USA > Indiana > A History of Indiana from its exploration to 1922 > Part 12
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
111
HISTORY OF VANDERBURGH COUNTY
forethought to kill and murder, etc." Papers show that Slow was ar- rested and placed in jail and released on habeas corpus by the two resident judges McCrary and Wagnon.
4. The suit of W. and Samuel Bowen against Elisha Harrison and John Johnson is upon a bond given for dry goods purchased for a store. The bond is signed by Elisha Harrison and John Johnson of Warrick County, dated June 2, 1817. The defense filed was that the goods were sold in rolls represented to contain a certain quantity of cloth, but which under the yardstick failed to properly measure. The case was tried by a jury after an unsuccessful effort on the part of the defendants to obtain a continuance. The bond was for $4,000, but the debt secured in the bond was for $2,000. Suit was brought to the September term 1818. The witnesses to the bond were John I. Neely, a very prominent man of southwestern Indiana who lived at Prince- ton; also John Peterson. An interesting paper in the files is a bill of exceptions filed at the September term 1818, in which David Hart signs as presiding judge, and William Wagnon as lay judge. One peculiarity of this paper is that Wagnon voted to overrule the motion for a continuance, and Judge Hart dissented in the following lan- guage: "The motion for a continuance was overruled by the court, the Honorable William Wagnon, the only associate judge on the bench, gave his opinion against continuance (dissent Judge Hart presiding judge) to which the defendants excepted," signed by D. Hart, and William Wagnon. This is the only signature the writer has happened to see of Judge Hart acting as judge. The order book for the year 1818 of the Vanderburgh Circuit Court was lost at a very early day as appears in a court proceeding as early as 1830, and it is impossible to tell how most of the cases determined during that year in the Circuit Court were in fact decided. Hart resigned as judge very early after his appointment for reasons stated by Faux, quoted elsewhere. The jury found for the full amount of the debt, $2,000.00 with interest, which was immediately paid by Harrison and Johnson October 19, 1818, according to the receipt of W. and S. Bowen witnessed by Wil- liam B. Moore. Whether this was Judge Moore who some years later appears in the records of Warrick County at Boonville as I. W. B. Moore, clerk, and still later as common pleas judge (to whom the celebrated retort of John Pitcher was made) does not appear. Where Harrison and Johnson were keeping store nowhere appears, but they probably kept one of the three stores, of which McGary kept one, in the summer of 1817, the same month in which the first land sale took place, as outlined in the prospectus of Evansville, elsewhere set out. There is no doubt that Harrison was in Evansville at the first election where he voted. Several assault and battery cases were prosecuted in the Circuit Court against Harrison, one of them non prossed, one of them a jury found him not guilty.
5. In the June term 1819 James H. Richardson sued Elisha Harri- son for civil damages for $1,000.00, in which Amos Clark, plaintiff's attorney charges great violence, destruction of plaintiff's clothing, using other old forms of pleading. How far they are intended to
112
HISTORY OF VANDERBURGH COUNTY
charge real facts, or whether the old set forms were adopted to make a good legal charge, may be questioned.
6. The suit of Hugh McGary vs. Oliver Fairchild and Elisha Har- rison, filed February 22, 1821, involved a note signed by Harrison as surety for Fairchild for $800.00. The deposition of James A. Boies, who had lived in Evansville was taken in May, 1821, in Louisville, to which city he had removed. The deposition was taken by McGary and on cross-examination by Harrison in person Boies testified that the words "As security for O. Fairchild" were written after the name of Harrison. Boies testified that McGary erased those words showing suretyship. Harrison pleaded non est factum by which he denied the execution of the note so altered as not his act in law. The case was tried by a jury, verdict rendered for the defendant, and McGary thus lost $800 with considerable interest. The loss of this money alone was almost sufficient to account for McGary's financial breakdown, which occurred immediately following.
7. Suit of Lilleston administrator of G. Jones vs. James W. Jones was filed September 27, 1827, after the death of Gerard Jones, who was a brother of James W. Jones, in which case a deposition of Har- ley B. Chandler was taken and remains in the files. This threw con- siderable light on the internal affairs of the business in which Gerard Jones was interested. In this suit was involved the question of the liability of James W. Jones to the estate of Gerard Jones growing out of settlement of partnership affairs of Jones, Harrison, Jones and Chandler, and the firm of Jones and Harrison. There were two firms, in one of which was Harley B. Chandler (who was in 1825 postmaster ) brother of Asaph Chandler, who died in 1818. The other partners were James W. Jones, Elisha Harrison and Gerard Jones. The main partnership however was the firm of Jones and Harrison, composed of James W. Jones and Elisha Harrison. These two firms were unques- tionably conducting the leading commercial establishments in the town of Evansville until the dissolution, which followed, or immediately pre- ceded the death of Elisha Harrison and Gerard Jones which occurred nearly the same time.
In addition to the suit of Lilleston, Administrator of Gerard Jones, was the suit by Harrison's administrators who were C. I. Battell and Isaac Fairchild. These administrators of Harrison brought a suit against James W. Jones for settlement, and they believed as it seems Gerard Jones' administrator believed, that James W. Jones was in- debted to the firms. The testimony of Chandler settled the contro- versy as against Gerard Jones estate, and John Shanklin was selected by the court as master in chancery to examine the book accounts of both firms and make a report. This he did in each case, and in the suit of the administrators of each of the deceased partners he showed that the balance was in favor of James W. Jones. This report was ac- cepted as conclusive by the parties ond the suit was ended. The suits were evidently brought in good faith and apparently necessary in order to close the partnership accounts. The report and statement of figures filed with it in the handwriting of John Shanklin are neatly written
113
HISTORY OF VANDERBURGH COUNTY
and in businesslike form. It is evident that he was at this early period a competent man, and one of the few men perhaps capable as an expert accountant in doing the work of a master in a partnership settlement. He was about that time sworn in as deputy clerk, for which he was competent not only from a business standpoint, but because he was a good penman. In 1829 before he was of age, John S. Hopkins was also sworn in as deputy clerk, not because he was a facile penman, but on account of his superior ability and address, making him no doubt an invaluable man in dealing in the clerk's office with the people.
8. The suit of Alanson Warner vs. Elisha Harrison, William Monroe, and Thomas Evans, is based on a lengthy bill in chancery presented by Amos Clark to recover a board bill and office rent for the Evansville Gazette, contracted by William Monroe after he had purchased the interest of Elisha Harrison in the newspaper plant. The bill shows among other things that Monroe failed to succeed and press and tangible property of the paper were sold on execution, and Har- rison bought them in and still permitted Monroe to use them. After Harrison's death his executors advertised the plant in a New Harmony paper for sale as property of the estate of Harrison, so that whatever makeshifts were made from time to time in the effort to have other people run the paper, Harrison never was able to get any financially responsible person to manage it, and he was responsible practically for the losses of it during the entire existence of the paper, between four and five years. The bill in chancery filed by Amos Clark shows that Harrison had a printing contract with the United States for printing its laws and documents for which Harrison and Monroe, partners con- ducting the paper originally, contracted to receive what amounted to a little more than $100.00 a year annually. It seems Monroe had pledged this source of income to Warner for his board bill and office rent, and had given a power of attorney to Amos Clark, the attorney, the brother-in-law of Alanson Warner, to collect the money, and left the city. However, Thomas Evans became the manager of the paper in Monroe's absence, but later he left the city, and an affidavit made to his answer filed in the case in November 1826 is sworn to in Warren County in the State of Mississippi where he probably at the time re- sided. Warner claimed that Harrison had collected from the United States the money which had been pledged by Monroe to him as land- lord and tavern keeper. Harrison on the other hand claimed that his indebtedness and interest in the property was entitled to be secured, and being able to collect the money he did so. This controversy was not settled in the lifetime of Elisha Harrison, but after Harrison's death Warner recovered an allowance for his claim: The narrative of facts contained in this bill by Amos Clark is exceedingly well written, and gives a very definite and clear idea of the operations of the Evans- ville Gazette in general as to its management and ownership during its entire existence.
9. The suit of Edward Hopkins vs. Elisha Harrison in the Van- derburgh Circuit Court filed the fifth of March, 1822, is based upon an alleged indebtedness from Harrison to Hopkins resulting from
1
114
HISTORY OF VANDERBURGHI COUNTY
Hopkins having constructed upon lot 8, old plan, upon which Harrison had previously constructed a tavern, known at various times as Chute's tavern, and other names. a stable, and after the contract was entered into, the amount of which was paid by Harrison, Harrison changed the agreement so as to have Hopkins build the stable to an unusually large size, viz: a three story frame stable with twenty stalls an usual size for horses, which was done, and the reasonable price of it amounted to $500.00. In answer to this complaint Harrison sets up the fact that Harrison was indebted upon a note to John G. Chandler in an equal sum for which the suit is brought, and that Harrison had purchased the note of Chandler and he pleads it is set off. This is the property opposite which Harrison a little later constructed the ferry between Evansville and Kentucky and maintained for a number of years, and in which property his widow claimed a dower interest after Harrison's death.
CHALLENGES TO FIGHT A DUEL
The case of State of Indiana against Samuel W. Hammond was upon an indictment against the defendant by the grand jury pending in September, 1824, charging that the defendant Hammond, a farmer in Union Township on the 20th of March, 1824 "with force and arms at the township, county and state aforesaid, did then and there un- lawfully give to one Jonathan Anthony a challenge to fight a duel with him the said Samuel W. Hammond with deadly weapons in single combat, to wit, with guns, rifles, swords and pistols contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided," etc. The record shows that the defendant was not arrested until the 10th of August, 1825, when Joseph McDowell became his bail.
It elsewhere appears that David Hart was compelled to resign his position as judge of the Circuit Court of the various counties in south- western Indiana in 1818 on account of a challenge to fight a duel, referred to in the account given by Faux.
MAN STEALING
Among the interesting court papers of the early time are two indict- ments for man stealing, one filed at the March term 1822 against James McClain for forcibly taking and arresting a negro with the view of kidnapping. The provisions of the statute of Indiana on that sub- ject at that time are embodied in terse language by Amos Clark, pros- ecuting attorney, in the indictment which charges that the grand jury upon their oath present that James McClain, late of Pigeon township in the county of Vanderburgh, in the State of Indiana, laborer (this does not necessarily mean that he was a resident of Vanderburgh County, but that he was in the county at the time) on the 24th day of November, 1821, with force and arms at the township, county and state aforesaid did forcibly take, and arrest, and did aid and abet in forcibly taking and arresting, Charles, a man of color, with a design to take him out of the state without establishing his claim, or the claim of any other person to the said Charles, a man of color, according to the laws of this state, or of the United States, all of which doings of the
115
HISTORY OF VANDERBURGH COUNTY
said James McClain are and were of evil example to others in like cases offending, contrary to the form and effect of the statutes, etc.
A similar indictment prepared in the handwriting of Clark, pros- ecuting attorney, was filed in the Vanderburgh Circuit Court in the case of State against Quiller Ford upon the charge that he, late of Armstrong township in the county of Vanderburgh, in the state of In- diana, laborer, on the first of August, 1824, did then and there forcibly take and arrest and did aid and abet in forcibly taking and arresting John Gathard and Isaac Gathard, with a design to take them out of this state without establishing his claim to the said John and Isaac, etc., "and the jurors aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid do say that the said Quiller Ford then and there in the manner aforesaid was and is guilty of man stealing," etc. The summons in the case issued at the time of the filing of the indictment named as witnesses Polly Gathard, Isaac Gathard, and John Bryant, rather indicating that the effort of man stealing was not finally consummated inasmuch as Isaac was one of the negroes sought to be kidnapped, and it is probable John Gathard was a child not eligible as a witness, or if not that he had been kid- napped. A paper in the case shows that the defendant was not found.
There was no more exciting and disturbing element in the life of that period, in fact from the beginning of the state until the Civil war and the final proclamation of emancipation, than the question of kid- napping of free negroes as well as the arresting and returning into slavery of negroes fugitive from slave territory. The most absorbing of all questions in the social and political life of the people at the be- ginning of the state, and for many years after, was the question of slavery in Indiana and the right of negroes both free and slave to live or to be held in the state. Slavery practically existed during territorial days. The territorial court records of Knox County show that not long after he came to Indiana Territory, Robert M. Evans through the court proceedings in such case required by law, acquired practically slave ownership in a Mullatto girl, a fact which attracted public atten- tion at the time, as stated to the writer by Colonel William M. Cock- rum, who quoted his father upon that subject. The question whether a negro found in Indiana was free or slave could not be solved by the negro who was not permitted to testify, and the practice of kidnap- ping was a ready method of easy money on the part of white despera- does. There is evidence among the Draper manuscripts of the exist- ence of an organization, including well known people whose names are given, from the beginning of the state of Indiana for a considerable period afterwards under which free negroes in Indiana were kid- napped, taken to Kentucky and sold into slavery. The subject is fully dealt with in Cockrum's history of Pioneer Indiana, and among other facts given by him is a letter written to him by Andrew L. Robinson, a member of the Evansville Bar, who came to Evansville in the forties and who died here in the seventies. Judge Robinson's letter is as follows :
1
116
HISTORY OF VANDERBURGH COUNTY
"Evansville, Indidana, June 12, 1867.
"Col. Cockrum,
"Oakland City, Ind.
"My dear Sir :
"Colonel Jones was in yesterday with your letter of inquiry, also a letter from J. T. Hanover written to you from Washington City, and explained the reason why you wanted a letter from me.
"In 1852 a gentleman named John Hansen came to my office with a letter of introduction from eastern friends of mine enclosing a New York draft for $250.00 for a retainer fee for me to look after the in- terests of men who were working for the anti-slavery people at this place and along the Ohio river should they need my legal services.
"I, of course, knew that the fugitive slave law was being violated and I did not have the least compunctions of conscience on that score. For, without a doubt, that infamous law was unconstitutional and if it could have been tested by a fair tribunal would so have been declared.
"Mr. Hansen was in my office many times during the several years that he was in this section of the country. During all that time I only had one case and that was in the interests of two young fishermen who were fishing in the Ohio river for several years, below this city and that case did not come to a test.
"I am of the opinion that these two young men ferried across the Ohio river many hundreds of negroe slaves who found a home and liberty in Canada.
"You have my consent to use this letter. I only wish I could have been the means of helping the poor unfortunates more.
"Yours truly,
"A. L. ROBINSON."
The question often arose in controversies whether the negro was a fugitive from justice and was entitled to be reclaimed under the pro- visions of the fugitive slave law passed by Congress, or whether the negro was free and whether the proceeding was an attempt to kidnap. In Vanderburgh County, during the greater part of the fifties, the sympathy of officers in the sheriff's office was with the slave owner. Interesting, tragical accounts may be found in the newspapers of the time relating to efforts to carry colored people, men, women and chil- dren, across the Ohio River into slavery.
An incident was narrated to the writer by an ex-judge who pre- sided over the court of this and other counties during this period in which a colored man was brought before him on a writ of habeas cor- pus and a telegram produced from a man in St. Louis claiming that the colored man in custody was a fugitive from slavery and his prop- erty. No other evidence was produced and it was a matter wholly within the discretion of the judge whether he would hold the negro until the claimant could reach Evansville, (he being then on the way by rail), or discharge. If the negro were immediately released the underground railroad representatives stood ready to pass him beyond the reach of the officers of the law to Canada. Under such circum-
117
HISTORY OF VANDERBURGH COUNTY
stances the discretion of the judges was necessarily influenced more or less by their sympathies often and abhorence of the fugitive slave law which was denounced in the northern states. Salmon P. Chase when governor of Ohio refused on conscientious grounds to permit the fugitive slave law to be enforced within the state of Ohio. In the case referred to the judge refused to hold the colored man, who disap- peared and presumably reached Canada.
A. L. Robinson above mentioned became later judge of the criminal court of Vanderburgh County, was for many years prosecuting attor- ney, and in the efficiency of a jury argument both in criminal cases was probably seldom if ever surpassed by any lawyer of his time in this neighborhood. Robinson left no descendants but no history of his time is complete without some reference to him.
He came to Evansville in the forties from Vermont, was for a while the partner of Horatio Q. Wheeler, as Wheeler & Robinson, while Wheeler's former partner was upon the bench, and upon the expira- tion of his term on the bench he resumed his old place as Wheeler's partner, when Robinson continued the practice alone. Robinson was a radical reformer both in temperance and on the slavery question. As such he held prominence throughout the state of Indiana. In the early fifties he was a candidate for governor on a third party ticket, representing one or the other of the reforms mentioned.
His power of invective and denunciation was great, his reputation - as a speaker both at the bar and upon public questions on the platform was widespread, and in the early days people would drive in buggies and wagons for the better part of a day to hear him speak. He was always a friend of the negro and on one occasion the writer was a wit- ness in court to a case where a white man of property, well-known in the community, had taken by replevin an old horse and an old wagon from a colored man under a writing, by which the plaintiff claimed the right of possession. Robinson defended the colored man and pre- sented a question of fact for the jury, but in his speech, with stern de- meanor, never smiling in speech, with a sharp and penetrating voice, and with dramatic manner, inimitable but withering in its effect, he would occasionally stop at the end of a sentence, deliberately turn to the plaintiff who was sitting at the table with his lawyer and looking at him with scorn, would simply repeat his name. It required the serv- ices of the sheriff and the judge both to maintain order in the court- room, which was in an uproar of laughter, and it was evident that the jury was visibly effected, and the plaintiff unable to stand the strain left the courtroom during the argument, and the jury promptly found in favor of the colored man.
Saleta Evans, administratrix, vs. Henry C. Stephens and Silas Stephens in the Vanderburgh Circuit Court, October term 1866, was a suit upon a note given for the purchase money of land where the de- fendants, by James G. Jones and Conrad Baker as their attorneys, set up a failure of consideration in the note involving the will of Robert M. Evans, and presented a question of construction of the will as a ques- tion of law. The suit was brought by Charles Denby, Mrs. Evans' at-
118
HISTORY OF VANDERBURGH COUNTY
torney, but when the defense mentioned was pleaded, Asa Iglehart was retained to assist him, and in the controversy which was appealed to the Supreme Court of Indiana, and is reported in 30 Ind. Rep. p. 39, the will of Robert M. Evans was construed. The value of this record among other things is that it gives an accurate reference to the de- scendants of Robert M. Evans, giving the names and descendants of his only son, Camillus, who married Saleta Stinson, daughter of John M. Stinson, and Julienne Evans, who married Judge Silas Stephens. The will of Evans was broken as to one-half of his property upon the ground that the conditions were void in violation of the law in Indiana against perpetuities. The property in controversy involved, with other valuable property, the block on Main Street between Main and Locust Streets, and between Fifth and Sixth Streets, the title to a part of which still remains in the name of the descendants of Robert M. Evans.
CARPENTER VS. MCCLAIN AND OTHERS
In 1842 a suit was brought in the Vanderburgh Circuit Court by Willard Carpenter against Jackson McClain, Nathan Rowley, and others, involving the title to a tract of land in the city of Evansville described as lot No. 25 and the adjoining half of lot No. 26, old plan of Evansville, upon which then stood the Exchange Hotel. How long it had existed, there is no record, but after the suit mentioned had been upon the docket for about four years, a supplemental bill of com- plaint was filed against John Pitcher who had purchased the property on execution, and was claiming the title adversely to Carpenter, and in this supplemental bill for legal purposes is a statement relating to the condition of the building when Carpenter first acquired an interest in it about 1839, and also the condition of the hotel buildings at the time of the filing of the supplemental bill in 1846.
The circumstances connected with the dealings of various persons with this property were so complicated as to require many pages of court pleadings to even state them succinctly. A citizen of the com- munity named Wilson owned the property, purchasing it chiefly on credit, giving notes and mortgage, sold it to one George W. L. White for about $9,000, part of which was used to pay debts of Wilson to Frank and George W. Amory and Company who were in 1839 among the leading merchants of Evansville. They were Boston men and came to Evansville early in the thirties, remained till the forties. Frank Amory resided here until about the time of the Civil War or later. They made large fortunes here and returned to Boston where they were among the prominent people. Judge J. R. E. Goodsell figured in the land transaction honorably. One Clinton Ton also.
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.