conty Road and all moneyes arising or in anny wis Being or Be Longing to my est tat to be Loande at S per cent on good security on Real estat that is not ineumbered in enny way till all off my Lands is Soalde it Being Soalde on twelve monthes tim. Dock Gipson and tom Gipson is not to Pay moar then ten dollars per achar for the forty a doindeng them on the east & James Boker on the South in section 6 six in Range 17 named Laying East of toms forty and cornoring withe Docks south east cornor in seetion 6 all so grant Gipson is to Have Have thirty five achars a joindeng His track in 22 at ten per achar out of the estate when setled all so naney Saurdinny green my Beloved Daughter is to Have the Sum of two Hundred Dollars over & above Her Eaquil Part of my Estate and Jo Lee Shellon Barger is to Have one Dollar he Beeing the son of I Binda Gipson By Berthe, deceased. and when my effects is all soald and the Estate all settled I want my eur Rator to sea that mary summers my Beloved Daughter Has a full Part of my estat after Her Husbat, s, g, summers is Dead in Less she Be comes Penant or in Bodly need then she shall such amont as will pervent Bodly Suffering and in ease of Her Deathe Her part is to Be equaly Devided Between | Gertrude Summers and mary Genit summerses second son and commanly eall Litty and Simon and Lery are in the event of the Deathe of their mother are to Hav one Dollar apeae out of my estat and Mary Greens part of my estate shall Be Loaned Her Haveng the yearly intrest or Be Laid out in Land in Her own nam for Her own self or the Heirs of Her Body and if she Dyes in testant then the sam shall Revert to Her Brothers and sisters if they stay on Living if not to their children with the exception of Sherman and Lery Summers & Lee Shellon Barger & Galus Green they and Lery are to Have one Dollar of said estate each of them this amont set is for Her nany staying at Home after sh was of Lawfullage & other eoneiderations it Beng just and Right Galus Green is not to Hav ondly one Dollar out of my estate in my opinion of Best way is to let my ehildren ehos 2 of the Brothers to act as eredtors an exeutors and admr an that they are to Have $150ets per day for all the time that they consum predently in settling the estat for printing hand Bills & for Probating and other expenses not namd. Have full Ray na monney to Be Divided unti all is settled nothing to be Soal unDer 12 months credet the paper giveng 2 good solvent men as seeurity Bfour the property is moved or the same sho Be Retaken and Resoald agane in ease that Sarah Green Dyes Before my estate is settles the Rest of the Heirs is to shear Her Part of my estate Divided Between Grant and Susie tube my Beloved Dan and there children the girls are to Have Good Second Rat Horse or mare out of my estate to make to make them Eaquel withe the Buoyes. that has had Horses when they were free this Being my Last Will and testimen signed in Presence of former Wills ar void and un Sound.

"I am asked in this proceeding to construe the will of the late Smith Gipson. "The petition, as I read it, asks that but two questions be passed upon. First, does the will dispose all residue of the real estate after the life estate to the widow is exhausted? Second, if it does not, is the plaintiff, Joseph Lee Shellenbarger, entitled to partieipate therein with the other heirs?

**T am of the opinion the remainder in that land is not disposed of by the will and if I am correct in this view it shows that plaintiff is entitled to his distributive share in the lands.

**T am of the further opinion that the will does not attempt to disinherit the plaintiff, Shellenbarger. On the contrary it especially provides that he shall have one dollar out of the estate in excess of his equal share.

'In view of the answer in this ease and at the suggestion of the counsel for defendant I have thought to go somewhat beyond the allegation of the petition in my findings, hoping thereby to avoid complieations. The language of the will here referred to is made to certain portions of land, by Dock, Tom and Grant Gipson confers no title on them, but accords them an option which they may excerice or not. Dock and Tom at any time after the testator's death, provided the rights of creditors are not interfered with, Grant's to be exercised only at the final settlement of the estate, and then only as acting for any indebtedness to the estate."

The long and costly litigation between John Massengale of Macon eounty and Elijah E. Rice of Chariton county, over a thirty dollar steer, attracted great interest. Both Massengale and Rice were born in Wayne county, Kentucky, not very far from each other. The two men were typical farmers and eattle men. They were alike in spirit and determination. Rice was born July 20, 1849. Massengale was a few years the elder. Rice had been a Missourian about thirty years at the time the lawsuit developed. Massengale ranched in Wyoming for many years. Out there they called him "Missouri John." He is a great big, good-natured fellow, and the eattlemen thought a great deal of him. Massengale came to Missouri and settled near Keota. In September, 1899, he missed a steer out of his buneh and later on was informed that the animal was in Rice's herd. Massengale went to see Rice about it, and the two went out together and looked at the steers. Massengale picked out one which he claimed was his missing animal. Rice said he was mistaken; that it was his property. Massengale filed a replevin suit before Squire M. J. Lane at Bynumville. At the first trial before the justice Massengale was represented by D..R. Hughes at Macon. Albert D. Nortoni, now one of the judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, was the attorney for Rice. The first trial occurred on December 2, 1899. The village was full of witnesses and spectators. It was long after midnight when the attorneys concluded | their arguments. The jury failed to agree. The second trial was had January 6, 1900. This time the verdiet went for the plaintiff, Massengale. Rice appealed the case to the Cireuit Court and there was a trial before Judge John P. Butler at Salisbury in February, 1900. The jury failed to agree and the case was re-tried in the same court in September, . 1900. In all this time the number of witnesses had steadily increased, and the costs were piling up high.

Neither of the litigants would have suffered much over the loss of the steer, but having put their hands to the plough they could not turn back, The lawyers had several conferences with a view to settlement, but no progress was made in that direction.

At the trial in September, 1900, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant Rice. The case was appealed by Massengale. One of the main grounds of objeetion urged by his attorney was that defendant's counsel, J. A. Collett, had used this language to the jury in his closing argument : 3

** Massengale obtained his start and made his money by rounding up unbranded cattle in the West, and stealing them and branding them as his own."

In order to show that there was no justitication for this language the plaintiff printed the entire record of the trial, whieh made a brief. of 241 pages. The Appellate Court remanded the ease for re-trial. A ehange of venue was taken to Fayette, Howard eounty. At the first trial at Fayette the jury disagreed, but in the second trial a verdiet was rendered for the defendant Rice. This made seven trials altogether. It is estimated that the entire proceedings cost in the neighborhood of $5,000. The attorneys for Mr. Massengale decided, after the final trial in Fayette, that the reeord didn't justify an appeal. Mr. Massengale said to them:

"Tt is with you gentlemen to say whether it shall be appealed or not. If you want to try them another whirl in the higher court I am with you."

"The steer, whieh was described in the evidence by Mr. Massengale as **a dark red steer, a round body, rather a small dark two-year-old, a little under average size - what I would eall a dark red steer, with a white spot in its forehead, worth about thirty dollars," grew up tall and' large until it became the biggest animal in Mr. Rice's herd. Several parties offered him $200 for the steer for the purpose of showing it at country fairs and agricultural meetings, and arrangements had been made for such exhibitions when the animal took sick one day and died. Rice said had it lived until that fall he intended giving a barbecue on his place and inviting all the attorneys and witnesses, as well as Mr. John Massengale, to come over and be his guests. The old steer would have been one of the features of interest on that occasion.

The La Plata division of the Macon Cireuit Court was established to meet a growing demand for a civil tribunal in the northern part of the county. In the petition presented to the Twenty-Ninth General Assembly praying for the authorization of the Court the following names appear: J. C. Doneghy, John T. Doneghy, E. A. Griffin, James I. Sears, S. K. Sears, T. J. Kellam, G. M. Phipps, J. M. Sharp, Joseph Park, Cyrus C. Wood, M. Owsley, Wm. Easley, T. M. Easley, Henry Van Berg, J. D. Miller, W. D. Powell.

"Tt is hereby provided that the Judge of the Twenty-Seventh (now the Second) Judicial Cireuit Court shall hold three terms of the Cireuit Court each year in the town of La Plata, in the county of Macon, at the following times: On the second Mondays in April, August and December,

"Said Court shall be held in the town of La Plata in a room to be seleeted by the Board of Trustees of said town, and they are hereby given all power to appropriate money necessary to pay all the rents and other incidental expenses necessary thereto.

"Said Court shall have concurrent original and appellate civil jurisdiction in all that part of Macon county lying north of the township line running east and west between townships 58 and 59.

"The Cireuit Clerk of Macon county shall attend such Court in person or by deputy, and perform such duties as may be required of him by law, for whieh he shall receive the same fees as are now provided by law for similar service in like Courts of record.

** No judgment, nor levy of the execution issued thereon shall be a lien upon any real estate of said Macon county until a duly certified abstract of such judgment shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the Cireuit Court of Maeon county, at Macon City; but thereafter shall have the same force and effect as though judgment had been rendered in the Macon Cireuit Court at Macon City, and the execution issued thereon.

"All general laws now in force, or which may hereafter be passed, regulating and governing Courts of record in civil cases, and all laws defining the praetice and proceedings in such Court, not repugnant to this Aet, are declared to be in foree and effect in the Court hereby established.

Sometime afterward the terms at La Plata were reduced to two, one being held in March and the other in November. At the General Assembly in 1909, however, Mr. John T. Barker, representative from Macon county, introduced a bill ereating another term at La Plata, to be begun the first Monday in September. This bill was made a law, and La Plata now has three terms of Court, the same as provided for by the original Aet.