USA > California > Santa Barbara County > History of Santa Barbara county, California, with illustrations and biographical sketches of its prominent men and pioneers > Part 103
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105 | Part 106 | Part 107 | Part 108 | Part 109 | Part 110 | Part 111
on his back on the ground. Sprague said that he then said to him, with some other epithet, " God damn you, die." And that he suited the action to the word, and put a rifle-ball through his head into his forehead, which put an end to him And that standing over him long enough to know that lite was extinct, they turned around to go back. Sprague said he had become exhausted, and Churchill and Curlee had to hold him up and assist him back. That he had broke down on account of his lame back.
lle said that as they passed More's barn in return- ing, the rest of the crowd joined them; and that they returned to their rendezvous, separated, and each went home. Ile said that the murder occurred about twelve o'clock; that Charles MeCart returned with them to the rendezvous. That their disguise consisted of a common flour-sack. with holes cut in it for the eyes, nose, and mouth, which was put over the head and shoulders, one of which he showed me. and said that it was such a one as worn by the party who did the killing. That a common gunny or bur- lap sack, bottom upward, was put over the shoulders. arm-holes being cut in the corners, and was drawn down over the body.
Ile said that they were bound to secrecy by an oath, and that the penalty for divulging who done the killing was instant death. Hle remarked that he expected me to observe the oath: but I neither took any oath, nor promised him that I would keep his secret.
My reason for not making this known to the Grand Jury, during the session of the Grand Jury last June, when I myself was a member, was bec use one of the party implicated by Sprague, to wit, Jule Swan- son, was a member of the same Grand Jury. And I did not then feel that the time had come for me to tell what I knew. I thought then that the whole mat- ter would ultimately come out; and I would not then be without corroborating evidence. As to MeCart. the theory then attempted to be established was false, except as to his participation in the killing; and while I was satisfied of it. yet there was no evi- dence, in my judgment. introduced before us sufficient to warrant us in binding bim over.
N. H. INICKERSON. Sworn to and subscribed before me on this the 30th day of March, A. D. 1878.
N. BLACKSTOCK, Notary Public.
The stories of Brown and Hickerson had not at this point been made public. The prosecutors and detectives, however, had the matter well in hand and had in view the furnishing of such evidence as would, without any doubt. establish the guilt of the murder- ers in the minds of a jury. One of the parties impli- cated in the affair, Jesse M. Jones, was but twenty- three years of age, and was considered as being led into the conspiracy, rather than fomenting it. From some indications and words let fall, it was believed that under assurance of protection and ultimate par- don, he might be indneed to turn State's evidence. An interview was brought about between L. C. Granger, and Mr. Ganahl, the assistant council on the part of the prosecution, and Jones. It may be observed here that Jones had no knowledge of the matters revealed by Brown and Hickerson, and consequently could not have been in collusion with them, but the story he told of the murder substantially corres-
56
438
HISTORY OF VENTURA COUNTY.
ponded in all particulars with the statements of Brown and Hickerson, except as to the names of some of the parties present.
The parties implicated according to the statement of Brown, were F. A. Sprague, J. T. Curlee, Jesse M. Jones, Jule Swanson, Henry Cook, and J. S. Churchill.
According to Hickerson, they were F. A. Sprague, J. T. Curlee, Jule Swanson, J. S. Churchill, Charles McCart, and I. D. Lord.
According to Jones they were F. A. Sprague, J. S. Churchill, Charles McCart, I. D. Lord, W. Hunt, J. T. Curlee, and himself.
These statements, while agreeing about the facts of the murder, are contradictory as to the persons engaged in it, a material divergency, truly, as there was no doubt of the murder or the methods by which it was accomplishel. The object of the trial was to identify the parties committing the murder.
On the preliminary examin tion, H. Cook and J. A. Swanson were discharged, Charles McCart and W. -HI. Hunt being arrested during the hearing as accom- plices in the murder. The Grand Jury was organized the following June, and returned a true bill against F. A. Sprague, John Curlee, Jesse M. Jones, J. S. Churchill, Charles MeCart, W. H. Hunt, and I. D. Lord.
The lawyers for the prosecution were J. G. How- ard, Frank Ganahl of Los Angeles, L. C. Granger (acting District Attorney), W T. Williams, N. Blaek- stock, and B. T. Williams of Ventura.
The counsel for the defense were J. D. Fay, Creed Haymond. and W. Allen, from abroad, and J. D. Ilines, J M. Brooks, and N. C Bledsoe, local talent.
The names of the jury were W D. Baker, G. W. Faulkner, W. II. Arandel, J. H. Mccutchen, David McKec, M. J. Laurent, W. S. Mahan, M. Prince, A. W. Alvord. J. J. Sheridan, G. K. Truesdale, and R. M. Haydock.
Eugene Fawcett presided over the court. The prisoners demanded a separate trial. Regarding this demand the acting District Attorney. L. C. Granger, said:
As acting District Attorney I regretted this sever- ance, knowing well that it would exhaust the finances of the county, and accumulate a large burden upon the people, who had been impoverished greatly by the total drought of the previous year, and extensive failure of their erops the present season. But above every other consideration, I thought, as the event fully demonstrated, that the jury-material of the county, being very limited, would be exhausted before the conclusion of the several trials; and that as the State could not obtain a change of venue, and none of the defendants would under any circumstances move for snch a change, a trial jury of unbiased men, other- wise qualified, could not be procured in the county to try at least one-half the defendants; that, in faet, they could not be tried for years, without some ac- tion of the Legislature providing for this exceptional case. The whole number of eitizens upon the as- sessment roll of the county did not exceed 650, of
whom a majority could be challenged successfully for cause, and 120 peremptorily by the six de'endants -one of the seven being discharged from the indict- ment to become a witness for the State-and the peo- ple had sixty peremptory challenges. In the forma- tion of each trial jury a panel of 100 jurors was in fact exhausted. And the truth is that after the first two trials, to wit: of Sprague and Curlee, in the July term, 1878, we had really in this county not a sufficient number of competent jurors to form another unbiased trial jury. The evidence had all been published and commented upon in our local papers. Parties had been formed, the lines drawn and sides takeu; and there was quite a large element, constituting about one- third of the population of the county-not more- actively participating with the defense and working for their acquittal. Of this third, some few openly justified and applauded the foul murder of Mr. More, on the ground that, as they alleged, he had unjustly claimed more land than belonged to him. and had harassed defendants with vexatious litiga- tion, impoverishing them and their families; others, that they would not believe the evidence of men who had broken their word, as was insisted, to the defend- ants, by disclosing statements made to them under the strictest confidence; and still others, who were interested with defendants by former friendship, business, and social relations; and, as the defendants and their partisans had votes, nearly every office- seeker and office-holder in the county, with a few striking and honorable exceptions, espoused the cause of the defense, after the conclusion of the July term of the Court. Without even insinuating a sus- picion of the honesty and moral integrity of many of those who have taken sides with the defense, I do most solemnly declare that the major part of the sympathizers do not comprise the better and higher elements of society in this county,-those elemen's that ever form around the nucleus of justiec. law, and order, as the foundation of all social peace and prosperity. And I do further declare, as my de- liberate judgment, that a large majority of the good people of this county stand with the prosecution in the belief of the guilt of F. A. Sprague and the fel- low conspirators led by him to the commission of the murder, and jointly indicted with him. The Spanish- American portion of our population, comprising one- sixth of our whole number, the most disinterested judges in our midst of the evidence and the faets of the ease, have been and are now to a man in favor of the prosecution.
When the eriminal calendar of the July term was called by his Honor, the Judge, the acting District Attorney announced that the prosecution was ready to proceed to
THE TRIAL OF F. A. SPRAGUE.
The defense moved for a continuance, upon the affidavit of defendant, setting forth the absence of one Frank Davis, a material witness, by whom he expected to prove that on the night of the murder Davis was stopping at the defendant's house, and would swear that defendant was not out of the house that night. The State interposed counter-affidavits tending to show that said Frank Davis, who was well known, had left the country a long time previously, and that defendant had formerly stated that none but his own family were staying at his house that night. The Court refused the motion for continu- anee, and ordered the eause to proceed.
The social standing of the murdered citizen; the
439
MURDER OF T. WALLACE MORE.
strong league and confederation of the wicked men that committed the atrocions crime, quite powerful in so small and isolated a community as this one is; the abilities and fame of distinguished counsel arrayed in the-none the less momentous because a civil -- conflict; the great consequences to society and the individuals acensed which were involved in the pending strife; and the consummate skill displayed by the veteran leaders on both sides, in marshaling the moral forces of the facts and issues in the absorb- ing and protracted struggle-gave a tone and charac- ter to this remarkable contest rarely equaled-at least within the State of California. The gentlemen composing the jury that tried the case of F. A. Sprague were all, with a single exception, I believe, farmers, and of excellent reputation and high moral and social standing, and the other was a printer and editor by profession, prudent, intelligent and greatly respected.
The order of evidence as introduced by the State was :-
First. The introduction of evidence to the mi- nutest details as to the scene of the murder and the circumstances accompanying it, as seen by the par- ties present in the employ of More, and by those who visited the scene in the carly morning succeeding the homicide.
Second. The evidence that connected Sprague with the events.
Third. The corroborative evidence.
Hickerson died previous to the trial. so his affida- vit was produced. also the testimony given in the preliminary examination before Judge Carlton. The testimony was complete, not a link being wanting. The discrepancy as to the different parties engaged seemed to have arisen from the fact of the disguises having been assumed before they came together, only two or three being cognizant of all the persons.
The defense formed no theory of the murder. the strongest attempt being made to break the testimony of Hickerson and others of the State's witnesses. It was alleged that Hickerson was drugged. weak- minded and an imbecile at the time he made his affi- davit, and also at the committing examination. If so, it was a curious imbecility that could weave a fic- titious narrative into events that were as complicated as they could well be. The testimony of Jones was impeached, also some of the members of the family swearing that his reputation for veracity was bad. The jury, however, brought in a verdict of murder in the first degree.
Curlee was next tried, and found guilty, with pun- ishment at imprisonment for life.
Lord was next tried, with some additional testi- mony, regarding a visit to More's sheep camp the evening before the murder. The jury in his case disagreed.
At the time the last jury was empaneled. the three trials had exhausted about all the available ma- terial for a jury. Nearly every man had taken sides, so that it wasknown on which side he was-on the side of the law, or as an apologist for the murderers.
The acting District Attorney even asserted that many of the men had been trained so that they could be admitted to a jury, even with a positive opinion. Some even openly justified the murder, after leaving the jury room.
SENTENCE.
The sentence pronounced. August 5. 1878, by Judge Fawcett was as follows :--
"F. A. Sprague: You have been convicted of the highest offense known to the law. You were skill- fully defended at the trial; every device was ex- hausted to save you, but a jury of your fellow citizens bas pronounced you guilty of the great crime with which yon were charged.
" In the dead hour of the night, you, the leader of a masked band of assassins, applied the torch to the premises; and, as he started, half-naked, into the light of the flames, you closed upon him and shot him near to death. He attempted flight; you pur- sued; he fell before you with a pleading voice that should have found pity for him out of a heart of iron, but you remorselessly riddled him with bullets, as you would the carcass of a dog.
"There is no language strong enough to depict the atrocity of such a deed. Your guilt is as clear as evi- dence can make it. You probably thought you would be upheld by the community in which you lived! Thank God, you are mistaken! There are but few monsters to appland the act.
"The result of the trial proves that we are yet governed by law; that we are a community of en- lightened human beings, and not a society of savages.
" The law has seized yon, and by the voice of twelve good men. holds you in its inexorable grasp to pay the dreadful penalty of your crime.
"Let your fate be a warning that justice is sure to follow crime-sometimes traveling slowly, with leaden heel, but striking with an iron hand.
"I will not affect for you a sympathy I do not feel. There is no point in your case for sympathy to grasp a1. so far as you are concerned. I feel deeply for your faithful wife and children. They are the ones who need, who receive, the sympathy of all kind hearts. It only remains for me to formally conclude this painful duty. The judgment of this Court is. that on Friday, the 27th day of December next, be- tween the hours of 10) A M., and I p. M., you be hanged by the neck until you are dead; and may God Almighty have mercy on you!"
The court adjourned for the term. During the interval following the term. a new phase was put on the trials that were to follow. Mr. Granger gives the following account of the
JONES' DEFECTION.
The court now stood adjourned for the term. The three trials had protracted the July session into near the middle of August. The State's witness had been discharged from the indictment for more than a month. and was maintained as an indigent witness in criminal cases at the expense of the county, his per diem allowed by the Court being $1.50. He had no means of livelihood; his young wife was staying in the family of her father, in the Sespe settlement. He himself was debarred access to that family by his wife's father, on account of betrayal of his con- federates in the crime. The future looked gloomy to
440
HISTORY OF VENTURA COUNTY.
him. In his trouble he resorted to me for counsel. He proposed to leave and go with his wife to San José, where his father lived, but would require $100 in money to effect that purpose. I inquired of him if he understood blacksmithing, to which he replied in the affirmative. I recommended him to pursue that trade, and that I would try to get him a situa- tion in that business in Santa Barbara or Los Angeles, knowing that he had a brother living at the former place, and a relative, a Deputy Sheriff, residing at the latter place. I made arrangements, shortly, for him to take his wife and go to Santa Barbara and work at his trade there, enlisting some gentlemen here from that place in his behalf, as a poor, penitent creat- ure, desiring, by a life of good conduet in the future, to atone for the crime into which he was induced by older men, some of whom were old enough to be his father. He was freely forgiven by the relatives of the deceased and all good citizens, upon his promise of reformation, and had he accepted my advice he would have received all necessary charitable aid at Santa Barbara. When I made known to him this arrangement he gave his assent to it, but as I then thought a little reluctantly. Still I believed he would follow this advice.
At this time he was in that state of uncertainty and doubt as to the best course to pursue for the future that he could be readily controlled by men of stronger will and superior intellectual powers. It was on the evening of the 13th of August. Nathan Stone, whom he personally liked, and who had been requested, with the witness' free approval, to keep him company during the month occupied by the trials, and see that no harm befell him, of which he seemed apprehensive, from any one of the numerous friends and relatives of the defendants in the town; and to see also that no one should talk with him out of his hearing, so as to prevent all misrepresenta- tion-this young friend of his had left the town and gone home, And on the evening afterwards, Jesse tell into the hands of the men of stronger will -- men the most seductive in manners and persuasive in address. He was led, soon after dark, by W. W. Allen, into the august presence of Fay, Haymond, and Brooks, of counsel for the defendants, and others, at their little parlor, No. " 22," in Brown's Hotel, in this town.
When it was reported that Jesse was there, the prosecution, thinking it might be a simple courtesy on the part of Allen inviting him there, sent a re- speetable young man, whose brother is married to Jesse's sister, to Brown's with a message to Jesse, that some parties desired him at once at Ayers' Hotel upon important business. The young man proceeded there at once, meeting the proprietor, Brown, at the foot of the stairs, to whom he stated his mission, and that he heard Jesse was in room " 22." The propri- etor warned him not to go there, saying. " Weare all armed and will shoot; you had better not go, we will make you sick." He went, knocked at the door. which was opened by Allen; behind him stood Fay. They demanded his business; he replied that a person wanted Jesse at Ayers' Hotel. They said, " Jones is not here;" enrsed bim and threatened violence if he returned. But Jones was there at that time When the real situation became known in town there was
GREAT EXCITEMENT.
Sentinels were placed near the room to take note of what was passing. A serious riot and bloodshed were imminent. It was now generally supposed that the
State's witness was restrained of his liberty against his will. I was proceeding to sue out a writ of habeas corpus. The counsel for the defense got word of it, and Fay and Allen came out with him on the street. They had him in that room for three hours that night, and-Jesse was debauched. He avoided the friends of the prosecution; was surrounded and caressed by those who had gnashed their teeth upon him; was borne in triumph to the Sespe; received with open arms to the houses of his father-in-law and of the defendants; made an affidavit that all he had sworn to was false; and promised to work for the defense. He was from that time provided with means and a comfortable living; has now his own pre- emption elaim among them, with houses upon it, and is worth several hundred dollars, with a good main- tenance for himself and little wife for the past year -all acquired within the brief period since the 13th of August, 1878, when he broke faith with the State and turned his back upon the righteous course of conduct he had marked out for the atonement of his crime. The unfortunate state of our Penal Code, which makes the discharge of an accomplice, that he may become a witness for the people, unconditional and absolute, enabled this young criminal, under the able advice of the counsel for the defense, to do this thing with perfect impunity, scoffing at and defying the serene majesty of the State.
December 31, 1878, the following affidavit was made public :---
JONES' SECOND AFFIDAVIT.
" Jesse M. Jones first being duly sworn says that on the 28th day of March, 1877, I was arrested and accused of the murder of T. W. More, and put in jail the same day. I was taken to a private room by R. B. Hall. He told me that I would be hanged for the murder of More if I did not tell it. He said that Sprague bad told all about it, and he said that Spragne said I was one of the party, and the only chance for me to get free was to tell all about it. I told him I knew nothing about it. In two or three days after, my wife eame to see me, and they took me to the Palace Hotel to a private room, and then brought my wife and my brother to the room. They told me if I knew anything about the murder to tell it, and then I would be let go. I told them I knew nothing about it, and if I did I would tell it to clear myself. In two or three days, Jonathan Jones came to my cell in jail, and he took me upstairs to the court- room, and told me he came to get me out of trouble. He said the Mores were putting up a job on me, and they could get Spaniards to swear anything for two or three hundred dollars, and they would eon- viet me whether I was guilty or not. And Austin Brown would swear that he saw me that night and knew me; that Brown came to the cottonwood tree to join the party, and they had started from the tree, and he was afraid to call out to them for fear they would shoot him. Jonathan Jones said there was a Spaniard by the name of Leon Neas that would swear he saw me and knew me, and that if I would do as he said, he could get me out in two or three days, and that I could go home to my wife; and that he would give me $300, and in two weeks he would get me $1,000 more, so that I could leave the country if I wanted to, and that there was talk of a mob, and that I was liable to be taken out and hanged at any time.
"I was taken to the Palace Hotel. There I saw L. C. Granger. He told me that he did not ask me
441
MURDER OF T. WALLACE MORE.
to tell the story as a favor-it was only for my own sake. He said he regarded me as a relative-that they had plenty of evidence to convict every man in the jail, and that [confession] was my only chance of escape. And from fear of my life, I told this great story, made from other evidence, thinking I could go. home to my wite; then I could tell why I said it. But as soon as I told the story, they sent me away to Santa Barbara, away from all my folks and friends, and told me if I told any other story, they would use my own testimony against me. And for that reason I have told the same story. BUT IT IS NOT TRUE. 1 did not help to kill T. W. More. 1 was in Pole Canon all that night with John Curlee, and knew nothing of the murder until we came to Mrs. Cook's the next day, about noon.
"JESSE M. JONES.
"Subscribed and sworn to before me, this the 31st day of December, 1878.
" R. C. CARLTON, Notary Public.
This materially changed the face of things. It was deemed best to dismiss all of the cases pending as no others could be convicted without Jones' testi- mony. A great effort was made to have the sen- tence against Sprague quashed.
CASE REVIEWED BY THE GOVERNOR.
The Governor's review of the matter seems neces- sary to complete the history of this celebrated case:
" The history of the case under consideration has been familiar to me since the commission of the atrocious crime, and I, with all other good citizens. desired that law and order should prevail, and the crime receive its just punishment. At the time of the trial of Sprague, Curlee, Lord, and Churchill, I watched it with much interest, and felt that if one was guilty, they all were, and that all who took part in the fiendish murder should receive the punish- ment they deserve. That all the parties who have been accused have been acquitted, except Spragne, should not, I think, have influence with the Governor in determining if this is a proper case for executive clemency. The charge of counsel that the defend- ant has been deprived of legal rights through the prejudice or bias of the Judge who presided at the trial, if true, I think there must be a way to correct by proper petition or affidavit presented to a higher legal tribunal, as I cannot believe that justice in any court of the commonwealth can be so far shorn of the robes of honor and right, that a legal technical- ity can be permitted to deprive a citizen of his life. The great question then presented to my mind, to aid me in arriving at a just termination of the case is, has there been any impeachment of witnesses or new evidence developed since the trial. that would, in my judgment, have induced the jury to render a different judgment had the facts been presented them at the time? The most important witnesses on the part of the State were Brown, Jones, and Hickerson, and their testimony, as received at the time, appears somewhat inconsistent, but it has not been im- peached, and is the same as it went to the jury. We cannot doubt they gave it all the consideration their oath demanded. The testimony, however, of Jones has since been declared by him to have been sub- orned, and false in particulars. The counsel, on behalf of State, have endeavored to show that Jones' first statement about the Sprague case was true, and that he recanted only when his own personal safety
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.