USA > Missouri > Boone County > The bench and bar of Boone County, Missouri; including the history of judges, lawyers, and courts, and an account of noted cases, slavery litigation, lawyers in war times, public addresses, political notes, etc > Part 20
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
214
THE BENCH AND BAR OF BOONE COUNTY
where she had no right to be, and engaged in the commission of an unlawful act and must be considered a trespasser. Under these cir- cumstances, she was assaulted by defendant with a pine stick twenty- two and one-half inches in length, one inch and a quarter in thickness and two inches wide, which stick was picked up by the defendant after she started out from her house to where Mrs. Gans was driving the geese. The wounds produced by this stick upon the person of Mrs. Gans were not shown to be dangerous wounds, or disfiguring wounds, and it was not shown that her life was endangered thereby. The as- sault made by defendant, under such circumstances, viewed in the light of human law, I regard as justifiable. The battery, however, which was proved to be considerable, and was not resisted, was per- haps excessive, and went beyond what was necessary for the defend- ant to make in order to keep possession of her personal property. Yet considering the results and effects of this battery, as they appear in the testimony, I can not regard them as sufficiently great to constitute a violation of Section 33 of Chapter 42 of Criminal Code of Missouri. In other words, if the defendant had intended to kill Mrs. Gans, I do not believe she would have selected this little pine stick. The offense then, in my opinion, is reduced to a simple assault and battery ; which until properly charged and sworn to, I shall not feel called upon to have investigated. I therefore discharge the defendant from custody."
After being discharged by the justice, Mrs. Scott was sued by Mrs. Gans in the Circuit Court for damages, resulting from this assault and battery. The case was a long one and the jury experienced great difficulty in deciding it; it was not decided till several lawyers and numerous witnesses had told all they knew regarding the two geese and the two women. One witness, a son of Mrs. Scott was rigidly cross-examined by General Guitar, regarding his knowledge of whom the two geese belonged to. The witness insisted that he knew they were his mother's geese, as all of their old ganders were named. When he was further cross-questioned as to their names, he replied, "One was blind in one eye, and we called him Ben Butler. One was a great fighter, and we called him General Pointdexter. And the third whipped Pointdexter and ran him off the place, so we called him General Odon Guitar." In spite of the fun at General Guitar's expense, he secured for his client, Mrs. Gans, a judgment to the amount of five hundred dollars.
During the Civil war, General Guitar was in command of the United States forces, and he had several engagements with General Pointdexter, who commanded the southern forces; Guitar compelled Pointdexter to retreat several times, and finally to leave the state; and this was what the witness referred to.
1
WM. R. GENTRY
215
NOTED CASES
LIGHTNING ROD CASE
During the seventies, nearly every one was convinced that it was necessary to have a lightning rod on his dwelling and barn; and some designing persons took advantage of this belief. Two men, claiming to represent the Missouri-Michigan Copper Company, visited a Perche township farmer and offered to put a copper lightning rod on his house for two dollars. The farmer agreed to it, signing a writ- ten contract, which was said to be just a formal matter, which the agents desired to send to headquarters. In a few days, other rep- resentatives of the company called and demanded two hundred dollars, the consideration expressed in the written contract. A law suit re- sulted, in which General Guitar represented the farmer, and he made the following appeal to the jury: "Lightning never strikes in the same place twice. Now my client has been struck, but he will never be hit again. But, for the good of the public, it is the duty of the jury to strike these sharpers with a bolt of lightning, so it will not be necessary to strike them again." The jury agreed with him; and the case was too plain to appeal.
THE WATERMELON CASE
While Judge Burckhartt was on the bench, an old lady residing on the Two-mile Prairie had thirteen young men prosecuted for petit larceny, the alleged criminal act being the taking and carrying away in the nighttime of certain melons from her watermelon patch. Nearly all of the small boys in Columbia attended the trial, and the argu- ments of Carey H. Gordon and Ev M. Bass, for the state, and Welling- ton Gordon, Henry B. Babb and Col. S. Turner, for the defendants, were filled with wit, poetry and pathos. It "leaked out" during the trial that the father of one of the boys, although protesting his son's innocence, paid the old lady for the damage done to her watermelon patch. This bit of evidence proved to be the salvation of the defend- ants, each of whom tried in vain to prove an alibi. J. S. Branham, E. T. Rollins, E. M. Price, Wm. F. Cunningham, Moss P. Parker and Louis Hickam were on the jury. As soon as the jury retired, Judge Burckhartt left the bench and said to the state's attorneys : "Now, I know the personnel of that jury, and knowing them as I do, it is my opinion that you had as well dismiss this case." In a few minutes, the jury returned into court with a verdict of not guilty, and Judge Burckhartt said, "Gentlemen, under the circumstances, that is a righteous verdict." In explaining the verdict, one of the jurors said: "It won't do to convict a boy of stealing watermelons. Noth- ing would save us from that charge, except the statute of limitations."
216
THE BENCH AND BAR OF BOONE COUNTY
POETRY CLEARED HIM
In 1893, Joseph Wagner, a German laborer on the construction gang of the M., K. & E. railroad, was arrested for stealing forty-four dollars in cash and a bone handle pocketknife from his fellow work- man, Levi Hanks. All of the parties were drinking at the time of the alleged larceny, but the circumstances were very strong against Wag- ner. He was tried four times in the circuit court, twice convicted, an appeal taken to the supreme court (see State vs Wagner, 118 Mo. 626), once the jury failed to agree and the last trial resulted in his acquittal. The evidence showed while Hanks was asleep on a dump near Provi- dence, some one took his knife and his money; and the knife and the same amount of money were found a few hours later in Wagner's pocket, and Wagner had employed a man to drive him in great haste to Columbia, so that he could take the afternoon train on the Wabash to St. Louis. At the last trial, a photograph of the defendant, which had been taken and sent to St. Louis, was identified as a picture of a man named Joseph Wagner who had cashed a money order for sixty dollars at the St. Louis postoffice, shortly before Wagner came to Columbia. There was also evidence at the last trial that one of the workmen, named Skip Archer, was present, saw Hanks wake up and told him that he had been robbed, and that he had better run after Wagner for his money. Almost immediately, Skip Archer crossed the Missouri River and disappeared. This was the straw that the defend- ant caught at, and tried to lay the blame on the absent Archer. In addressing the jury, defendant's attorney, N. T. Gentry, followed the example of Senator Sam C. Major, and spoke as follows regarding Skip Archer :
Farewell, Skip; thy race is run, By stealing, that money was won : By skipping, thy skin was saved, By lying, suspicion allayed.
The ground was wet, the air was cold When he left poor Hanks with the bag to hold. Like lightning off on his mission he went, Leaving old Hanks without a cent.
And a letter the next day That came in the mail, Brought the news that the sheriff Was close on his trail.
217
NOTED CASES
So nothing since then Has ever been heard Of that wonderful Skip, Who skipped like a bird.
HAMP HARNEY'S PULPIT CHAIRS
The "Columbia Missouri Herald" contained the following, which is the best and most accurate account of the amusing trial of one of Columbia's colored citizens, and which we copy by permission :
One of the most remarkable cases the Boone county circuit court was ever called upon to try was that of the State of Missouri vs Hamp Rollins, alias Hamp Harney, colored, charged with petit larceny. The case was tried at the November term, 1895. The case arose out of a church difficulty. Several years ago the colored Methodist Church of Columbia, usually known as St. Luke's Chapel, completed their new house of worship, but ran out of funds and were unable to pro- vide chairs for the pulpit. Accordingly, Hamp Rollins, whose Sun- day name is Hamp Harney, who was born in the camp of old General W. S. Harney, who flourished on the plains, came to the rescue. Hamp was at one time owned by Major James S. Rollins and was his car- riage driver and assisted him in some of his famous campaigns for governor by driving him around over the state. Hamp had gotten rather high ideas as to the fitness of things in the exalted position he had held under Major Rollins. He had long been numbered among St. Luke's brethren and concluded he would purchase two chairs for the pulpit. He bought the chairs of G. F. Troxell, a furniture dealer, and paid Alex. Stewart to paint an appropriate name on the back of each chair. Mr. Stewart not being a Methodist, but having Presby- terian ideas, labeled one of the chairs Ezekiel and the other King David.
Harney duly installed the chairs in St. Luke's pulpit. He allowed the minister to occupy Ezekiel, but reserved King David for his own special use. As some of the witnesses in the trial testified, "every Sunday morning old Hamp sat down on King David."
In due course of time some jealousies arose in the church. The lay brethren argued that Brother Harney was not a minister, not an officer, but a very ordinary member and should not be allowed to occupy such a high seat in the synagogue, or such a good one. Ac- cordingly, a resolution was passed by the church requiring Brother Harney "to set his chair down on a level with the common niggers." Brother Harney and his chair were thus reduced to the level of the congregation. Harney's opponents in the religious field were still not
218
THE BENCH AND BAR OF BOONE COUNTY
satisfied. They decided that the chair should be placed back in the pulpit to be used by the visiting brethren and that Brother Harney should be allowed to occupy the amen corner. The occupation of this corner by him still created jealousies, so Brother Harney, by request took the mourner's bench. Since he was not a fit individual for the mourner's bench, a resolution was passed requiring him to "take a back seat in the sanctuary".
The question of Brother Harney's seat now appeared to be set- tled, but another source of trouble developed. There was a misunder- standing in the church choir, and Brother Harney, getting tangled up in it, lost his standing in the church and was peremptorily discharged. As he was leaving he picked up King David and carried it off with him Seeing that they had not only lost a member, but a chair, the mem- bers and officers of the church began to make arrangements to restore both. After a few conferences and a few concessions, Brother Har- ney was taken back in to the church, provided he would bring King David back with him. This he did and everything moved along smoothly for a time.
One day, however, Brother Harney accused Brother Clay of stealing chickens. At the trial, which was had before the church con- ference, Brother Clay was, as a matter of course, acquitted, and Brother Harney was at once tried for being a false accuser, convicted and again turned out of the church. When the offending brother left the church this time, much to the annoyance of the minister and the congregation, he carried off Ezekiel with him. King David, however, was left at the church.
Shortly after Brother Harney left the church for the second time, the colored Methodist conference met in Columbia, and the congrega- tion sought to bind up all difficulties. It was arranged that if Brother Harney would come back into the church and bring Ezekiel with him, they would all bury the hatchet and Brother Harney should be exalted to the position of "class leader." The trouble was thus smoothed over and again everything was lovely.
In the course of a few months, however, the war clouds again began to gather. The question of who should be "first in the kingdom" and the choir difficulty had been settled, but now that other great source of church trouble-the minister-appeared, causing fresh breaches of the congregation's peace. The church was pretty evenly divided on the matter and each side lined up for battle. Brother Harney, together with most of the men and a few of the ladies, twenty-seven in all, were opposed to the preacher, while the bulk of the ladies were, as usual, on the preacher's side. Their number was
M. R. CONLEY
219
NOTED CASES
twenty-three. One of the ladies, Miss Johnson, was a school-teacher and had studied civil government and politics. She realized that it was necessary to get rid of this majority in some way. Now, there is a rule in that church that when a charge is pending against any mem- ber, that member is not in good standing and cannot vote on any prop- osition. Accordingly, Miss Johnson preferred charges against all twenty-seven of the opposing faction, the charge being that they had forsaken the faith. The twenty-three then tried the twenty-seven, one at a time, and turned them all out of the church. At the "love feast" which followed, in discussing their difficulty, Brother Harney grew eloquent and referred to Deacon Burrel Diggs as "a hard case on general principles and the king rooster of rascality". Brother Har- ney, one of the unfortunate twenty-seven, was so indignant and felt that justice had been so outraged that he picked up Ezekiel and King David both and carried them off home with him. Furthermore, as he left the church door, he stopped and took particular pains to shake the dust off his feet.
For Brother Harney's last offense, complaint was made to a Columbia justice of the peace, and the offending brother was ar- rested, charged with petit larceny. It was at this point that the matter got into the courts. At the trial in the justice's court, Brother Har- ney was his own attorney, and according to that old familiar rule of law, "when a man is his own attorney he has a fool for a client," he was convicted and fined one cent. So indignant was he at the result, and so distressed was he "that a member of the Rollins family should be convicted of stealing," that he appealed the case to the circuit court of Boone county, where it was tried in due course before Judge John A. Hockaday, without a jury. The attorneys in the case, James L. Stephens and N. T. Gentry, the former a Baptist and the latter a Presbyterian, experienced great difficulty in their efforts to settle a Methodist misunderstanding.
On the day of the trial Hamp Harney appeared attired in a stove- pipe hat and a blue, army overcoat, well covered with brass buttons and carrying a gold headed cane.
The main witness against him was Deacon Burrel Diggs. In tes- tifying against Harney, Deacon Diggs informed the court that they didn't care so much for the value of the chairs but that "when a man stole chairs from a church on Sunday, with people looking at him, it was adding insult to audaciousness". He further explained that "if Brother Harney had gone slippin' around in the night and took them cheers, nobody would have said nothin' about it". In his excitement, Deacon Diggs explained that Brother Harney bragged beforehand that
220
THE BENCH AND BAR OF BOONE COUNTY
he was going to take them, bragged afterwards that he had taken them and actually took them, with two persons, of whom Bart Akers was one, looking at him. As opposing counsel objected to Diggs giving hearsay testimony, unless he was there, Diggs replied: "I was not there, sir ; don't you know I was not there. Bless your life, if I had been there, he never would have took them. He might have had old David, but I would have slapped him baldheaded before I would have let him have Icicle."
At the church meeting immediately after the chairs disappeared, Deacon Diggs, Brother Cook and Brother Willis were appointed on a committee to visit the unruly brother and to require that the chairs be returned. It was suggested by Aunt Jane Brown that there should be some of the "sistern" added to that committee, but the venerable Brother Willis objected for the reason that the "sistern" would be all right in case they wanted talking, but this case demanded some mighty good acting.
Brother Diggs started to go around that night, while the matter was hot, but realizing, as he said, "that sometimes when you crowd an old coward too much, he will fight", and while he was not then afraid of him and was not now afraid of him, yet he concluded that in the abundance of precaution, it might be better to visit Brother Harney the next morning, as he stated, "so if I had to run I could see which way to run". Deacon Diggs further said that when he was going to Brother Harney's the next day, Brother Harney saw him coming and "run like a sheep-killing dog and hid in the weeds in his garden, and from the number of weeds that he's got in his garden, you gentlemen would certainly know that he is a lazy nigger".
Miss Riley, who was one of the witnesses, was the "lady" whose singing in the choir displeased Brother Harney, and was the means of his falling from grace the first time. On the witness stand, she hesitated a long time before she would explain why it was that Har- ney was compelled to withdraw from the church, but after much urg- ing, she said the reason was this: "He said I was the leading lady soprano in the choir, which was true, but he also said something which was not true, and that was that when they wanted me to sing I wouldn't sing, and when they didn't want me to sing, I would sing."
Brother Cook, then called to the stand, was asked if he knew Brother Harney, and he replied: "Yes, I regret to say I do". When asked if Brother Harney had been a member of that church, his re- ply was: "Yes, be it said to the everlasting disgrace of the church". He was finally questioned as to what his feelings were toward Brother Harney, and he replied : "I have none; I am done past feeling".
4
51
..
CAREY H. GORDON
221
NOTED CASES
Old Aunt Linda Johnston, a deaconess of the church, claimed that the real trouble with Brother Harney was that "he and a few others belong to the praying and paying faction, and the rest of them was jealous of them for that reason". Josiah Peach and wife also stood by Brother Harney because the preacher who was succeeded by the minister who caused the trouble was Josiah's son-in-law.
Harriett Jackson was another witness. She was as black as she was fat, and as fat as she was black. When called into court she came up the steps and around to the witness stand in such a hurry that she was out of breath, and was thereby unable to tell that which she had longed so long to tell. It was generally understood, however, that had the police not interfered with Aunt Harriett, she would have settled the chair trouble without the aid of courts or lawyers.
At the close of the state's evidence, Judge Hockaday decided that there was no proof that the defendant stole the chairs, he having purchased them, paid for painting them and exercised ownership over them. In fact, the judge said, it seemed to be customary for him to take off one chair every time he was turned out of the church. As nobody complained of that and as he had as much right to take off both chairs, as one, that certainly showed that he had exercised owner- ship over them with the knowledge and consent of all parties. The judge held that while Brother Harney was guilty of a trespass, per- haps, he was not guilty of larceny. He was consequently acquitted.
Hamp Harney was much displeased at the result of his case, for, said he, "all of the other side have been on the witness stand and have told their story and I haven't had a chance to tell mine". He said it wasn't fair to treat him that way. Even after the verdict of "not guilty" had been pronounced, he asked permission to make a few remarks, but his attorney advised him that it was better to let well enough alone.
The next day Harney once more appeared in court, saying he was in trouble again. When asked what on earth was the matter, he said he couldn't make the niggers stop talking, and that they were not only slandering him, but were slandering the judge that cleared him. Having heard that there was some kind of a suit to be brought to prevent people from doing an unlawful deed, he was anxious that that sort of a suit should be instituted to stop the negroes from misrepresent- ing the facts in the case. Judge Hockaday told him that while the court could grant an injunction to prevent certain things, no court on earth could stop a negro from talking.
222
THE BENCH AND BAR OF BOONE COUNTY
PATENT CHURN CASES
The most amusing case that was tried at the June [1897] term of circuit court was the case against W. U. Billingsley, popularly called the patent churn case. Some two years ago, a couple of smooth looking and easy talking genetlemen from a distance went around over Boone county with a wonderful invention, as they called it, and tried to get into the favor of our farmer friends. The in- vention referred to was the dairy swing churn, which they said was a most useful and valuable addition to the domestic department of every family. It is said that they represented the churn as the best in the world, the most easily sold of any on the market, a gold mine, a mortgage lifter; and also that they had sold churns to every farmer on both sides of the Ashland gravel road from George Brad- ford's to Salem Church. A number of farmers were induced to embark in the business of selling these churns to other farmers, much to the regret of all parties concerned. W. U. Billingsley, P. H. Ellis. William O. Ellis, Luther Pulliam, Ben P. Matthews, J. F. Waters, Cornelius Goodding, C. W. Rowe, J. N. Roberts, and others, bought the right to sell this churn in different counties in this state, expecting to make a large fortune in a week or two. But in their efforts to reap the fortune, they were sadly disappointed, for the old churns would not sell worth a cent. Mr. Billingsley bought Howard county ; but after unsuccessfully working his territory for a number of weeks, he beat a hasty retreat for his home on the Two-mile Prairie, with the constable after him wanting him to take out a license as a peddler. Mr. Billingsley then tried to get his churn friends to release him from his complicated contract, and offered them twenty-five dollars; but no, they held on to his contract and his note for two hundred and fifty dollars. Mr. Billingsley said he sold two churns and gave away one, and then wrote his mortgage-lifter friends that he had wished a thousand times that he had never seen or heard of the churns. The other gentlemen above named were equally as unfortunate. The holders of the note then sued Billingsley; and this was the case that was tried last Thursday. The crowd was much amused at the testi- mony of Cornelius Goodding, who said he was a lady's man, and that he bought this patent right, hoping that he could help the ladies of the country ; but that he afterwards was satisfied that the churn was worthless. He said that he kept on trying to sell these churns, in hopes that he could find a farmer who was as big a fool as he was, but he could not find one. The jury, after being out nearly a week, failed to agree and was discharged .- "Missouri Statesman", June, 1897.
223
NOTED CASES
At the next term of court, the defendant Waters appeared, wearing a new suit of clothes, a pair of red pointed-toed shoes and a green neck tie; so the argument of his attorneys that he was a backwoods farmer did not have the desired effect. Accordingly, the jury gave judgment against the defendant for one-half of the amount sued for.
THE HOUND DOG CASE
Black Foot, which has been the scene of many noted events in Boone county, furnished one of the few dog cases that have here been tried. The plaintiff and defendant were neighbors and both members of the same church; and the plaintiff went fox-hunting on prayermeeting night, taking with him some of the younger members of the congregation. It was said that one of the plaintiff's hounds wandered from the trail of the fox, and got on the trail of defend- ant's sheep, and that a dead sheep was the result. Be that as it may, defendant shot and killed the hound, and the suit was for the value of that blooded animal. Ev. M. Bass and J. L. Stephens, both old and experienced fox hunters, represented the plaintiff ; and Welling- ton Gordon, who claimed to be equally as well experienced in the value of sheep, represented the defendant. Dr. B. A. Watson, Jas. S. Dun- can and other foxhound men swore to the value of the hound, and the improbability of a hound killing sheep; and it is said that they did some swearing outside of court. After poetic and scriptural quo- tations (and misquotations), and pathetic appeals in behalf of the dead sheep and in behalf of the dead dog, the jury wrestled with the case until away into the night. Although not an attendant upon prayer- meeting himself, Mr. Gordon argued to the jury that a church member who would leave such an interesting service and go with young men on such a disreputable errand as fox-hunting, deserved to have his old hound killed. But Mr. Stephens insisted that his client was not the only man who had been derelict in the matter of church attend- ance. He further said that an English fox hound was a very valuable animal to Virginia gentlemen, and to Kentucky gentlemen, and surely of no less value to Missouri gentlemen. The jury to some extent agreed with him, and gave the plaintiff ten dollars damages.
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.