USA > New York > Ontario County > A history of Ontario County, New York and its people, Volume I > Part 17
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
Perhaps in all the annals of the State of New York no one event created so widespread interest or so embittered public feeling, or darkened political and social relations, or so divided and distracted parties, churches, and families, as the abduction of William Morgan in 1826. The mystery of his taking off, like the fate of the beautiful Theodosia Burr, the abduction of Charlie Ross, or the murder of Dr. Burrell, and many others, will never be solved.
This is not the place to discuss the singular circumstances that surrounded the violation of the sacred rights of citizenship, or to speculate upon the exhibition of fanaticism that involved so many
185
THE ONTARIO COUNTY COURTS.
people or so disturbed the elements, political and social, in this and some neighboring States. Those who were conversant with the circumstances of this most extraordinary case have all departed. It would be out of place to refer at length to the many interesting circumstances connected with the case, further than to refer to the trials, conducted in Canandaigua, that grew out of the abduction.
The case that created the profoundest interest was tried on an indictment found by the grand jury of Ontario county, in Novem- ber, 1826, against Nicholas G. Chesebro, Edward Sawyer, Loton Lawson, and John Sheldon, for a conspiracy to kidnap William Morgan and to carry him to foreign parts and to secrete and confine him there; and, on a second indictment, for carrying the conspiracy into execution.
The court of Oyer and Term- iner convened on the fourth day of January, 1827, for the trial of these indictments. Governor De- Witt Clinton requested the At- torney General, Samuel A. Tal- cott. to be present and assist in the trial, but he declined to attend. Hon. Enos T. Throop, one of the Circuit Judges of the State, pre- sided. Hon. Nathaniel W. How- WILLIAM H. ADAMS. ell, First Judge of the county, and Aaron Younglove, Micah Brooks, and Moses Atwater were Asso- ciate Judges. The prosecution was conducted by Bowen Whit- ing, District Attorney, assisted by John Dixon, William H. Adams, Jared Wilson, Theodore F. Talbert, Henry W. Taylor, and B. & C. Butler. The counsel for the defendants were John C. Spencer, Mark H. Sibley, Henry F. Penfield, and Walter Hubbell. Certainly an array of eminent lawyers such as few counties in the State could equal.
William H. Adams was born in Berkshire, Mass., in May, 1787. He began the prac- tice of the law in Canandaigua; served as an officer through the War of 1812, and moving to Lyons, served successively as District Attorney and County Judge of Wayne county. He died while in Albany on business connected with his profession, April 7, 1865.
186
HISTORY OF ONTARIO COUNTY.
More than one hundred witnesses and a great number of people crowded the court house. On being arraigned, the defend- ants pleaded not guilty ; but, on the fifth day of January, when the trials were moved, much to the surprise of the Court and those in attendance, three of the defendants, Nicholas G. Chesebro, Edward Sawyer, and Loton Lawson, withdrew their plea of not guilty to the indictment for conspiracy and pleaded guilty to that indictment.
Sheldon alone defended, on the ground that, admitting the facts charged in the indictment to be true, he did not participate in the crime. The case was submitted, and the jury, after some hours' deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty. The Court sentenced the defendants as follows: Loton Lawson, to imprisonment in the county jail for two years: Nicholas G. Chesebro, one year; John Sheldon, three months, and Edward Sawyer, one month. As to the indictment for kidnapping against the same persons, and also against one James Gillis, the Court directed a nolle prosequi to be entered. It subsequently appeared that Sheldon was innocent.
One of the most atrocious crimes ever committed in the county was that of Paul B. Torrey, a merchant of Naples, in whipping his son to death, in July, 1831. The excitement it created and the hor- ror with which it struck the community exceeded anything which occurred before or since.
Torrey was indicted for murder on the 12th of June, 1832, and on the next day the prisoner was arraigned for trial in the court of Oyer and Terminer. Hon. Daniel Mosely, Circuit Judge ; Nathaniel .W. Howell, First Judge of the county ; John Price, Ches- ter Loomis, Samuel Rawson, David McNeil, Associate Justices ; H. F. Penfield, District Attorney, for the people, and John C. Spen- cer, Jared Wilson, and Mark H. Sibley, for the prisoner.
The nature of the crime can be judged from the indictment, which contained six counts, or six different ways of stating the facts constituting the crime. I will give the substance of two of the counts, which will show the facts: The first count states that Paul B. Torrey, late of the town of Naples, in the county of Ontario, mer- chant, "not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil, on the 15th day of July, in the year 1831, with force and arms at the town of Naples, in and upon Jedediah L. Torrey, in the Peace of God and of the People of the State of New York, then and there being feloniously, wil- fully, and of malice aforethought, did make an assault, and that the
187
THE ONTARIO COUNTY COURTS.
said Paul B. Torrey *
* did strike, beat, and kick the said Jede- diah L. Torrey, with his hands, fists, and feet, in and upon the head, breast, back, belly, and sides, and other parts of the body of him, the said Jedediah L. Torrey, and did then and there * cast * and throw the said Jedediah L. Torrey down unto and upon the floor and against the sides and walls of the room in which the said Jedediah L. Torrey then and there was, with great force and vio- ience, there giving unto the said Jedediah L. Torrey, then and there, as well by the beating, striking, and kicking of him, the said Jedediah L. Torrey, in manner and form aforesaid, as by the cast- ing and throwing of him, the said Jedediah L. Torrey, down against the sides and walls of the room aforesaid, several mortal strokes, wounds, and bruises in and upon the head, breast, back, belly, sides, and other parts of the body of him, the said Jedediah L. Torrey, to-wit : One mortal wound in the top of the head * * of the length of six inches, of the breadth of six inches, and of the depth of one inch -- one other wound on the left side of the head * of the length of six inches, of the breadth of four inches, and of the depth of one inch -- one other mortal wound on the forehead and face of the length of six inches, of the breadth of six inches, and of the depth of one inch-and one other mortal wound on the back * of the length of twelve inches, of the breadth of six inches and of the depth of two inches; of which said mortal strokes, wounds, and bruises, he, the said Jedediah L. Torrey, from the 15th day of July, in the year aforesaid * until the 18th day of July, in the year aforesaid, did languish, and languishing did live, on which said eighteenth day of July, in the year aforesaid, the said Jedediah L. Torrey * of the said mortal strokes, wounds, and bruises, aforesaid, died.
"And so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath, aforesaid, do say that the said Paul B. Torrey, him, the said Jedediah L. Torrey. in manner and by the means aforesaid, feloniously, wilfully, and of malice aforethought, did kill and murder, against the peace of the People of the State of New York and their dignity."
In other counts the prisoner was charged with striking, wound- ing and bruising the victim with a large stick, and thereby inflicting mortal wounds.
The sixth and last count charged that the prisoner, on the 18th day of July, 1831, "with force and arms, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did make an assault, and that the said
188
HISTORY OF ONTARIO COUNTY.
Paul B. Torrey, a certain cotton cambrick half handkerchief of the value of twenty cents, about the neck, nose and mouth of him, the said Jedediah L. Torrey, then and there, feloniously, wilfully and of his malice aforethought, did fix, tie, and fasten, and Paul B. Torrey with said half handkerchief, him, the said Jedediah L. Torrey, then and there, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did choak, suffocate, and strangle, of which said suffocating, choaking, and strangling, he, the said Jedediah L. Torrey, then and there instantly died." This count then closes with the charge of killing and murdering in the manner aforesaid by the means herein stated.
To the surprise of most people, the jury failed to find the pris- oner guilty of murder, but found him guilty of manslaughter, and he was sentenced to the State prison at Auburn for seven years. It is apparent that the prisoner's eminent counsel, Spencer, Sibley, and Wilson, must have exercised most extraordinary power over the jury in behalf of their client.
Many years ago, soon after Hon. Alfred Conkling had been appointed United States Judge for the Northern District of New York, a United States Circuit court was held in Canandaigua, Judge Thompson presiding, with Judge Conkling as Associate Judge; at which term a young man, son of Judge Gilbert, postmaster at Albion, was tried for robbing the mail, in taking one hundred dol- lars in marked ten dollar bills therefrom. One of the bills was found on the person of the young man. Judge Gilbert stood high in the estimation of the people of his village, and it is said that his friends to the number of three hundred attended the trial, which lasted three or four days in the hot month of July.
The case was summed up by eminent counsel on each side, consuming in their efforts several hours until night, when Judge Thompson began his charge to the jury. While on the point of identifying the money, which he said was so clear that there could scarcely be any doubt, he was so overcome with the heat and exhaustion that he fainted. Restoratives were applied and he began again. Again he fainted, and was taken near a window, where he again regained enough consciousness to hear Judge Conkling, con- tinuing the charge, take up the question of identifying the money, which he made difficult. As he was on this point, Judge Thompson, who thoroughly believed in the guilt of the young man, exclaimed, in a deprecating tone: "Oh, dear! Hear that charge; he will surely be acquitted. Oh, dear!"
189
THE ONTARIO COUNTY COURTS.
The case was given to the jury about 10 o'clock, Saturday night. On going to church Sunday morning, a wag reported that the jury had acquitted the young man, but told him not to do it again.
In the early forties, a man by the name of Booth was indicted for bigamy, and the case was brought to trial by the District Attorney, Thomas M. Howell, Esq., in the court of Sessions, Judge Bowen Whiting presiding. Alvah Worden, Esq., appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Howell had made a thorough preparation of the case, and wrote the name of the first wife in the indictment as it ap- peared in the marriage certificate, "Mary Ann," when, in fact it was "Mary Angeline."
The jury was empaneled, and the trial proceeded until the pros- ecuting attorney had made out a case. At this point, Mr. Worden, counsel for the defendant, moved that the indictment be quashed, on the ground that the defendant could not be held, on account of the mistake in the name of the first wife in the indictment.
The point was argued per- sistently by both sides, Mr. How- ell insisting that the law did not BOWEN WHITING. Bowen Whiting, a prominent member of the early Ontario county bar, was born in Norwich, Conn., January 16, 1790; moved to Geneva, Ontario county, in 1816; District Attorney from 1823 to 1832; a member of the Legislature in 1824 and 1825; County Judge from 1838 to 1844, and appointed a Supreme Court Judge for the Seventh dis- trict. April 7, 1844. He died in Geneva, December 28, 1850. regard the middle name in the de- scription of a person. The Judge decided that he could not hold the defendant. The District At- torney asked until morning to produce authorities, as it was then nearly 6 o'clock. This the Judge refused, and directed the jury to acquit and the clerk to demand the verdict.
To the question by the clerk, "Gentlemen, have you agreed upon a verdict?" The foreman responded, "Not guilty!" Here, the District Attorney, rising, said: "Please the Court, I request that the jury be polled." To this request the Judge said: "Please
190
HISTORY OF ONTARIO COUNTY.
take your seat, sir. The question is a legal one and has been decided by the Court." And turning to the clerk, he said: "Take the verdict from the full jury." The clerk responded, "So say you all?" There was a feeble "Yes" from the foreman, when the voice of Edward Herendeen, a Quaker from Farmington, was heard, "Not my verdict."
Judge Whiting, turning in an excited manner toward the jury, stated again: "Gentlemen, the question as to the error of the name is a question of law, not of fact, and the jury is bound to follow the direction of the Court, which is, that it must find a verdict of not guilty." And he again directed the clerk to take the verdict. "Not guilty," was the response of the foreman.
At the question, "So say you all?" the District Attorney, again rising, said: "If it please the Court, the District Attorney has the legal right to, and does, demand that the jury be polled." Judge Whiting exclaimed, "Take your seat, sir! Mr. Clerk; take that verdict."
The clerk: "So say you all?" Then suddenly the short but very broad figure of Edward Herendeen was seen rising, and, stand- ing on tiptoe, he exclaimed, bringing his fist down on the front of his seat, "Not my verdict, and I want to go out." "Well," said the Judge, "if the juryman takes that stand, the trial must proceed," and thereupon he adjourned the court till morning.
In the morning, on the cause being called, the District Attorney, with authorities on the table before him, requested permission to submit them. Judge Whiting then frankly stated that on exami- nation he had ascertained he was wrong, and, commending the stand taken by the juror, Herendeen, directed that the trial proceed and witnesses be examined for the defendant.
Friend Herendeen was proud of the stand he had taken, and afterward said to the District Attorney: "Friend Howell, I stood by thee on the Booth trial, and I think I taught the Judge and Lawyer Worden that, while man made common law, God made common sense."
The trial of Henry Wooden, in January, 1851, for the murder of his wife, on the 17th or 18th of August, 1844, at Victor, created a good deal of interest, and was hotly contested. S. V. R. Mallory and Mr. Chatfield appeared for the People, and Alvah Worden, Elbridge G. Lapham, and Jacob P. Faurot for the prisoner. The trial began January 19, 1851.
191
THE ONTARIO COUNTY COURTS.
It appeared that the deceased was the prisoner's second wife, and he her second husband; that they had married the fall before : that both had some property ; that they had quarreled; that on the 17th of August they were seen sitting at a table in their room, one on one side and the other on the other side ; that in the morning her body was found floating in the well, and that from the appearance of the bed where both usually slept there was the appearance of only one person having lain there. The trial lasted till the 24th, when the jury disagreed, and the case was never again tried.
The People vs. Esmond V. DeGraff -- The defendant was in- dicted in 1858 or 1859 for an assault and battery upon one Mil- ler, both highly esteemed in the town of Gorham, both teachers and both very much in love with a very intelligent young lady in the same town. Miller was found gagged and bound by strong cords, in his bedroom at the Web- ster House, Canandaigua, and while in this condition he swore that he was compelled to re- nounce all claim to the hand of the young lady by a paper pre- sented to him for that purpose and which he signed. His rival ROBERT W. STODDARD. was one of the persons engaged Robert W. Stoddard, a member of the early Ontario county bar, was born in Con- necticut in 1777; came into the Genesee country when quite a young man, settling at Geneva; attained distinction as a lawyer ; died at Geneva, March 16, 1849. in it, at least so he swore at the trial. The paper, it was said, was mysteriously found, and the young lady was very kindly so informed; no delay was made in putting her in possession of the story of the outrage that had been done by the defendant. This settled the matter against the defend- ant in the mind of the young lady, and she subsequently married Miller.
The trial lasted over a week, and the court house was crowded all the time with Gorham people. The most prominent people of
192
HISTORY OF ONTARIO COUNTY.
that town took sides, and did so with great bitterness. In the early morning the highway as far as could be seen from this village was black with carriages filled with excited people. DeGraff was ably defended by Hiram Metcalf and Mr. Raymond, of Rochester. Elbridge G. Lapham assisted the District Attorney. The senior opposing counsel almost came to blows, and the trial waxed hotter and hotter to the end. The jury disagreed, standing nine for conviction and three against.
The cause was not retried. Miller subsequently confessed that there was no truth in his story, told under oath on the trial, and that the defendant was in no wise guilty. He had tied the cords and arranged the gag himself.
Several important ejectment cases created much general interest at the time they were pending, and locally caused great excitement. One was that of Packard against Wilder, a Bristol case, which was tried first at the February, 1856, Circuit. The trial lasted six days. The jury disagreed. Hon. Elbridge G. Lapham for the plaintiff, and Hon. S. V. R. Mallory for the defendant. The case was again tried at the May, 1856, Circuit, at which Mr. Lapham was assisted by Hon. James C. Smith, then his law partner. This trial lasted five days, resulting in a verdict for the defendant. A new trial was granted and the case was again tried at the November Circuit, in 1857, after the death of Mr. Mallory, Thomas M. Howell appearing for the defendant. The trial lasted three days, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant, Wilder, died soon after.
On the trial the giving of a certain deed of the property was most positively denied by the person who gave it. The plaintiff could not procure the deed, but produced witnesses who swore positively that they had seen it. Some years after the death of the defendant, a copy of the deed was found spread on one of the books of record in the County Clerk's office, but the certificate of record had not been signed by the County Clerk, nor had it been indexed, for the reason that it was not entitled to record by reason of an imperfection in its acknowledgment or execution.
Another ejectment suit which was quite sensational was tried at a Circuit in 1855 or 1856. The question involved was whether a child, who had died some years before, inherited the property from his reputed father, who died before the child was born. If he so inherited, then, on his death, his mother inherited from him, and her
193
THE ONTARIO COUNTY COURTS.
grantee, the plaintiff, was entitled to the farm, a valuable piece of land near Geneva. If the child was not the real heir; then the brothers and sisters of the decedent were the heirs.
The real question involved came first before the court of Ses- sions in August, 1840, when William Kimber, Dolly Crittenden, Sally Kimball, Fanny Fulton, and Abijah Hawley were indicted for producing a pretended heir. The case was tried in May, 1841, before Hon. Daniel Mosely, Circuit Judge, and Hon. Bowen Whiting, County Judge ; John Lapham, Peter Mitchell, Jeremiah B. Parrish. and Amos Jones, Associate Judges. The trial lasted two days. The facts brought out were as startling and sensational as if found in a work of fiction. The prisoners, William Kimber, Dolly Crittenden, and Sally Kimball were found guilty, and the other two were acquitted. Sentence was suspended, and their bail was estreated the following year.
It was after the lapse of nearly fifteen years from the time the criminal case was tried, when substantially the same questions came before the Court to be tried in a civil suit. Hon. S. V. R. Mallory conducted the case for the plaintiff, and Hon. Elbridge G. Lapham for the defendant, resulting in a verdict for the defendant, sub- stantially the same finding as to the facts as in the criminal case, fifteen years before.
In August, 1856, a remarkable case was tried in the court of Sessions, Hon. John M. Bradford, County Judge, presiding. Asahel Gooding, of the town of Bristol, had been indicted for forgery. He was charged with forging the names of George Gooding, Elnathan W. Simmons, and others, as endorsers on certain promissory notes given by him to certain banks for a large amount. Suits against the persons whose names were signed on the notes had been commenced to enforce collection, but the defense of forgery had been interposed by the indorsers, and the trials had been postponed to await the result of the criminal prosecution.
The District Attorney, Thomas O. Perkins, Esq., was assisted in the prosecution by Hon: Elbridge G. Lapham and Hon. James C. Smith, who were the attorneys of the defendants in the civil cases in which forgery was alleged. Hon. S. V. R. Mallory and Hon. E. VanBuren defended the prisoner. The trial lasted six days. Every point in issue and every material fact was fought over by the attorneys most fiercely and with much bitterness. The material witnesses were subjected to the most searching and perplexing
194
HISTORY OF ONTARIO COUNTY.
cross-examination, one of them being kept on the stand for nearly two days.
Two of the witnesses who alleged forgery were shown signa- tures, purporting to be their own, on papers folded in envelopes. with a slit cut out just large enough to disclose the signature without revealing any other portion of the paper. It is said some of them denied the genuineness of their signatures to official papers duly acknowledged, and admitted fic- titious ones to be genuine. One of them admitted endorsing notes in blank, to be filled up as to amount, date, and time of pay- ment. The ordeal they were sub- jected to was most trying. The character of the witnesses for the prosecution was beyond question. They were among the best citi- zens of the town of Bristol, and their honesty and veracity were unquestioned. The jury evidently believed them to be mistaken and acquitted the prisoner. As a con- sequence, the civil suits were thereafter settled by the defend- ants therein.
At the February, 1853, term of the Oyer and Terminer, Asa B. Smith was indicted with William HENRY S. COLE. R. Smith and Thomas Wright for Henry S. Cole was born in Canandaigua, September 23, 1800; admitted to practice at the Ontario county bar, 1821; removed to Michigan, where he became prominent in the practice of his profession and held the office of Judge of the Probate Court; died at Detroit, June 10, 1836. kidnapping his own daughter, Eliza Bell Bennett, who was claimed by one Addison J. Ben- nett to be his wife, and the case was sent to the court of Sessions for trial. Another indictment against the same parties was found at the April term of the court of Sessions, in the same year, for assault and battery upon Addison J. Bennett and Eliza Bell Bennett. Both indictments were based on the same transaction.
The facts were, in substance, that Bennett, a young man of little education and no refinement, was a farm hand working by the
195
THE ONTARIO COUNTY COURTS.
month for Asa B. Smith, a well-to-do farmer and member of the Society of Friends-commonly called Quakers-residing in the town of Macedon, whose daughter, an innocent, simple-minded girl, about sixteen years old, kept in child-like ignorance of nearly every- thing outside the monotony of home life on her father's farm, became impressed with what she thought was manliness and worth in the person of this hired man, who had acquired much influence over her, unsuspected by her parents.
One Sunday, or First Day, as the Friends call it, the parents went to meeting, leaving their daughter at home. Bennett induced the girl to go with him in a buggy to some magistrate or preacher and get married, promising to bring her directly back home to her parents. On the return of the parents, they learned that Bennett had driven away with their daughter. The three men who were indicted started after Bennett and the girl, and soon met them, when the father and one of the other men jumped from their carriage and seized Bennett's horse, and, with threats to Bennett, the father took his daughter from Bennett's buggy, and, putting her into their carriage, drove home. Bennett being determined to regain his wife, her father sent her to Philadelphia, to be kept by some of the Society of Friends there of his acquaintance and placed in school. It having come to the knowledge of the father that Bennett had learned where his wife was, she was sent to England, where she became an educated and accomplished lady.
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.