Historical encyclopedia of Illinois and history of Hancock County, Volume II, Part 27

Author: Bateman, Newton, 1822-1897. cn; Selby, Paul, 1825-1913. cn; Currey, J. Seymour (Josiah Seymour), 1844-1928. 4n; Scofield, Charles J. (Charles Josiah), 1853- 4n
Publication date: 1921
Publisher: Chicago : Munsell Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 1174

USA > Illinois > Hancock County > Historical encyclopedia of Illinois and history of Hancock County, Volume II > Part 27

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).

At the March term of the Circuit Court, 1879, Ed Ferguson, Marion Hetrick, Leroy Working and John W. Avey were indicted for the mur- der, and at the June term, 1879, a change of venue to Adams County, Illinois, was granted to the defendants Hetrick, Working and Avey, leaving the indictment as to Ferguson pending in Hancock County, but transferring the cause as to the other three to the Circuit Court of Adams County. This change was granted on the ground of the alleged prejudice of the in- habitants. of Hancock County against the three defendants. The application for a change of venue was vigorously contested by the state's attorney and other attorneys representing the people, but the court, upon full hearing, held the showing to be sufficient.

On July 15, 1879, the board of supervisors of Hancock County authorized and directed William E. Mason, state's attorney, to follow and assist in the prosecution of the cause in the county of Adams, and to use all legal and honorable means to secure a speedy public trial

776

HISTORY OF HANCOCK COUNTY

of the defendants, for which services Mr. Ma- son was to receive from the county a com- pensation of $200 and all his reasonably neces- sary' expenses incurred in the prosecution of the case.

The trial of the indictment against Hetrick, Working and Avey took place at Quincy, in September, 1879. Judge John H. Williams of Quincy presided at the trial. The people were represented by William E. Mason, state's at- torney, of Hancock, William H. Govert, state's attorney of Adams, and Wesley H. Manier, a prominent lawyer of Carthage. The defendants were represented by Draper & Scofield, a firm composed of Henry W. Draper and Charles J. Scofield of Carthage, and by Bryant T. Scofield of Carthage. At the commencement of the trial Bryant T. Scofield was in Colorado on busi- ness, but, after the trial had been in progress for a few days, he returned from Colorado to Quincy, so as to participate in the latter part of the trial, making one of the arguments for the defendants. Mr. Draper made the other argument for the defendants. A large number of witnesses was in attendance from Hancock County and the trial consumed nearly two weeks. A verdict of not guilty was rendered and the defendants were discharged, leaving the indictment pending in Hancock County as to the defendant Ferguson.

The evidence against the defendants was cir- cumstantial, and these circumstances were grouped about the testimony of Ed Ferguson, the colored man, who was indicted for the crime with Hetrick, Working and Avey, but who testified against them upon the trial of the case at Quincy. His testimony was corrob- orated in part, and contradicted in part. It is impossible to say how much or what part of his testimony was worthy of belief. The editor has a copy of his testimony, written out by the re- porter who took down the evidence at the trial, and an abstract of this testimony is given at the close of this article as setting forth the theory upon which the case was prosecuted on the part of the people. After the acquittal of the three defendants at Quincy, Ferguson was tried in the Circuit Court of Hancock County, at the March term, 1880. He was prosecuted by Mr. Mason, the state's attorney, and he was de- fended by Samuel H. Benson, John D. Miller and David Mack, members of the Carthage bar. (Mr. Mack was one of the oldest and ablest members of the bar of this county, and the

father of Judge D. E. Mack of the present bar.)

Ferguson was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for twenty-four years.

George Tarr of Augusta claimed the reward of $500 which had been offered for the arrest and conviction of the murderer or murderers, and, on July 12, 1880, after the conviction and sentence of Ferguson, filed his affidavit in the office of the county clerk of Hancock County, in support of his claim for the reward. In this affidavit, Mr. Tarr recited the fact of the mur- der of Dr. Daniel Pierson, on November 23, 1878, and stated that he had devoted his time to "ferreting out" the perpetrators of the crime, and that, having obtained a clue, he had fol- lowed Ed Ferguson through Iowa to Montrose, near Minneapolis, Minn., where he had arrested him and had obtained the watch belonging to and taken from Dr. Pierson at the time of his murder, and had obtained a confession of his guilt from the said Ferguson, and had brought him to Hancock County and had delivered him up to the proper officer of the county. The affidavit further stated that Ferguson had been tried and convicted at the March term, 1880, of the Hancock County Circuit Court, and had been sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of twenty-four years. Because of these facts the affiant prayed the board of supervisors to pay him the reward of $500.

Mr. Tarr's communication was received by the board, but action was deferred until the next September meeting, at which meeting, the board directed the county clerk to issue to George Tarr an order for $500 on the county treasury, being the amount of the reward of- fered by the board at the December session, 1878. for the arrest of the murderer or mur- derers of Dr. Daniel Pierson, to which, as the resolution of the board stated, "the said George Tarr is clearly entitled according to the con- ditions set forth in said offer of reward."

There seems to be no question whatever as to the guilt of Ferguson. and the only ques- tion was as to how far his testimony could be relied upon as implicating the defendants who were tried at Quincy. The jury which tried the case at Quincy was an average jury, com- posed of ordinarily good men, but the defend- ants had an advantage in Quincy, which they might not have had in Hancock County, grow- ing out of the fact that the principal witness,

777

HISTORY OF HANCOCK COUNTY

without whose testimony a conviction could not have been had, was a colored man.

The testimony of Ed Ferguson in the trial at Quincy clearly showed his guilt, for, upon his own testimony, he sent Dr. Pierson on a visit as a physician to a woman in the country who was not sick, knowing that the parties who were hiring him to call the Doctor out at . night on this errand were necessarily intending to beat or kill him, and that for his part in the crime he was to receive a compensation of $10. One of the strong points in the argument for the defense at Quincy was that a jury should not convict men upon the testimony of a man who swore he had assisted for $10 in kill- ing the murdered man.

The editor, a young man at the time of the trial at Quincy, was connected with the case as being a partner of Mr. Draper. After the trial Mr. Draper talked to the editor more than once with reference to the case, stating that the de- fendants Hetrick, Working and Avey, if guilty, had never admitted their guilt to him, or given him any intimation that they were guilty. Mr. Draper stated that if these men were guilty, they might have admitted the fact to Mr. Bry- ant T. Scofield, but that Mr. Scofield had never indicated to him (Mr. Draper) in any manner that any such admission had been made.

It is sometimes wonderful how a chain of circumstances may lead to a desired result. There was a colored man at Memphis, Mo., whose testimony was desired by the defendants upon the trial of the case at Quincy. The ed- itor was requested by the attorneys for the defendants, with whom he was associated, to go to Memphis, Mo., just before the trial, and endeavor to induce the colored man to go to Quincy as a witness. There was no process by which his attendance could have been com- pelled inasmuch as he was not in the state of Illinois and hence not under the jurisdiction of the Adams County Circuit Court. Jesse Ingles of Augusta, who had been assisting the defendants in looking up their evidence, knew this colored man, and he went with the editor to Memphis so as to identify him. Upon reach- ing Memphis, Mr. Ingles and the editor went to the hotel. They had not been at the hotel ten minutes when Mr. Ingles called the editor to one side, and informed him that he had seen the colored man in the back yard of the hotel and that he was working for the hotel pro- prietor. About this time the editor met the

proprietor of the hotel and was surprised to find in him a Mr. Reddish who had lived in Can- ton, Mo., when the editor was there at college and whose boarding-house at Canton, during those school days, had been haunted by the young men of the college because a bevy of good-looking Missouri girls who were attending the college were boarding at the Reddish board- ing-house. This acquaintanceship formed at Canton gave the editor a good opportunity for approaching Mr. Reddish, and Mr. Reddish read- ily consented to use his best endeavor to induce the colored man to go to Quincy as a witness. The only inducement offered was that Mr. Red- dish would treat the colored man as being in his employ duing his absence at Quincy, and that the defendants would pay the usual wages during that time to Mr. Reddish and pay the colored man's expenses to Quincy and back. The colored man rather reluctantly agreed to go on these conditions, and did go, and did testify as a witness on the trial, although his testimony was not very material.

ED FERGUSON'S TESTIMONY

A correct abstract of Ed Ferguson's testi- mony at Quincy follows.

I believe my name is Ed Ferguson. I did live in Augusta. I know Marion Hetrick, Le- roy Working, John W. Avey, and Dr. Pierson, while he lived. I recollect the night Dr. Pier- son was killed as well as if it was this morn- ing. I took supper that night at my brother- in-law's, George McWilliams. I had been around town that day, and had a conversation at McWilliams' table. My wife, and George's wife, and a lady by the name of Mary Brown, and Mr. Williams were there. I went up town after dark with my brother-in-law, George McWilliams. I went to the auction room. I went after dark. Mr. Ingles was calling the auction. The auction was south of the Crosby House. There were others in there when I went in, Hetrick and Ingles, Mr. Marston and Mr. Stockton. I can't name all of them. 1 stayed there until the mail train came in from the south. It passes the train from the north there. They made connection there last sum- mer. I heard the train come, and then I went out of the auction. I started up town, but didn't go up town then. I saw Marion Hetrick be- tween Crosby's and the auction room. Nobody was with him. He was going down to the auc- tion, and said he was looking for me.

778

HISTORY OF HANCOCK COUNTY

He asked me what I was going to do about that. I said, "What?" He said, "Call out that fellow." I said, "What fellow?" He said, "You know." He asked me if I was going to call out that fellow. I said, "What fellow?" He said, "You know what fellow, you know who you are going to call out." He said that going across the street.

I also saw Working and Avey, standing by the hitch-rack there by Grigson's store, across the street from the Crosby House. The four of us had a conversation while there together.

Marion said, "Here is Ed." He said, "Will you call him out?" I said, "I will if you will give me what you said you would."

They said they would give me $10. Working, Avey and Hetrick and I had something of a talk there among ourselves. I asked which way to tell him to go, and Hetrick said to him to go to "Henry Luflands." That is southeast from town, towards Schuyler County. Avey said, "Send him west." That was to Andy Ketchum's. They thought that was most too far for them to go. Working wanted to take him out towards Plymouthı, and to tell him to go to Garwood's. I asked who should I tell him I was if he asked me. They said, "Tell him, Garwood's hired hand." Garwood's is a mile, or a mile and a half, northeast. They talked a little about it and then agreed to send him out there. I asked if Dr. Pierson asked me who I was, what should I tell him. They said to tell him that I was Garwood's hired hand, and that Mrs. Garwood was sick. I asked, if he wanted me to stay I told him I wanted Dr. Pierson. He said then, "I am Dr. Pierson," and asked me what I wanted. I said, "Mrs. Garwood is sick and sent for him (you) to go out there." He asked who I was. I said I was Garwood's hired hand. Ile asked how long she had been sick. I said she was taken very ill. That is about all I said, so I came right away when I said that. and go with him, what must I tell him. They said to tell him that I had got to go around by Mr. Boman's. Mr. Boman lives north of Augusta, not far from Garwood's. Marion said there was not any place there to stop him be- tween Yates' house and Hicock's. He lives half a mile from Yates, right on north. Mrs. Yates lives a little south of their gate, on the He asked if I would wait until he got ready. I said No, I had got to go by Boman's. I changed my voice all I could. east side of the road which goes over the rail- road track. They thought that would be a good place to meet him. Then Leroy went off While we were talking it over they said not to let him see my face if I could help it, and not to let him know who I was. I might try to show the jury what kind of a face I used. I don't know whether I could change my voice any more or not. From there I went across the street to Smith's corner. I saw him go into his house. After he went in his house I stood back on the sidewalk a little, and waited north. Marion walked across the street to- wards the Crosby Hotel. They didn't exactly go off together. Leroy was on one side of the street, and John on the other. Marion and I stayed there a moment afterwards, and some- thing was said how Marion was to follow the doctor off. He said he would get a horse at Weinberg's corner, west of Grigson's, the first corner west of the drug-store. Avey said he ' to see whether he went or not. He went.

would like to get a horse at Grigson's, if they got a horse there they would get a horse that came from the west. If he came from the north he might betray them. They would not mistrust anything. They would go west and get a horse. People who came in from the west generally hitched at Weinberg's, which is north- east of Grigson's. Dr. Pierson came out after- wards. He came towards me across the street. He went across toward's Grigson's drug-store. I first saw the doctor when he came up to Mr. Crane's light. That is the corner store. I first saw him when he got to the corner, where the light reflected. I was standing by Crosby's house, and Marion was standing by me. Marion and I were walking towards Crosby's. We did not go off the sidewalk. We were standing there on the street. The doctor came from the post-office. He came to the corner and went north to Grigson's store, and went east to Clark- son's store, and went over to John Robinson's. The store is east from the Crosby house, be- tween the Crosby house and Dr. Grigson's dwelling-house. I stayed there until Dr. Pier- son came out of the store. I then went east to- wards Dr. Pierson's house, went on the other side of the street from there. I saw Dr. Pierson when he first came out, in Stark's light. When he went past it reflected on him. He went down the street to Mr. Smith's corner. He was going east to the first crossing. I came then to Smith's corner and crossed the street to Pier- son's house. I went over there and met him.

DOUGLAS CAIN

LORETTA D. CAIN

779

HISTORY OF HANCOCK COUNTY

After I saw him go I went to Smith's corner, then I went west to Grigson's corner, then I went across the street back to Hess's. That is between Weinberg's and Grigson's. Then I went to Fisher's corner, east of Weinberg's. I saw Marion Hetrick on a gray horse. It was nearly ten feet to get to the door between Weinberg's and Hess's from the hitch-rack. Marion Hetrick rode in a canter. After he crossed the street he went faster. I can't say how long that was after the Doctor went. I had time to go over there from the Doctor's after I told the Doctor. I had time to go over there, about two blocks or over. The first time I saw Hetrick after I left him was when he was on the horse. I never said anything to him. He was going too fast. From there I went back to the corner, then to Watt's store, then north to Grigson's store. Bill Black was there, a man by the name of "Lec- trum," I think that is his name, and George Watts. I went from there to the auction. I staid there a few minutes and then went back to the auction room. They were still selling some little trinkets. Ingles was there. I stayed in the auction room a few minutes after I went back. Then I went out of the auction room to my sister's, Mrs. Williams, for my wife to come up. It was fully one block south, across two streets from where Dr. Pierson lived. When I went for my wife I went to the Crosby house, and by Dr. Pierson's. I saw Lou Grigson and Ida McClure on Grigson's porch. I also saw a man on a horse, over by Cain's house, across the street. by Smith's crossing. He went to- wards Cain's stable. I don't know whether it was Aaron Cain or not. I could not see dis- tinctly. I know I saw a horse go towards Cain's stable. I am not certain that it went into Cain's lot. I think it was Cain.

He rode to the crossing of the street between Cain's and Smith's. Then I went to my house to get my wife. I lived three or four blocks north of Grigson's corner, about half way of a block east of the Methodist Church, on the north side of the street. I don't know what street it is on. Glover Foster, a married man, lives in the house with me. Williams, Foster, and Charlie Johnson were there playing cards when I got there. They were in the back part of the house. Glover Foster lived there. I

went home with my wife. We had a child at that time. I carried the child. I first heard of the Doctor being killed the next morning. I had gone out to my father-in-law's.

THE TRIAL OF JOHN J. WARRICK

At the March term of the Circuit Court, 1881, John J. Warrick was indicted for the murder of James R. Mundell. It was charged in the indictment that Mr. Mundell was murdered on December 21, 1880, by a pistol shot, the bullet taking effect in the head and producing instant death. The case was tried at the October term, 1881. The court instructed the jury on October 15th, which was Saturday. and the jury ren- dered their verdict on the following Sunday. by which the punishment was fixed at imprison- ment in the penitentiary for the term of the de- fendant's natural life. Some of the facts devel- oped on the trial are here given.

Mr. Mundell was Warrick's uncle. Mr. Mun- dell was found dead on a stairway leading from the sidewalk to the second story of a business building at Warsaw. Near the body a pistol was found. It was supposed at first that Mr. Mundell had committed suicide. and the first coroner's jury so found. After the burial of the body suspicions as to the cause of his death were aroused. and the body was exhumed and an autopsy held, which resulted in showing that the bullet which had produced death could not have been fired from the pistol which had been found by the murdered man's body. Warrick was suspected and arrested. He made applica- tion to be released on bail, and a hearing on this application was had before the Hon, John H. Williams of Quincy, then one of the judges of this circuit. Bail was denied and the de- fendant was kept in jail.

At the October term, 1881, Warrick's attor- ney, John H. Finlay of Warsaw, an able law- yer, applied for a continuance to the next term of the court, and filed the affidavit of the de- fendant as the ground of this application. At the time Judge Williams was presiding. He overruled the motion for continuance. making some remarks which were regarded by the de- fendant as challenging his veracity. He directed the trial to be proceeded with, but granted Mr. Finlay a short time, within which to make ar- rangements for counsel to assist him in the trial. Mr. Finlay employed Charles J. Scofield of Car- thage to assist. It was considered that in view of the remarks made by Judge Williams it would be unsafe to proceed with the trial before him and the defendant made application for a change of venue from the presiding judge which was promptly granted. But this did not result

780

HISTORY OF HANCOCK COUNTY

in a continuance as the attorneys had hoped it would, for Judge Williams forthwith tele- graphed to Judge Shope, another of the judges of this circuit, who arrived at Carthage at about noon of the following day, and thereupon pro- ceeded with the trial with great energy and dispatch. But this gave Mr. Finlay a day's time for consultation with Mr. Scofield and for preparation of the case for trial

The evidence against the defendant was wholly circumstantial, except the testimony of Cortes Maxwell, who was at that time an at- torney, practicing law at Warsaw. Mr. Max- well was permitted to testify to statements made to him by the defendant which were in the nature of admissions or quasi admissions of guilt. It was objected on the part of the defendant that these statements had been made to Mr. Maxwell while acting as attorney for Warrick and were confidential and therefor privileged. It was insisted on the part of the people that Mr. Maxwell had never been in fact retained by Warrick as his attorney, but that their conversation was merely with a view to Mr. Maxwell's employment if satisfactory ar- rangements could be made as to fees. Judge Shope held that the statements were not privi- leged and permitted the evidence to go to the jury. (Judge Williams afterwards told Mr. Scofield that he would not have permitted these statements to go in evidence if he had been presiding, for the reason that there was a serious doubt as to whether they should not be regarded as confidential under the law, and that the defendant should have had the benefit of the doubt on the subject. Very likely, a fair trial of the case could have been had before Judge Williams, notwithstanding what he had said when overruling the motion for contin- uance, although the defendant was firmly con- vinced to the contrary. Judge Williams had that judicial turn of mind which would have enabled him to disregard any outside considera- tions and try the case solely in accordance with the law and the evidence.)

The case was prosecuted by the Hon. Wil- liam E. Mason, then the state's attorney of Hancock County, and was defended by Mr. Fin- lay and Mr. Scofield.

One of the defenses was that of alibi, based principally upon the testimony of Warrick's mother, who was the sister of the murdered man. Evidently she was in a very trying posi- tion. Before the trial was over she was in

danger of a nervous collapse. One of the most intensely dramatic scenes in the old Carthage courthouse occurred during this trial of War- rick, when Mr. Mason was making the closing argument to the jury. Mr. Mason at that time was about twenty-eight years of age. He was a brilliant lawyer. He was well versed in crimi- nal law, and he had the ability to make him- self thoroughly acquainted with any proposi- tion of law which he might desire to investigate. He was a diligent student of the very best literature, a man of fine education. having a good command of language, and the ability to express his thoughts with great force and elo- quence. During his argument in the Warrick case he turned to Warrick's mother and ad- dressed her in language of mingled pity and condemnation, pity for her as the mother of the defendant and condemnation of her as endeav- oring to shield the murderer of her brother, and, as the result of this appeal, the woman fell upon her knees in the bar and before the jury. with her hands upraised to Heaven, pray- ing God for mercy, while denying Mr. Mason's charge, all which gave the defendant's attorneys a succession of chills. Judge Shope did not check this incoherent prayer, for he liked a dramatic moment such as this, and was willing to give the woman full opportunity to express herself, and the attorneys for the defendant did not dare to object.

That Saturday night, about eleven o'clock, while the jurors were in deliberation as to their verdict, Mr. Scofield, on the way home from his office, passed the courthouse and paused under the jury room, the windows of which were open, in the hope of overhearing some con- solatory remarks, but while standing there, heard one juror say something about a doubt, while another swore he had no doubt, and an- other uttered and reiterated the words "Hang him!" with blood-curdling intensity, whereupon the eavesdropper, not hearing any good of his client, departed for home, oppressed with a sym- pathetic choking sensation.

It is highly probable that if the case had not depended solely on circumstantial evidence and quasi admissions, the verdict would have been death. As it was, the defendant went to the penitentiary for life.

In sentencing the defendant, Judge Shope re- viewed the case for nearly an hour warning the large crowd in the courtroom of the ter- rible consequences of crime and advising the

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.

Historical encyclopedia of Illinois and history of Hancock County, Volume II, Part 27

Author: Bateman, Newton, 1822-1897. cn; Selby, Paul, 1825-1913. cn; Currey, J. Seymour (Josiah Seymour), 1844-1928. 4n; Scofield, Charles J. (Charles Josiah), 1853- 4n Publication date: 1921 Publisher: Chicago : Munsell Pub. Co. Number of Pages: 1174

Author: Bateman, Newton, 1822-1897. cn; Selby, Paul, 1825-1913. cn; Currey, J. Seymour (Josiah Seymour), 1844-1928. 4n; Scofield, Charles J. (Charles Josiah), 1853- 4n
Publication date: 1921
Publisher: Chicago : Munsell Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 1174