Nodaway County, Missouri - Chapter 28: Crimes - Trials, 1882 (part 1 of 2)

Otto Sharp Trial-The Talbott Boys

TRIAL OF SOLOMON McALPIN - TANSEY TRAGEDY - THE ASSASSINATION OF NICHOLAS LEEHMER - A REMARKABLE CASE OF INFANTICIDE - THE H03AN HOMICIDE AND OTTO SHARP TRIAL-THE TALBOTT BOYS.

All organized counties and communities, it matters not what may be their geographical location or what may be their general moral and religious status, have a criminal record. Some of these records are comparatively free from crime, while others are replete with deeds of violence and bloodshed.

Nodaway County is no exception to this universal rule, yet from the date of its organization to the present time the number of crimes committed in proportion to population, as shown by the records of the courts, is far less than that of any other county in Northwest Missouri. There are, however, some facts of a criminal character which belong to the history of the county, and are of such importance that they may be narrated in this work.

Trial Of Solomon M'Alpin

The trial of Solomon McAlpin, charged with the murder of John T. Callicutt, on the 30th of August, 1866, in the northern part of Nodaway County, took place at the December adjourned term of the circuit court, 1869. The case was set for trial at the regular term in October of 1869, but on account of its importance and the length of time necessary for the hearing of the testimony, a special adjourned term was ordered to be held December 7, 1869.

Major B. K. Davis, circuit attorney, assisted by I. V. McMillan, Esq., appeared for the presecution ; Col. W. P. Hepburn and Judge Morsman, both of Clarinda, Iowa, appeared as counsel in behalf of the defendant.

The defendant had been held on recognizance in the sum of five thousand dollars for his appearance to answer the charge. As the presumption of his guilt, and the evidence heretofore disclosed against him, had warranted his being admitted to bail, sanguine hopes of his acquittal on the final trial were entertained by his friends and counsel.

Solomon McAlpin, the defendant, was a young man at the time of his trial, not more than twenty- three years of age, and of not unprepossessing appearance. In person he was rather slightly built, of medium height, with rather prominent features, dark brown hair, dull blue eyes, and a look devoid of expression and wanting in intellectuality. Whatever he might have felt, he exhibited throughout the trial an easy air of stolid unconcern. He appeared in the court room genteelly dressed, and sat near his counsel, paid attention to all that passed, but seemed not to comprehend his situation nor be sensibly affected by the strength or weakness of the evidence adduced to show his guilt or prove his innocence. His countenance was closely observed throughout the trial, but no physical change, indicative of either hope or fear, could be detected. He had enjoyed ample time to make preparation for his defense ; all that the ingenuity of learned and experienced counsel could devise had been brought to bear in his favor. Three long years had cast their veil of obscurity over almost every circumstance that could conspire to reveal his guilt - over all save one - the wandering companion of his early years had not returned, crowned with the fruition of his own boyish dreams, to impersonate the missing dead, and dispel the foul suspicion that had branded the accused with a cold-blooded and most cruel murder.

The trial elicited much interest in the community, and during the four days and nights of its continuance the court house was densely crowded with persons from different parts of the county.

Judge I. C. Parker presided during the trial, and administered the law, in the opinion of those most competent to judge, in strict accordance with the spirit of our criminal jurisprudence, yet tempered with mercy toward the accused.

The facts concerning the murder, detailed at length in the testimony of the various witnesses, are as follows: On Friday evening of August 19, 1866, between sundown and dark, Solomon McAlpin, the defendant, and John T. Callicutt, the deceased, left the home of the latter, near Hawleyville, in Page County, Iowa, with an ox team and covered wagon, to go to St. Joseph, Missouri, to purchase a load of apples. On the Monday following, McAlpin came back with the team, and circulated the story that young Callicutt had gone to the Missouri River, or the mountains, to seek his fortune, and that he intended neither to write home to his friends, nor return until the object of his novel and strange adventures had been fully accomplished. On the blankets which they had taken with them, and which McAlpin brought back, were observed spots of blood. McA!pin explained them by stating that on their trip down, they had killed a pig, and being about to be detected by some passers-by, threw it into the wagon and covered it with the blankets. Several other circumstances in the conduct and statements of McAlpin, caused suspicion at length to fasten upon him as the probable murderer of Callicutt. In February, 1868, a skelton was found near the road, a few miles north of Maryville, Nodaway County, Missouri, which bore marks of identity that served to point it out to the brother of the deceased as the skeleton of John T. Callicutt. At the April term, 1868, of the Circuit Court of Nodaway County, an indictment was found against Solomon McAlpin, charging him with the murder of Callicutt. A requisition was made by the Governor of Missouri for McAlpin. He was arrested, had a preliminary examination before Esquire Hinchman, of Clarinda, Iowa, and was subsequently remanded to the proper authorities of this State. We give below the testimony in the case, slightly condensed, but in the main correct. As much interest was manifested in the case by the community at large, the perusal of the testimony in this work will prove of great interest to our readers at this date.

David A. Lock sworn : I reside in Nodaway County. Sometime in February, 1 868, I was informed that a human skeleton was found in a slough, about one mile and a half south of my land. I went and looked at the skeleton, then came to town, and, in company with Mr. Goslee, returned and examined it. The skull was perforated with three bullet holes. One ball had entered near the center of the forehead ; one over the left eye, and the third had passed entirely through the head, just above the ears. We found one ball still in the cavity of the skull. The prairie grass in the slough is high during the summer season. I he skeleton lay, when first discovered, about forty rods from the Maryville and Hawleyville road. Mr. Goslee was with me when the skeleton and other remains were examined. We found a piece of hat, a remnant of a blouse, and one waistband of a shirt and a collar. The waistband was soiled and dirty. We found one or more common blouse buttons and some shirt buttons. The latter were of different kinds. The one on the wastband was of white pearl. We found also the bottom piece or leathern portion of a suspender. The parts of the skeleton when found were not scattered. His boots were between course and fine boots ; the tops capped or foxed in front. I afterward visited the place where the skeleton was found in company with William R. Callicutt and some one else. We then found some hair, buttons, and teeth. The hair was rolled up in a piece of blouse, and was of a light brown cast.

Cross-examined : I was not with the surveyors when the skeleton was first found. William Callicutt took the buttons which I had left with Mr. Yanderhoof.

William R. Callicutt sworn : I live in Iowa ; knew the deceased ; he was my brother. I have known the defendant for ten or twelve years; lived near each other. An arrangement was made between brother and defendant to go to St. Joseph for apples. They went with an ox team that belonged to brother and myself. The wagon was the defendant's. They left home Friday evening August 18, 1866. McAlpin lived one mile and a half southeast of Hawleyville. The cattle were about four years old, of red color, and one of them had lost a horn. The wagon was considerably worn and had a high seat set on posts. They had no cover on when they started ; am not sure that they had bows to the bed, but have an impression that they were on. The deceased prepared a mess-box ; I saw it at a wagon shop in Hawleyville ; it was a common goods box with a lid. I saw no names on the box. When they left my brother took two hats, one an old white hat the other a black jockey hat, nearly new. He took with him also a soldier's blouse, which he had brought from the army ; it had government buttons on it, with eagles stamped upon them. I have seen similar buttons many times on soldiers' blouses. The cloth material of the blouse was of the usual kind. The deceased had the blouse on when he left. He had on striped pantaloons of cotton and woolen material ; had on cloth gaiters considerably worn. He left at home a cloth coat, worth about eighteen dollars. My brother was seventeen years old when he left home. He made money by selling brick ; he also had some bounty money. When he went away Tie wore suspenders and a cotton shirt with bosom of raised and figured cloth. I had a shirt like his ; mother made them both. The shirt had large common white buttons on the wristband and the back of the collar. My brother's shirt and mine were made about the same time ; I bought the cloth for both, and brother was with me at the time. I heard defendant and brother talk about purchasing the apples, and it was agreed that brother should pay for them. Brother had money when he left, but I cannot say how much. He had been selling brick. I had burned a kiln ot about one hundred thousand ; they were worth about ten dollars per thousand ; about one-fourth of the kiln had been sold ; brother owned half of the brick. He had drawn his bounty money in the spring before he left. I next saw defendant some time during the next week after they left to go for the apples. I have never seen my brother since. Defendant did not bring home the oxen. He turned them out on the prairie and we went after them. Defendant did not notify us when he returned. Mr. Painter brought the jockey hat and gaiters to our house, and I first saw them there. I saw the blankets which were brought back ; they were common government blankets. I observed marks of blood-spots on them and they presented the appearance of having been washed. Our family, Dr. Saddler, Mr. Buckingham and Mr. Turner, all saw the blood marks. The marks of blood were on both blankets. Defendant said he had killed a pig on the road to St. Joseph, and as they were about to be caught with it by some person passing, they threw it into the wagon upon the blankets. The second time I asked defendant about the pig, he said John (deceased) killed It. He did not say what further they did with the pig. He said brother got tired of riding in the wagon, and when they got to Ulmer's Bridge they camped there for the night. He said they stayed there Sunday afternoon also. The bridge called Ulmer's Bridge is about nine miles north of Maryville, in Nodaway .County. The next morning the defendant started back with the team and brother went on. He said when he last saw brother he was on Ulmer's Bridge, and he said he was going to the plains or the Missouri River, and did not know that he should ever return. Defendant said he brought two revolvers back, but that they both belonged to him and brother had none. He said he bought the revolvers of Matthew L. Davis. After this conversation, when I next saw defendant, he came riding back, called me and asked me if I thought he had killed him. I told him I did not know that any one had accused him of doing so. Afterward, while going from court here, I asked him if he thought I would ever see John again. He said he thought not, but that he was still living. About one month before they went for the apples, defendant was at our house and brother was asleep on the lounge. Defendant then remarked to me that he intended to have some money if he had to kill somebody for it. We had been talking about our money affairs. In the spring of 1868, about eighteen months after brother's disappearance, I first heard that a skeleton had been found north of Maryville, and that it was in possession of Dr. Mulholland. I came to see it and examined the skull, the jawbone and other principal bones. I noticed in the jawbone that the first molar tooth, first one on the right side, had been drawn. The general features of the skull and jaw bone resembled brother's. He had a full forehead, and the point of his chin-bone stuck out on the right side. His cheek bones were high. I observed on the point of the chin-bone of the skeleton that it stuck out on the right side. Brother, when alive, had tusks ; the cuspid or canine teeth, in his upper jaw, stuck out from the others on each side. In this skeleton I observed the same peculiarity respecting these teeth. Brother had a tooth drawn in the spring of 1866. It was the first molar tooth in the jaw on the right side. I know, because before he had it drawn, it ached, and I often filled the cavity of it with cotton steeped in creosote. When brother had it drawn, he brought it home and it was preserved. I have it here. (Tooth produced.) The tooth was drawn the last of March or the first of April, 1866. (Here the jaw bone of the skeleton was shown to the witness.) I recognize this as the same jaw bone that I saw at Dr. Mulholland's. I had heard of no peculiarities about the skeleton before I saw it. I think I told some one before I had seen it, that if it was the skeleton of my brother, it would have about it certain peculiarities. When I first saw the skeleton, Dr. Mulholland shook the bones of the rieht foot out of the rieht boot. I then observed a ridge or seam across the second and third bones of the toes. When my brother was in the army in South Carolina, he cut his boot in that place with an ax, and was disabled for service, and in consequence was discharged. (A blouse button, a piece of blouse and some hair were here shown to the witness, and identified by him as the same that were found with the skeleton.) I found one large white button and two smaller ones. The large one was lost ; it was of the common kind. The smaller buttons were of pearl, with a crease or rim around the edge.

Cross-examined. - I saw brother the evening before he left. He had sold about one-fourth of the brick. There might have been as many as one hundred thousand. Father corrected brother in the spring of 1866. Brother did not strike him with a chair, he merely pushed him with it. Brother did not afterward threaten to leave ; the difficulty was settled between them. Before defendant spoke to me about whether I thought he had murdered brother, I was not aware that any one had accused him of doing it. We thought something was wrong, and Dr. Saddler and Mr. Buckingham brought defendant over to our house to make some explanation about John's disappearance. We then asked the defendant how the blood got on the blankets, but did not accuse him of murdering brother. I do not remember that defendant and myself ever had any difficulty. My feelings toward him are such as any one might entertain toward the murderer of his brother. Prior to the time of brother's disappearance defendant and I were intimate friends. I remember the prominence on my brother's chin, by his once having said in Tennessee, when we were in the army, that he could shave better if it were not for the knot on his chin. I never knew that defendant was instrumental in having me accused of larceny in St. Joseph.

George M Ringgold, sworn : I live about ten miles north of Maryville, in Nodaway County, on the Maryville and Hawleyville road. Some time between the first and the middle of September, 1866, while going up the state road, I saw the defendant. He was going northward and overtook me. He asked me if I had seen any horses, as he had lost his near Wakefield's. He said he had been "teaming." He asked me if I had seen two men who had been looking for a man who they supposed had been murdered. The defendant told me he was the man whom they suspected of having committed the murder. They had had him arrested, he said, and brought before a court in Iowa, but being able to prove nothing against him, were compelled to discharge him. I was not acquainted with the defendant at the time. Mother had seen the two men of whom he spoke, but I had not. She had seen them about a week before.

George L. Ringgold, sworn : I live twelve miles north of Maryville, in Nodaway County, Missouri. I lived there in 1866. I met the defendant on Sunday, about the 20th of August, 1866, between 1 1 and 12 o'clock in the forenoon, one mile and a-half north of my house. He was driving an ox team. The cattle were red and about three or four years old. The wagon was covered. It was an old wagon. I observed the form of a man covered up lying in the wagon. I was going at the time, in company with my son, to visit another son. The next morning I met the same wagon south of Ulmer's bridge, about one-fourth of a mile It was between 8 and 10 o'clock in the forenoon. I saw no one then but the defendant in the wagon. At the time I recognized him to be the man whom I had met the day before. I live north of Ulmer's bridge one hundred and fifty or two hundred yards. No one lives near the bridge on the north side. I can see it from my house. The night after I first met the defendant, no campers stopped between my house and the bridge. I know this, because I carried water past there late in the evening. When I first met the defendant, I asked him if he would sell the cattle. He said he would not, as they were not his. I remember the time of seeing the defendant, because a few days afterward William RCallicutt and another man cam a there hunting a missing man.

James Worth sworn : I resided in 1866, about ten miles north of Maryville, and about a mile and a-half north of Ringgold's. I saw the defendant on Sabbath morning, in 1866. He was driving a yoke of red oxen, a little north of the school house. I got into the wagon and rode with him about half a mile to Judge Morehouse's, when I got out. The wagon was covered up toward the hind end, and had a high seat. There was some one lying in the wagon under the covered part, with the blankets drawn over him. I heard the defendant say to him, "John, get up and drive ; I do not want to drive past the school house." The person spoken to said, "You can drive as well as I can." This was about nine o'clock in the forenoon on Sunday.

Dr. Mulholland sworn: I was living in Maryville in 1868, when a part)' of surveyors found the skeleton. A wagon was sent out, and it was brought into my office. I have since kept the most of it in my possession. William R. Callicutt called at my office to see the skeleton. I showed it to him. I showed him the bones which I took out of the right boot. I think this was the first time they had been taken out. I examined the bones, and then thought there was a scar on them. Some bones naturally have ridges on them. I could not detect any ridge on the toe bones of the skeleton.

Dr. J. G. Saddler sworn : I knew the defendant and the deceased in 1866. I saw and examined the blankets which were brought back by the defendant. One had the appearance of being stained with blood. The spot was near one end, and was the size of my two hands. Sometime about April, 1866, I extracted a tooth for John T. Callicut, I think the next to the last one in the lower jaw - the wisdom tooth had not then appeared - but cannot say from which side. Defendant told me he

Jefferson Kelly sworn : I knew deceased and defendant in 1866, and knew that they started to Missouri for apples some time in August of that year. I lived near them. I left the neighborhood on Friday, August 18, 1866, and did not return until the Monday evening following. Defendant was then at home, and I saw him on next day, Tuesday. Defendant came to me and asked me why Thomas Kelly and William R. Callicutt went to Missouri. I replied, they went to see if they could get any information of John T. Callicutt. Defendant then said,, there had been a horse stolen down in Missouri, and they had better be on their guard, as they were after the thief, and if they caught the boys, they would punish them. Defendant said when John T. Callicutt left him he was well and hearty. I then asked him how the blankets came to be bloody. He said he and John killed a pig, and were about to get into a scrape in consequence thereof, and they covered it up with the blankets to conceal it. He said that he and John took an oath that neither should tell which way the other went, nor write home. This conversation took place at a store on Wednesday.

Testimony For The State

The testimony for the state closed here. The defense opened by the introduction of the deposition of Jonas Edenfield. The purport of his testimony, and that presented in some four or five other depositions offered in evidence, tended to prove that John T. Callicutt, had been seen by different parties after the time of his alleged murder, and that he had gone to the mountains to seek his fortune in pursuance of his intention expressed to the defendant at the time they last parted. The deposition of Edenfield was taken at Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas, in August, 1868 :

John Edenfield's deposition : I am well acquainted with the defendant, Solomon McAlpin. I have known him for six years. I knew John T. Callicutt also ; I first became acquainted with him in 1862. I resided then about three miles north of Hawleyville, in Page County, Iowa. During the winter and summer of 1862, I was with him almost every Sunday. He assisted me in selling a load of apples at a camp meeting below Hawleyville in the fall of 1863. I enlisted in the volunteer service, during the late war, as a private in what was known as the Black Horse Battalion. I enlisted late in the fall of 1863. When I left home to enter the service, John T. Callicutt was living at home. I did not again see him after I left home, until I met him between Cheyenne and the Black Hills, at what is called the Half Way Point, or Little Jack's Ranche, close to what is known as the Man's Head, in Dakota Terri- tory, near the Colorado line, on Crow Creek, and on the main road from Cheyenne to the coal diggings and pineries of the Black Hills, in Colorado Territory. I was then attending to the bar, at Little Jack's Ranche. I there met John T. Callicutt on the 29th day of December, 1867. I know it was on that day, because it was on the day before last Christmas. He came to the ranche from the direction of Denver City, Colorado. He came about ten o'clock in the morning and remained until about half past one, in the afternoon of the same day. While he was there, I gave him three or four drinks at the bar. We had a long talk about old times and acquaintances. During the conversation, I called him John Callicutt. While he was there, we ate dinner together, and I made a great many inquiries of him, in reference to mutual acquaintances in Page County, Iowa, and particularly about my fathers family, and my relatives with whom he was acquainted. When he came to the ranche, he was traveling on a mule, and appeared well dressed. I observed him have twenty dollars. He was about twenty years old. I am positive he was John T. Callicutt.

Henry A. Huston's deposition : I am a printer by occupation, and reside in Hawleyville, Iowa. I was intimately acquainted with John T. Callicutt. I last saw him on the 17th of August, 1866, in my store in Hawleyville. About four weeks after defendant and Callicutt went for the apples, I went to St. Joseph. On the way I passed Savannah, and near the old Nebraska Hotel, my companion called my attention to a person. I checked up the horses, and observing the person alluded to, thought to myself it was John T. Callicott. Knowing the trouble about his absence, I felt some interest in identifying him. I began to get out of the wagon, but before I had done so, the person commenced walking rapidly away, and passing between two buildings on the north side of the square, disappeared. My companion in the wagon was Dincbaugh, but I have forgotten the last name. The person supposed to be John T. Callicutt was standing, when I first saw him, on the porch of the hotel. It was after sundown when I saw him. I am not positive it was John T. Callicutt ; but, to the best of my belief, it was he. Afterward, a conviction was gradually induced in my mind, by the talk about his death, and the circumstances connected with defendant's return, that I was mistaken.

Daniel G. Goodman's deposition : I live in Hawleyville, Iowa. I saw John T. Callicutt in August, 1866. After that time I saw a man I thought to be he, about a mile below Savannah, Missouri. I was about one hundred yards distant from him when I saw him. It was about noon. Then, there were three wagons standing near the roadside. I drove up to within fifty yards of them. There were several other persons with him. They were all seated around the tail-gate of the wagon, which they were using as a table, and were eating their dinner. My two little brothers were sitting on the rear end of my wagon. I spoke to them and said, " What is that ?" They spoke and said, " It is John Callicutt." I then drove up within twenty-five yards of them and shouted : " Hallo! John Callicutt." He then jumped up, ran behind the wagon close to the rear wheel, and began dancing. I then drove on, but kept watching him till I had gone about one hundred yards. He then went and sat down at the table again. I thought he did not want me to see him. I felt certain at the time that the person was John T. Callicutt. Nothing has since changed my opinion, except the reports of his death.

James B. Goodman : I reside in Hawleyville, Iowa, and am twelve years old. I was with Daniel R. Goodman, my uncle, and William Goodman, when we saw a person about a mile from Savannah, whom we thought to be John T. Callicutt. We approached within fifty or seventyfive yards of them (three men) and Uncle Daniel asked us who one of them was ? We told him we thought one of them was John T. Callicutt. Presently that one jumped up and ran behind the wagon. I think before he ran behind the wagon, uncle shouted to him : " Halloo ! John Callicutt." The party addressed then commenced dancing and kept looking at us over the wheel. We were within thirty-five yards of him. From his size and manner of acting, I thought it was John T. Callicutt.

William Goodman, a lad fourteen years of age, who was with Daniel B. Goodman and James E. Goodman, testified in his deposition to the same facts as his brother, James E. Goodman.

Mary E. Spalding's deposition : I live in Hawleyville, Iowa, and was acquainted with John T. Callicutt. About the 15th of August, 1866, I think it was on the day before he went away with Solomon McAlpin, I had a conversation with him at our house. He came there and said he was troubled. I asked him on what account. He said he was going away to be absent three years ; that he was going to make money, and did not care a d - n how he made it ; that he did not intend his mother to be fretting after him any longer; that he was a poor, worthless cuss, and nobody seemed to care for him ; and that perhaps if he would go off and return with plenty of money he might be respected.

Sarah McAlpin, sworn : The defendant is my son. It was some time in the fall - I do not remember the year - defendant and John Callicutt went for the apples. It was between sundown and dark when they started. My son, Robert, the defendant, and John T. Callicutt were in the wagon together, and when they went John T. Callicutt left at our house his cloth gaiters and a black jockey hat, but nothing more. He directed that the gaiters and hat should be sent to his mother. He wore away a pair of boots that belonged to the defendant. The boots were of common, coarse leather; the tops were of one piece. The boots had been placed in his bed room, and when I came home at night 1 exam- ined them. They had been greased. I asked the defendant why he had greased them, and he replied because he had sold them to John T. Callicutt. Defendant returned from his trip for apples on Monday about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. I saw some blood on the wagon cover, but none on the blankets. Defendant told me they killed a pig and threw it on the wagon sheet. The blankets were left out that night after his return, and it rained on them. Mr. Painter, at the request of the Callicutts, took the blankets, the hats and the shoes on Wednesday morning after the defendant had returned. John T. Callicutt, when he left, had a goods box for a mess box. Old Mr. Callicutt called my attention to the box, and the name, John Randolph, upon it. About three months before they went for the apples John T. Callicuct left a letter at our house for his father, and then went to St. Joseph, where he remained about a week. I went part way with Mr. Kelley to the funeral in Peoria. When we started we passed Callicutt's. John was sitting on the fence. I told him not to go for the apples until I returned. He said he thought he would not go until I returned, as William R. Callicutt had to collect some money for him. On Thursday, after defendant returned, Dr. Saddler and Mr. Buckingham came for him to our house. I knew of no difficulty existing between John T. Callicutt and defendant at the time they went for the apples. The latter was often at our house, visiting the defendant. Defendant, when he left, wore a soldier's blouse with one .button. The button was a large black one, which I had taken off of his father's coat, and sewed on the blouse just before he left. On this account I am positive as to the appearance of the button. It was stamped with flowers. Defendant brought home a blouse, but not that one ; he said he had exchanged with John T. Callicutt. The wagon sheet hung on the front fence for several days, and the blood on it any one passing could have seen.

Cross-examined : It was on Friday we started to Peoria. I only went to Ouincy. I came back on Saturday, and the boys started on that day, between sundown and dark, for the apples. Defendant had worn for about one month the boots which he sold to John T. Callicutt. I do not know what kind of a hat Callicutt wore when he left, but defendant wore a woolen one. Callicutt wore away a white linen coat, but I did not see him have a blouse. Callicutt did not have much money when he went away. Defendant had two dollars and a-half, which he had received of Callicutt for the boots. Defendant told me that Callicutt informed him on Sunday night after they left, that he did not intend to buy apples ; that he was going to the plains, and come back when he got money, but that he might never come back. They went two miles that night, and on Sunday to Ulmer's Bridge. There they parted on Monday, about ten o'clock in the forenoon. Defendant is twenty-three years old, and enlisted in the army in 1862 or 1863.

James McAlpin sworn : I am the brother of the defendant. I know when he and John T. Callicutt started for the apples. It was on Sunday, but the month and year I have forgotten. John Callicutt bought a pair of boots from brother Solomon. They were coarse, heavy boots ; he left at our house, when he went away, a pair of old gaiters and an old jockey hat. The tops of the boots were all of one piece. I saw him have the boots on Saturday, the day before he left. He put them on. About two or three weeks after they had gone for the apples, my brother and I went down into Missouri, and our horses got lost, two or three miles south of Mr. Deck's.

Dr. Mulholland called for the defense : There are from four to five cusps on the first and the second molar tooth. When there are three cusps on the outer edge of the face, there are generally two on the inner edge. After a tooth has been extracted the cavity left in the jawbone by its roots will generally close up and disappear by absorption, in from three to five months. The rule in respect to the chin bone is, that the angles on each side in front, just below the eye-tooth, are equally prominent on each side. There is a very marked protuberance of the bone on the right chinbone of this skeleton. Perhaps not more than one person in every hundred has such a one. I have examined about two dozen skeleton, but never observed such a protuberance on any of them. The cavity in this lower jawbone, where the first molar tooth has been extracted, is almost entirely closed.

William Hurst, sworn : I now live in Andrew County. Was with John T. Callicutt three years in the army, and know him well. I cannot state positively that I saw him about September I, 1866. On that date I was going from Andrew County to Iowa, horseback, and about nine or ten miles below Maryville I crossed a slough, and passed two men in a spring wagon, at the distance of thirty or forty yards. One of the men called out tome, " How are you, Bill Hurst ?" It was my impression at the time that the person who thus addressed me was John T. Callicut. After passing me, he turned his head and looked back at me. When I reached Iowa I learned of his disappearance, and being asked if I had seen him, I made the above statements.

Cross-examined : Callicutt's hair was of a darkish brown, (the hair found with the skeleton was of a lightish brown - the color might have faded by exposure.) It was about the color of Col. Hepburn's hair.

Verdict

The jury retired at eleven o'clock, on Friday night, and ;it noon on Saturday returned their verdict, finding the defendant " guilty of murder in the second degree," and fixing his punishment in the penitentiary for ten years. In the afternoon, the defendant was arraigned to receive

The Sentence

Solomon McAlpin, it now becomes the painful duty of the court to pass upon you the sentence of the law. Twelve men, selected alike for their honesty and unbiased purpose, acting moreover under the solemnity of their oaths, have sat with patience throughout your protracted trial, and heard the testimony for and against you. They have found you guilty of murder in the second degree, and fixed the period of your imprisonment in the penitentiary. Whether you are guilty of the heinous crime charged against you, can be known beyond the possibility of a doubt only to yourself and to the Searcher of all hearts. Let me say to you there is no human sin, however dark, that may not be pardoned, and if you have, indeed, imbrued your hands in the innocent blood of your fellow-being and your friend, though you may choose that the secret of that crime shall forever rankle unrevealed in your own heart, yet I trust you may find repentance, and in God's mercy be forgiven.

Your father and mother, and your young wife, all bound to you by the strongest chords of affection, having followed you here to stand by you in this last desperate crisis of your fortunes, have thus became., unwillingly, the painful witnesses of this final spectacle of your infamy.

It is the sentence of this court, that the sheriff re-conduct you to the prison whence you came, that he thence take you under safe conduct and deliver you to the warden of the penitentiary of this state, and that you be confined therein, at hard labor for the period of ten years.

By a recent merciful provision of the law, if you continue exemplary in your deportment while there and render perfect obedience to all the rules of the prison, when you have served out three-fourths of the period for which you have been sentenced, the warden may recommend you to the governor who is empowered to discharge you for the remainder of your term. You can gain nothing there by obstinacy or disobedience. Guard well, then, your conduct, and keep this advice in remembrance.

Tansey Tragedy

14 All murders past, do stand excused in this, - And this so sole, and so unmatchable, Shall prove a deadly bloodshed hut a jest, Exampled by this heinous spectacle."

One of the most diabolical murders known to the annals of this state, was committed in this county near Burr Oak Grove, about the 1 8th day of August, 1872.

On the 20th day of August of that year, as James Griffey was passing a mover's wagon on Clear Creek, some four miles southeast of the town of Clearmont, in Atchison Township, his attention was attracted to the wagon by a peculiar and disagreeable odor which was emitted therefrom. He discovered that the wagon had been tecently left, by some one, and concluded to examine it and discover, if possible, the cause of the terrible stench. On lifting the cover of the wagon, he beheld the decomposing bodies of five human beings ; two men, one woman, and two small children.

Shocked, as he was, by this terrible discovery, Mr. Griffey knew that the person lately in charge of the wagon, and who had left it standing where he had found it, must necessarily know something concerning the dead bodi.-s, and being apprehensive that such person had attempted to abandon the wagon with its contents, and effect an escape, he at once aroused the neighborhood and informed the people that a mysterious crime had been committed in their midst, and that search should immediately be instituted to discover, it possible, the perpetrator.

Parties started to the town of Clearmont, where it w as supposed the party lately in charge of the wagon might be found. On their arrival at that place, it was ascertained that a stranger had been there having a neckyoke repaired ; that this stranger was at the time somewhat intoxicated, and that he might still be found in the town. The stranger was soon pointed out to those in search, and was immediately taken into their custody.

The news of the awful discovery spread from one to another, until the entire population of Clearmont looked and wondered. Business was for the time suspended ; hasty inquiries were made on all sides. Citizens might have been seen hurrying about hither and thither to learn the details of the startling transaction. The frightened housewife looked in vain into the excited face of her husband to decipher there what had happened. Household duties were forgotten. The windows and doors of that little village were filled with women and children, while from many a threshold the anxious inquiry went forth - "What does this all mean ?"

Quite a number of citizens repaired with the prisoner to the place where Mr. Griffey had found the wagon. The prisoner refused to disclose anything upon the subject. On the way from Clearmont, many questions were put to him, but he refused to answer or talk about the persons found in the wagon. When the part}- reached the spot where the wagon stood, they began to look about the grounds surrounding it. There they discovered that the prisoner had broken his neck-yoke while attempting to cross a ravine. By the side of the wagon lay an ax with which he had tried to mend it. While thus looking about, the prisoner sprang to get the ax, which lay within a few steps of him, but was pre-

The enraged citizens now determined to extort from their sullen prisoner, some intelligence concerning the bodies found in his wagon. A few had favored burying him with the unfortunate ones found in his possession ; but it was suggested that all hope of getting a statement from him was not exhausted, and the better counsel for the time prevailed.

After the last sad rites had been performed for the dead strangers, and the day was drawing to a close - a day during which the blood of the angered citizens had been greatly excited - a party of men might have been seen on Clear Creek adjusting a rope over a limb of one of the forest trees which skirt its margin.

The prisoner was a witness of that proceeding. When the rope was properly adjusted, the noose prepared, the prisoner was told to prepare for the worst ; that if he had anything to say about the dead people found in his wagon, he would have an attentive audience. He still obstinately refused to answer any questions, or to reveal what, if anything, he knew concerning their death. He was then told to step under the limb, the noose was placed about his neck, his arms were pinioned, and, without further ceremony, his body was suspended in mid-air until his life was almost extinct. He was then lowered to the ground and allowed to revive sufficiently to talk, when a few leading questions were put to him concerning the dead parties. He again refused to divulge anything. The rope was again adjusted, and his body suspended. This process was continued with solemnity and severity, until the prisoner signified his willingness to tell what he knew about the matter.

The prisoner said that his name was Osburn ; that the parties found in his wagon were Ormes, his wife, and their two little children, and a man by the name of Daniel Dickerson. He stated that all of these parties had been killed several days prior at Holton, in the State of Kansas, by a man named Joseph Williams ; that the cause of the murder grew out of a love affair between Williams and Mrs. Ormes. He stated that Williams had followed the family from the State of Minnesota to Kansas with the avowed purpose of killing them ; that after he had murdered them, he had employed him, Osburn, to put them out of the way, and had paid him the sum of seven hundred dollars to do so. He said that he left Holton, Kansas, with the dead bodies, intending to throw them into the Missouri River, but was unable to reach a point on the river where he could do so unobserved ; that he crossed the Missouri

River at White Cloud ferry, traveled through Holt County, and penetrated this county to the point found without finding an opportunity to unload them without being detected. He said that he had supplied himself with whisky at Quitman, and, to kill his remorse and deaden his sensibilities, had drank freely since he left that place, and had thrown the money he received of Williams a\va\' by the roadside, between Quitman and the place where the wagon was found.

This story appeared unreasonable. The prisoner was suspended once more by the neck until his life was almost gone. When he recovered he repeated substantially the same story as first narrated.

A consultation was held by the parties in charge of the prisoner, in which it was decided that there might be some truth in what he had told them, in which case it was highly important to effect the arrest of Joseph Williams before the news of the discovery reached him at Holton, Kansas, where it was presumed he was. To add to the precaution in this respect it was decided to keep from the public, so far as possible, what .the prisoner had told them. Several persons were started on the back track, said to have been traveled by the prisoner, to discover the truth or falsity of his statements. The sheriff of the county was notified to go to Kansas in search of Joseph Williams, while, in the meantime, certain persons were delegated to take charge of the prisoner and await developments.

Many difficulties surrounded those who were left in charge of the prisoner. The whole country for miles around was wild with excitement. It would not do to take the prisoner to Clearmont, or even to one of the dwelling houses in the neighborhood, on account of threatened violence to his person and life. It was imprudent to tell a curious and excited public all the facts they had learned from the prisoner ; his statement might be disbelieved, and only tend to heighten the great danger of his immediate execution. So it was determined to take the prisoner into the heavy timber just east of the Nodaway River, and there conceal him until the truth or falsity of his statement had been ascertained.

Accordingly, the prisoner was concealed in the Nodaway River bottom, the greater part of two nights and one da}-, awaiting the return of those who were following his trail. The prisoner was closely guarded, and was frequently moved from one bend in the river to another through the underbrush, to avoid the threatened violence of the people.

This action, commendable as it was upon the part of those in charge of the prisoner, had a tendency to increase the excitement of the people. The news of the murder had traversed the country in every direction, and hundreds of people flocked to the scene of excitement. Strange rumors were circulated among the throng concerning the action of the guards. It was openly asserted by some that the prisoner was a

As ridiculous as such an assertion may seem, there were those who breathed the breath of life and were said to walk in the image of their maker, who actually believed such assertions were true.

As time rapidly passed the prisoner began to grow apprehensive, and on the morning of the second day of his confinement made known the falsity of his first statement to his guards. He then acknowledged to those immediately in charge of him his guilt, and stated that his only reason for making the first statement was to obtain time. He was conscious that the truth would be discovered, and seemed to dread the return of the parties from Kansas, who were hourly expected. He desired to be taken to some private place, where, sheltered from the fate which now seemed inevitable, he might write out his full confession.

The guard then took the prisoner to the dwelling of William S. Lamme, where, in an upstair room, he spent the forenoon in writing the details of his dark crime.

What a pitiful sight ! and how pitiable his condition ! He had sown the wind and must reap the whirlwind. The storm was gathering thick and fast about him, and must soon break forth with terrible fury over his head.

By noon three or four hundred men from far and near had gathered around the dwelling which shut out from view the cool, calculating manslayer. The party had returned from the search upon the prisoner's trail. They spoke forth the falsity of his first statement to the public. At Burr Oak Grove, some six or seven miles southwest of Quitman, they had discovered the camp where the two men, the woman and little children had yielded up their lives to satiate the thirst for blood of the imprisoned demon. Their statements sent a thrill through that swaying mass of people. Not a few were the curses breathed forth and threats of immediate and dire vengeance upon the prisoner were heard upon all sides. Minutes seemed hours. To those who had been mislead by the falsehoods of the prisoner, his promised written confession seemed valueless. Calls were made for the murderer to come out and state in the presence of the people what he had to say. The prisoner was lead out on the front portico of the dwelling, and there, surrounded by some of the most resolute citizens to prevent his being killed, then and there, in plain, measured tones, he told the multitude how he, alone, had murdered the five human beings found in his wagon. He there gave his name as Alexander Worth Tansey. He stated that he had a wife and mother-in-law living near Mount Ayr, Ringgold County, Iowa ; that he had been in Kansas, and there fell in company with the murdered family ; that he was traveling with them to his home in Iowa. He said he was out of money., and while in camp at Burr Oak Grove the thought possessed him that he could murder all of the parties with whom he was traveling and thus get possession of their property. At the time, he, with Daniel Dickerson, was sleeping in the front end of the wagon, while Ormes, with his wife and their two children, were sleeping at the . rear end. While thus lying in the wagon beside his companion, Dickerson, he drew his revolver and shot a ball threw him, killing him instantly; that Ormes then sprang forward and received a ball from his revolver in his breast. A hand to hand scuffle ensued, during which both he and Ormes fell out of the wagon upon the ground ; that he then struck Ormes in the head with the ax and ended his life. About this time Mrs. Ormes became thoroughly aroused and was screaming for help. To stifle her cries he sprang into the wagon, struck her on the head with the ax and then cut her throat from ear to ear. He said he then killed the two little children in the same way ; that he then proceeded to arrange the bodies in the wagon so he could cover them up. He said he tried to lift Ormes into the wagon, but being almost exhausted he could not succeed. He then took the ax and cut his body into two pieces and then put them in. He stated that he alone was guilty of the crime and felt that he more than deserved death ; that he only wished to see his wife before he died.

It may here be stated that some of the guard, on learning the facts from the prisoner, some time before he made the above statement public, had sent to Mount Ayr, Iowa, for his wife, and that the prisoner was anxiously expecting her to come to him.

It would be useless for the historian to attempt to describe the effect this statement made upon the crowd that listened to its narration. All the doors of the dwelling below had to be closely guarded for some time after the prisoner had disappeared from the portico above. Many wanted to take him from the house by force and hang him to a tree in the yard, but the friends of Mr. Lamme and his family, in unmeasured terms, denounced such action as rash and not to be thought of. Towards evening the excitement seemed to abate to some degree, and the officers of Atchison Township took charge of Tansey and removed him to Clear- mont, en route for Maryville. But the people were so incensed at the atrocity of the crime, which certainly has never been exceeded in the West, except by the Bender tragedies, that they rose en masse and took him from the officers and hanged him to a tree on Clear Creek, just south of the beautiful village of Clearmont.

Thus was expiated one of the foulest murders that ever occurred in the state. The people of Atchison Township and the county at large are as law-abiding a people as can be found in Missouri, but this atrocious deed seemed to transcend human endurance, and an outraged people meted out swift justice.

The bodies of the unfortunate innocent murdered people were sadly buried in a land of strangers to them. A subscription was raised, and a tablet, with an appropriate inscription, was erected over their graves.

After Tansey was dead his head was severed from his body, and was conveyed to Maryville, where it was preserved for some time in alcohol. A negative was taken of his head, from which many photographs were taken, that were said, looked quite natural. Afterwards the head was sent to the city of New York for dissection. His body was buried near the tree where he was hanged.

Some days after his execution Mrs. Tansey came to Clearmont from Mount Ayr, Iowa. She was kindly received by the people, but when she learned the character of the crime committed by her late husband, she stated that she would leave him where a just vengeance had consigned him, and returned to her home at Mount Ayr, Iowa.

Description of Tansey : Alexander Worth Tansey was about forty years of age ; about five feet four inches in height ; his weight was about one hundred and thirty-five or forty pounds. His head was the most prominent feature of his general make-up - it was quite large for a man of his size, and strange to say, to all appearances, seemed reasonably well balanced. His forehead was of medium height, square, and presented a deep, thoughtful appearance. His mouth was small and lips thin. His eyes were black, keen and restless. His hair and chin whiskers were black. His complexion was a swarthy brown or Mexican tint. Upon the whole, there was naught in his general appearance which Avould at once indicate such animal instincts as he surely possessed. His conversation was fluent, voice low, and his general demeanor evinced much travel and experience. But little is known of his past history. He was a man of great firmness and much nerve.

The Assassination Of Nicholas Leehmer

Few homicides in Nodaway County have been perpetrated from more unaccountable motives or been attended with circumstances of deeper mystery than the murder of Nicholas Leehmer.

He was a German by birth, and, with his wife Eva Betta, and an only child a son, David, removed from Buffalo, New York, to the State of Illinois, in the year 1865. Subsequently, the family went to St. Joseph, Missouri, and, in the latter part of the year 1870, they moved from that city to Maryville, in Nodaway County. In this last place they resided one year, and then changed their residence to the country - first locating near Platte River, in the eastern part of the county, and afterwards settling upon an eighty acre tract of land in the Nodaway River valley. This land was the north half of the southwest quarter of section No. 36, in township No. 64, of range No. IJ, about one mile southwest of the

On their removal from Buffalo, they were accompanied by a young man, likewise a German, by the name of Martin Fluegal. Mrs. Leehmer had known him from his early boyhood. He was at the time of his tried, hereinafter detailed, about thirty years of age. He was of commanding personelle, being nearly six feet erect in stature, of dark complexion, regular features and of quiet unobtrusive manner. There was little of the emotional in his disposition. He was a fine type of the stolid German temperament. He seemed to have been greatly attached to the Leehmer family. He first left Illinois and was followed*by them to St. Joseph, where he lived with them about a month. During their stay in Maryville, he was a boarder in their house. In 1871, his father and mother, an aged couple, came from Buffalo to Nodaway County and purchased a farm, and Martin went to live with them. Shortly afterwards, Nicholas Leehmer bought the land we have described. It lay contiguous to the Fluegal farm on the west. During the stay of the Leehmers in Nodaway County, John Sweitzer and his wife, Mary, the latter a sister of Mrs. Leehmer, lived in Maryville.

Martin's father died some time in the year 1873. After this event, Martin boarded part of the time with the Leehmers. At the time of the death of Nicholas Leehmer, however, he was living with his mother, near the Sweitzers, in Maryville. The house they occupied contained but one room, and was situated a short distance south of what is now called the Maryville Hotel.

At the time of his death, Nicholas Leehmer lived in a small, onestory frame dwelling, containing only two rooms. The house stood lengthwise east and west, near the north line and northwest corner of the east forty acres of his farm. It was surrounded by an enclosure containing a few acres. From the west room, the only outer door of the house opened toward the south. On the last Thursday preceding the date of his death, Nicholas Leehmer brought his wife to Maryville to visit her sister, Mrs. Mary Sweitzer. He returned home that day, promising to come back again on the Tuesday following, to take his wife home. On Sunday, March 8, 1874, the boy, David Leehmer, left his father at home at 8:30 o'clock a. m., and started to Maryville, where he arrived about noon. John Sweitzer and wife, Martin Fluegal and Mrs. Leehmer and David dined that day at the residence of the Sweitzers. Immediately after dinner Martin went to his mother's. David Leehmer's mother endeavored to induce him to return home Sunday afternoon, but his aunt, Mrs. Sweitzer, prevailed on her to allow him to remain with them Sunday night. Martin Fluegal was s/en at two o'clock in the afternoon of that day at the brewery, half a mile south of Maryville, then owned by Wm. Guller. He left there a little while before sundown. He admitted that he rode out west of Maryville, on the road going to Anderson Cameron's, but stated that he had been out to Wm. Bosley's, who lived half a mile northeast of Nicholas Leehmer's, on the preceding Saturday to collect some money due him from Mr. Bosley ; that he had stopped on his return about two miles west of Maryville, when he dropped his pocketbook. This pocketbook he first missed on Sunday, at the brewery when he went to pay for his beer, and that he went west two miles Sunday evening to get it.

On Sunday, March 8, 1874, Nicholas Leehmer was observed at home at different times during the day. He was last seen alive just at sundown of that day, by his nearest neighbor, Mr. Green Cameron. Sunday night was clamp and somewhat cloudy. There was no moonlight. The roads were muddy and freezing slightly. Between 9 and 10 o'clock of that night a single report of some kind of firearms was heard in the direction of the house of Nicholas Leehmer. Five or six parties, coming from the church at Valley school house, a mile and three-quarters southeast from Leehmer's, heard the shot. The neighbors living southwest and north of Mr. Leehmer's house likewise heard it. The concurrent evidence of these witnesses established the fact beyond doubt that the report came from the house of Leehmer. Shortly after this report was heard, a horseman was seen galloping past the residence of Anderson Cameron, who lived on the road leading from Leehmer's house to Maryville. The night was dark and the witness could not identify the strange horseman.

On Monday morning, March 9th, a neighbor called at the Leehmer house on business, about 9 o'clock A. M. The door was slightly ajar. The dog jumped at him near the house. A little lamb put its head out through the partly opened door ; the witness thrust it back and closed the door. He supposed the family were absent visiting. Other parties passed near the house on Monday. The cattle were lowing for feed, and all appearances indicated the absence of the proprietors. On Monday at twilight Mrs. Leehmer and her son, David, who was about thirteen years old, returned from Maryville to their home. They found the door closed. They opened it. The lamb jumped out as they entered. The room was dark. Mrs. Leehmer, supposing her husband had retired to sleep, felt for his head upon the pillow of the bed which stood in the northwest corner of the west room. Her hand touched his forehead - it was icy cold. Nicholas Leehmer was dead ! She immediately dispatched her son to alarm the neighbors. A large 'number speedily gathered there. They found the deceased lying on his back in the bed. A red coverlet was drawn over him - a pillow lay upon his heart. His arms were straightened down and pressed upon his sides. He had on a shirt and a short woolen jacket. His drawers were rolled up and thrust between his lower limbs as if to gather the blood. His pantaloons and other cloth- ing were hanging on the bedpost. A hole appeared in his shirt, near the left side, in front. Around this hole was a distinct appearance of powderburn.

On removing the shirt, a gunshot wound was discovered three inches below and two inches to the right of the left nipple. It wasprobed to the depth of twelve inches. The ball had sped downward, passing through the stomach, duodenum and aorta. He could not have survived more than ten minutes after receiving the wound. The blood had flowed freely, saturating the thin undress just beneath the wound, and settling in a large pool on the floor below. A few inches east of the bed, a blood-stain as large as a hat-crown was found, and close to it appeared the print of a human foot in blood stain. It had been made by a bare foot. Near the door, in the middle of the south side of the room, began a train of blood - specks which extended to near the bed. Near the partition door opening from the west room into the east room was found a large spot of blood. Close beside the cupboard in the southwest corner of the east room on the floor were two small spots of blood. No firearm or weapon of any kind except the table-knives was found in the house. Death could not have resulted from any suicidal act.

The deceased had no money before his death. There was no evidence of any struggle with a foe. The facts disclosed indicated that some person, actuated by motives of malice only, had approached the house under cover of the night, and called the deceased up from his bed. As he opened the door the assassin, perhaps sitting on his horse, fired the deadly shot. His victim, no doubt, leaving the door unshut, ran into the east room to the cupboard, with the intention either to escape further harm or to procure a knife with which to defend himself. Instantly becoming faint from his wound, he escaped to the bed, standing beside which he must have paused a moment, probably, to insure his chances, and staunch the blood, then lying down upon the bed, he drew over him the coverlet, and in a few minutes was a corpse.

An inquest was held over the body on Monday night. Martin Fluegal was at once suspected, and on Tuesday evening, the ioth of March, he was arrested in Maryville by Henry Nelson, the marshal of the town.

When taken in charge by the officer, he betrayed no signs of fear. On being asked if he did not think it rather a serious affair, he simply answered "Yes." He was arrested at his mother's house. The house and his person were searched, but no firearms could be found. He made no statements tending to commit himself.

On the 19th of March, 1874, he was indicted for murder in the first degree. Mr. Horace M. Jackson was then prosecuting attorney. At this term of the court a motion was filed by Major B. K. Davis, who defended the prisoner, to quash the indictment. This motion was considered by the court at the July term of that year, and sustained. The defect was purely technical. A second indictment for murder in the same degree was prepared against him July 15, 1874, to which he entered a plea of not guilty. The trial commenced in two days afterwards, and lasted till July 21st, when the jury brought in a verdict, after being out a short time, finding the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree. When this verdict was read, the defendant displayed little outward emotion - a slight pallor overspread his features. He was a stoic by nature.

A motion for a new trial was filed by Major Davis July 24. This motion the court took under advisement to September 9th, following, at which time an adjourned term was held. His honor, Judge Henry S. Kelley, was then on the bench. After careful deliberation, he sustained the motion. The evidence, though it pointed strongly to the defendant as the guilty perpetrator of the crime, was yet not of that indubitable and conclusive character which the law required before it declared the life of the defendant forfeited. Public sentiment during his trial had been strongly against him. Many expected, after his conviction, that he would make confession of the murder before the time for considering the motion for a new trial should arrive. In this they were disappointed. No admission of guilt escaped his lips. On the contrary, he stoutly maintained his innocence with great apparent sincerity. During his imprisonment his conduct had been unexceptionable, and after his conviction up to the time a new trial was granted him, a period of fifty days, his fortitude was of the most remarkable kind, and created among his friends strong sympathy in his behalf.

His second trial commenced March 24, 1875. A new prosecuting attorney had been elected - Mr. Cyrus A. Anthony. He was assisted, on the part of the state, by Mr. Horace M. Jackson.

Strenuous efforts were now being made by the friends of the accused. Mr. Lafayette Dawson and Mr. John Edwards were retained to assist Major B. K. Davis in the defense. The trial was conducted with great energy and earnestness on both sides. Much interest was manifested in its issue by the public.

In addition to the facts already detailed in relation to the murder, it was proved by the state that on Tuesday morning, after the killing, a horse had been hitched near the northeast corner of the fence enclosing the lot around Leehmer's house. The tracks of this horse showed he had been newly shod.

These tracks were followed. They lead in a southeasterly direction from Leehmer's house, then northward and out at a gate belonging to Anderson Cameron. The same kind of tracks appeared in the road leading eastward toward Maryville, next Mr. Cameron's house.

In the spring of 1872, he had been heard to say he would shoot Leehmer's heart out. Once he had interfered to prevent Leehmer from beating his wife. It was attempted to be shown that defendant and Mrs. Eva Betta Leehmer were improperly intimate.

A coat was found, in the spring of 1875, a little west of White Cloud Creek, on the road leading from Anderson Cameron's to Maryville. Several witnesses testified their belief that it was defendant's coat. It was a brown woolen coat, much soiled by long exposure, and had blots on it feintly resembling old blood stains.

Defendant had been heard, a short time prior to the commission of the homicide, negotiating the purchase of a pistol. His horse was bespattered with mud as it stood in his stable in Maryville on Monday morning after the murder.

A large blood stain was found on his saddle blanket. It appeared to be the print of a bloody hand. The blanket was examined on the day of his arrest. It was also proved that defendant's sorrel horse, which he usually rode, was accustomed to go in a lope rather than in a trot, and that he had been shod with new shoes March 1, 1874. The statement made by defendant that he had been out to John Clark's, near Leehmer's, on Saturday, March 7, was shown to be untrue. He was not at Clark's till Monday, March 9. William Bosley also denied seeing him on Saturday, the 7th of March.

On the other hand the defense offered evidence to show that defendant and deceased had been on friendly terms after the happening of the difficulties shown by the state. Mrs. Leehmer, about five months before this last trial, married a man named Hertzberger. She showed no attachment for defendant after his arrest. Her intimacy with defendant she positively denied. Another coat, similar to the one produced by the state, was introduced in evidence, and shown never to have been lost by defendant. It was proved that numerous herders, or cow boys, while tending their cattle in the valley of the White Cloud Creek, were accustomed to use old coats while camping out, and that they sometimes cast away on the plains. About the month of May, 1874, Judge Samuel Kennedy found an old coat near where the witness for the state said they had picked up this coat, offered in evidence by the state. The coat seen by Judge Kennedy lay about on the prairids for a long time, and was very similar to the coat offered in evidence by the state. Mary Fluegal, the mother of defendant, swore positively that Martin came home at eight o'clock on Sunday night, March 8, 1874, and that he slept all night in the single room occupied by them. A respectable witness in Maryville called on Martin about five o'clock on Monday morning, the 8th of March, and conversed with him, asking him for a loan of some hay.

Witness then went to Martin's stable and found his horses all there in good condition. A skillful tailor measured the old coat offered in evidence by the state, and also the person of this defendant, and pronounced the coat entirely too small. Defendant attempted to try on this coat in the presence of the jury, and gave ocular demonstration to them that it was many sizes too small.

Several physicians testified as to the impossibility of determining whether the blotches on the old coat were blood stains ; much less could they say that they were stains made by human blood.

After the close of the evidence the case was argued at length on both sides. After the close of the arguments, the jury, after being out about forty-eight hours, announced to the court that they could not agree, and were therefore discharged. Nine of them were in favor of acquittal, and three were willing to render a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree.

The defendant had now been imprisoned a year and twenty-three days. The prospect of the further continuance of his incarceration ; the uncertainty of the issue of a third trial ; the anxiety he must endure in the interim, and the earnest persuasion of his friends after the failure of the jury to agree this last time, induced the defendant to consent to to enter a plea of guilty in the case to manslaughter in the second degree, which the law permitted him to do under an indictment for murder in the first degree. This plea was accordingly entered April 2, 1875, and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of five years.

He served out three-fourths of his time, as fixed by the sentence, and was then pardoned by the governor for the remainder of the time, the law of this state permitting such pardon in case the defendant deports himself correctly during three-fourths of the period for which he is sentenced.

On the evening of the 21st day of April, 1877, during the hour of twilight, Master F. M. Sharp, a lad about the age of twelve years, who resided with his parents in the town of Maryville, Missouri, near the Valley House, while engaged in playing at his home, missed his pet rabbit. After having searched every nook and corner in the house in the vain hunt for his rabbit, he finally concluded that the object of his search might be found under the house. So believing he continued there his explorations. While upon his knees, peering about in quest of the animal, he saw, as he thought, a bundle of rags, but upon taking hold of it and examining it more closely, he found to his great astonishment, that the supposed bundle of rags contained the body of an infant child, which had apparently been dead about four weeks.

Its lower limbs and body were wrapped with raw cotton and rags, while over all was fastened a portion of bedticking and a flour sack. The face was bare around the nose and mouth. The eyes were open and the mouth closed. Stains of blood were observed upon its right shoulder and right ear, under which and over the jugular vein was a small incised wound. Its neck presented a livid hue, evidencing that strangulation had been produced by the ruthless grasp of a brutal hand. Every appearance indicated that the little waif had been foully murdered by some one who was not humane enough to give it even the semblance of a Christian burial. The tattered and faded habiliments which partially concealed its nudity, bespoke the extreme poverty of its parentage, and its diminutive proportions and delicate form showed that its existence here had been but brief - its lamp of life being scarcely lighted ere it was extinguished forever.

Whence came this atom, this speck of humanity, which had hitherward drifted and found an accidental lodgment ? What cruel hand had done the deed ? Who was the mother with heart so adamantine and soul so bereft of motherly instinct, that could thus destroy and abandon her own offspring? These were the questions which propounded themselves to the horror-stricken persons who had gathered there in the gloaming immediately after the discovery of the child.

About a month previously to the facts above narrated, the house under which the dead body was found had been occupied by a family who had lived there until the 25th of March. With this family resided a woman, whose name was Nancy Cornell. She was handsome, thirty-one years of age and unmarried. Suspicion at once pointed to her as the probable mother of the child and perpetrator of the dark deed. She was arrested and taken before Stephen Morehouse, a justice of the peace, where she had a preliminary examination. At this trial she made a confession, acknowledging herself to be the mother of the child, but implicating another party as the murderer.

At the June term of the Circuit Court she was indicted, tried and convicted for the murder of her child, and sentenced to the penitentiary for ten years. While incarcerated in the jail, she made another confession or statement, full\- exonorating the party whom she had implicated in her previous confession, and taking the entire responsibility upon herself. The second confession or statement made by her (wherein it was believed, at the time, that she had given the facts in the case), is substantially as follows :

"I make this statement before God. The child was mine. It was born on Thursday in the forenoon, when I was alone. I murdered it by choking it, about one minute after its birth. I concealed it in the bed until Sunday morning, when, secreting it under my clothes, I took it out just before daylight and put it under the house. 1 laid it on the ground and pushed it under with a stick. Mrs. Snyder was there on the day on which the child was born, but not till after its birth. She had sent me some medicine. I told her that I had been chilling. During her visit the child was at the foot of the bed, wrapped in cotton, bed-ticking and a flour sack. When the child was born, I intended to burn it in the stove, but my heart failed me. I was moved to another bed, but kept it concealed under my dress. I sent Bill for a pencil, as I wanted to write a note to the priest, whom I desired to send me something to eat, and wanted Mrs. Snyder to see the priest for me. I belong to the Catholic Church, and have made a confession to the priest, since being in jail. I was strong enough to walk just after the occurrence, and was only deceiving my sister and brother-in-law. When we lived in the Thil House, I was able to get up, but feigned illness to conceal my condition, The statement made by me before Mr. Dunn was partly false. No one has tried to force me to make this statement. Mrs. Snyder told me to tell the truth. George Middleton told me to feign insanity, but this I could not successfully do."

The impelling motive to the deed was that of shame, and in her desire to conceal from the world the evidences of this shame and infamy, she did not hesitate even to commit the crime of murder, her victim being the innocent offspring of her own flesh and blood.

There being two or three persons jointly indicted with Nancy Cornell, there were several lawyers in the case. The prosecution was conducted by John Edwards, Esq., who was, at the time of the trial, prosecuting attorney.

The Hogan Homicide And Otto Sharp Trial

On the 9th day of October, 1879, a sad tragedy occurred at Burlington Junction, in Nodaway County, which gave rise to one of the most interesting criminal trials ever conducted in the county. From the record of the case we find the facts connected with the homicide were as follows :

On the afternoon of the 8th day of October, 1879, a man by the name of Otto Sharp was charged with the commission of a felony - forgery - alleged to have been committed that day. The justice (Henry F. Barker) issued a state warrant for his arrest and delivered it to John O. Adams, who was at that time acting as deputy constable of Lincoln Township. Adams, in company with Isaac Weddle, started from Lamar Station, for the purpose of arresting Sharp. Soon after their departure, the justice learning that Sharp was a dangerous man, and that he would not be arrested without great caution and difficulty, in company with P. P. Fox, Hiram Fox, James George and one William Brown, also left Lamar Station, to join Adams and Weddle in making the arrest. Adams and Weddle arrived at Burlington Junction a short time after dark, and learned that Sharp was somewhere in the town. They instituted immediate search for him, and while so doing, they met with Martin Edward Hogan, who at that time was a resident of the town, and who had been acting in the capacity of constable. Adams informed Hogan of their business, and requested him to look out for Sharp and arrest him. Hogan joined in the search, and continued with them until midnight, when he (Hogan) retired. During the earlier hours of the night, Sharp was seen several times at a livery stable owned by the Ball Brothers, in the south part of the town, where he made arrangements for a team, stating that the Lamar Station men were after him for forgery, and threatened to "hurt them," if they attempted to arrest him, and pulled out of his pocket a revolver and kissed it.

Between 12 and 1 o'clock in the night Adams and his men learned that Sharp, in companv with Zopher Bull, (one of the stable men), had gone from the stable in a buggy, in an eastwardly direction, toward Maryville. A portion of the posse of men started in pursuit, while Adams and others went to the house of Solomon Scull, where it was supposed Sharp would go. This house was in the opposite direction from that taken by Sharp and Bull, and about two and a-half miles northwest of Burlington Junction. After waiting and watching at Scull's for some time, Adams, with two men, started north on the road to Lamar Station. At a point one mile north of Scull's they met Sharp and Bull. Adams commanded them to halt. They urged forward their team, running the buggy against one of the men in pursuit, knocking him out of the road, then drove south toward Scull's and Burlington Junction at full speed. Adams and his men gave chase. At this point and for more than a mile south the road is narrow, heavily timbered on each side, and runs along the summits of the bluffs which skirt the west bank of the Nodaway River. The constable was unable to overtake the buggy, and although he pushed his horse to his fullest speed, Sharp and Bull crossed the river and reached Burlington Junction in safety. Here Sharp jumped from the buggy and made his escape.

The parties in search were unwilling to give up the prize. The town was again hunted in every direction. Baker and Hiram Fox chanced to come upon Sharp who was, at the time, making his way to the stable mentioned. Barker again commanded him to halt. Sharp drew a revolver, fired two shots at Barker, and then wheeled and fired two more shots at Hiram Fox. Barker and Fox retreated toward the west, while Sharp passed on in the direction of the stable. Sharp here met William Brown, and told him to go and tell Adams and his posse if they would go away and let him alone, he would appear before the justice the next day, but if they attempted his arrest that night, he would kill the man who attempted it. While these incidents were taking place at the stable, Barker went to the room of Hogan, aroused him from sleep and informed him that Sharp was in town, telling him, also, of what had occurred, and requested him to assist in making the arrest. Hogan dressed himself and accompanied Barker to the place where Adams and his men were. At this moment Brown came from the stable and told what Sharp had said. When Hogan learned where Sharp was, he said he could arrest him without any trouble, and immediately started towards the stable, followed by Adams and Barker. On his arrival there, Hogan inquired of James Ball concerning Sharp. He was told that Sharp had just gone out of the stable to the east, and not to follow him, as he might get hurt. Hogan turned, and while walking away from the stable, saw Sharp and called to him to stop, telling him that he wanted him. Sharp answered with an oath, " take me !" Three shots were then fired in quick succession. Adams and others appeared upon the scene and found Hogan and Sharp on the ground, Hogan holding Sharp on his back, while Sharp was endeavoring to point a .revolver at Hogan's heart. Adams took charge of Sharp and disarmed him. Hogan remarked he was wounded, and requested them to send for a doctor. He was carried into the stable some thirty feet distant and placed on the office bed, where he remained in a suffering and semi-unconscious condition until three o'clock in the afternoon of October 9th (the second day), when his brave spirit winged its flight beyond this earthly sphere. The wound causing his death was in his inner left thigh, the ball passing near the bone downward and outward, over the space of about seven inches and severing the sciatic nerve, which caused almost immediate paralysis, resulting in death, before reaction could be effected.

On the 19th day of January, 1880, in the Nodaway Circuit Court, before H. S. Kelley, judge, Otto Sharp was put upon his trial on an indictment charging him with murder in the first degree. The trial lasted some eight or ten days, developing the facts above narrated. Great interest was manifested in the trial throughout The prosecution was conducted by W. W. Ramsay, Prosecuting Attorney of Nodaway County, and his law partner, John Edwards, Esq., who presented the theory that Sharp had committed a felony, by forging certain time checks ; that he was attempting to make his escape and was resisting arrest for the commission of such felony ; that any officer or private citizen had a right to arrest him for such crime, and to use all force that might be deemed reasonably necessary for that purpose ; that Sharp wa.s conscious of his crime, and that duty demanded his capture ; that Sharp should have submitted to the commands of the law, and that his resistance was without just provocation and highly criminal.

First. That Sharp did not know the object and purpose had in view by Hogan at the time, and that he acted in the lawful defense of his person.

Second. That Hogan's death was occasioned by the unskillful treatment of the doctor who attended him, rather than from the wound received at the hand of Sharp.

The jury found Sharp guilty of murder in the first degree. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed and overruled. Otto Sharp was sentenced by the court to be hanged on the 26th day of March, 1880. The defense were not satisfied with the result. The cause was appealed to the Supreme Court, where in the month of April, 1880, it was submitted to that court upon briefs, prepared by W. W. Ramsay, with Attorney General J. L. Smith, for the State, and by Scribner R. Beech and L. M. Lane, for the defendant.

The decision of the court was awaited with much interest. " Abhorence of the crime seemed to be giving/ place for compassion for the prisoner." Many were the petitions circulated throughout the country addressed to the governor of the state for clemency to be used in case the decision of the trial court was affirmed. All but three days of the respite were gone, and the sheriff of the county, Henry Toel, was making preparations to carry the death sentence into effect, when the decision of the Supreme Court was announced, reversing the judgment of conviction, and remanding the cause for re-trial.

The point of reversal seemed to be, that the trial court had misdefined the word " deliberately " in an instruction to the jury. The word had been defined to mean "intentionally, purposely, considerately, therefore, if the defendant formed a design to kill, and was conscious of such purpose, it was deliberate ;" whereas, it should have been defined to mean, "that which was done in a cool state of the blood."

At the June term of the Nodaway County Circuit Court, the cause again appeared in the trial court. Sharp filed a motion, supported by the affidavit of himself and two others, for a change of judges. H. S. Kelley granted the motion, and Cyrus A. Anthony was selected to act as special judge for the trial of the cause. Sharp then filed his application for a change of venue from Nodaway County, alleging that the prejudice of the inhabitants was against him. His application was granted and the cause transferred to the Atchison County Circuit Court.

In September, 1880, the cause was again tried at Rock Port, before Cyrus A. Anthony, judge, by L. D. Ramsay, Prosecuting Attorney of Atchison County, and John F. Lewis for the state, and Scribner R. Beech, L. M. Lane and William Herren, for the defense.

This trial resulted in the acquittal of the defendant, Otto Sharp, who, less than one year before, rightfully or wrongfully caused the death of Martin Edward Hogan ; who had been once convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree ; whose life and death turned upon so slight a pivot as the definition of a single word, was again a free man.

It is said that a subscription was raised for him after his acquittal in Rock Port. He was the first person sentenced to be hanged in Nodaway County.

The Talbott Boys

The first legal execution in Nodaway County took place July 22, 1 88 1, at Maryville, when Albert P. and Charles E. Talbott suffered the extreme penalty of the law for the crime of murdering their own father. As this criminal case has awakened such a public interest in this and adjoining states, we have compiled a synopsis of the case as part of the history of Nodaway County.

Dr. Perry H. Talbott, who was shot about seven miles south of Maryville at his own house, September 18, 1880, was born in Fairfield County, Ohio, February 5. 1827. He received a good education as he grew to manhood, and was graduated in 1849 with honor at the Sterling Medical College, at Columbus, Ohio. Early the next year he started to seek his fortune, and found a home and friends in Northwest Missouri. In the year 1852, he joined a throng of gold seekers, then crowding to California. The next year he returned to Missouri, and soon after his return met Miss Belle McFarland, of Page County, Iowa, and in April, 1854, the two were united in matrimony.

Dr. Talbott might be termed a typical man of the border. He was fond of cards, and tradition gives him skill in their manipulation. As a physician, his reputation spread far and wide, and when the country was new and thinly settled, his professional visits extended for miles in every direction. Dr. Talbott and his old gray mule are historical figures in the annals of Nodaway County. He rapidly accumulated property, and became quite prominent in local politics, representing his county in the Legislature during the years of 1856-7. During the war he espoused the side of the Union, and was surgeon of the Twenty-fifth Missouri Volunteers.

After the war he again entered the political arena and became an aspirant for congressional honors. He was a candidate before different conventions, but failed of a nomination. In 1876, he became prominently identified with the Greenback Labor movement. He was a man of more than ordinary ability, and possessed an indomitable will. He had a high ambition, but was not devoid of egotism. In person, he was tall and of rather commanding appearance, his hair and beard as blackas the raven's wing. As a friend and neighbor Dr. Talbott always stood high among those who knew him. As a husband and father he seemed to lack affection, and his home was the abode of discord. His children grew up neglected, no care being given to their temporal welfare or