USA > Ohio > Delaware County > Memorial record of the counties of Delaware, Union and Morrow, Ohio > Part 6
USA > Ohio > Morrow County > Memorial record of the counties of Delaware, Union and Morrow, Ohio > Part 6
USA > Ohio > Union County > Memorial record of the counties of Delaware, Union and Morrow, Ohio > Part 6
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68
Reverting with more detail to the life of Thomas H. Marriott, father of our subject, we find that his position as one of the en- terprising and successful farmers of Licking county was assured, and that his character
was such as gained to him respect and much local distinction. Always an uncom- promising Democrat in his political views, he instilled into the minds of his children the principles which he advocated, and so effective was his effort in this regard that in the later years his sons have never swerved in their allegiance to these same principles. Incidentally, it is interesting to note the fact that the subject of this sketch, Hon. Francis M. Marriott (better known as Frank M.) has held many positions of trust and responsibility in the gift of his party. He received his early education in the old log school-house known as the Kirkpatrick school, located in Eden township, Daniel Paul, afterward State Senator from Knox county, having been one of his first instruc- tors in the primitive scholastic institution. In the year 1864 Thomas H. Marriott re- moved with his family to Delaware county, settling in Harlem township on the farm now owned by his son, the subject of this sketch. Francis was soon thereafter en- abled to attend school at Central College, in Franklin county, and ultimately to enter the Ohio Wesleyan University, at Delaware, where he prosecuted his studies, defraying the expenses of his education by teaching during the winters and working on the farm during vacations.
He was principal of the high school at Sunbury in the year 1870, and in the spring of the following year began reading law in the office of Charles H. McElroy, who after- ward became Judge of the Court of Com- mon Pleas. After three months of close application, Mr. Marriott taught another term of school at Sunbury, and in the fall of 1871 resumed the study of his chosen profession with Messrs. Reid & Powell, who comprised one of the leading law firms of
36
MEMORIAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL RECORD OF
Delaware. Admitted to the bar March 19, 1874, Mr. Marriott almost immediately gained recognition, being elected Prosecut- ing Attorney of Delaware county in the fall of the same year. As indicative of his per- sonal popularity and of the confidence in which he is held by the people it may be here noted that at the polls was rolled up to his credit the handsome inajority of 489 in a county which at that election gave a natural Republican majority of more than 700.
His professional ability and correct methods secured to him a clientele which rendered it expedient for him to refuse a re- nomination to the office of Prosecuting At- torney, but in the fall of 1879 he yielded to the importunities of his party friends and accepted the nomination for State Senator from the sixteenth Senatorial district, com- prising the counties of Licking and Dela- ware, and was elected to that office in Oc- tober of that year. During his two years' service in legislative halls he stood as a leader in the Senate, his counsel being al- ways regarded as wise and conservative, while upon parliamentary questions his de- cisions were considered as practically ulti- mate. His care and consideration in the discharge of the responsible duties of his official position gained him the respect and highest confidence of his collegues. Having been selected by the Democratic members of the Sixty-fourth General Assembly as one of the committee to go to Washington for the purpose of presenting to the National Democratic Committee the claims of the Ohio Democracy for the holding of the na- tional convention of the party in that State, he, with the support of the other members of the committee, did such effective work in furtherance of the cause as to secure the
holding of the convention in Cincinnati in 1880. To this convention he was unani- mousły chosen as a delegate from the ninth Congressional district, composed of the counties of Knox, Morrow, Hardin and Delaware. In April, 1884, he was appointed by Governor George Hoadly as one of the three managers of the Intermediate Peni- tentiary, was reappointed in 1885, and has ever since held that position (except for two years under the administration of Governor Foraker), receiving commission from Gov- ernors James E. Campbell and William McKinley.
Mr. Marriott's devotion to his profession and his marked aversion to political life have proved sufficient to deter him for accepting other political preferments which have been urged upon him by constituents. His suc- cess in a professional way has been pro- nounced, and offers the best evidence of his capability in this line. He is a strong ad- vocate with the jury and concise in his ap- peals before the court. Much of the suc- cess which has attended him in his profes- sional career is undoubtedly due to the fact that in no instance will he permit himself to go into court with a case unless he has ab- solute confidence in the justice of his cli- ent's cause. Basing his efforts upon this principle, from which there are far too many lapses in professional ranks, it nat- urally follows that he seldom loses a case in whose support he is enlisted.
As touching the professional career of our subject there is one case which so clearly shows the animus of the man and which stands in example of the broad charity that is his and the extent to which he will lend his influence for the sake of jus- tice alone, that we cannot refrain from re- verting to the same in this connection.
37
DELAWARE, UNION AND MORROW COUNTIES, OHIO.
Giacoma Pallotta was indicted and put upon trial on a charge of "shooting with intent to kill." He had spent the day in Delaware attending strictly to his business, that of scissors grinding. In the evening, he, in company with his uncle, went to the Hocking Valley depot, intending to go to Marion. While waiting for the train he accidentally shot a man by the name of Fee- nan. He was arrested and indicted on the charge of shooting with intent to kill as above. There was great excitement at the time, and he was placed upon trial while the public mind was greatly inflamed. Mr. Marriott was in no way connected with his trial. Hon. Gil Barger, of Columbus, de- fended him before the jury, and made a most able defense, but he was convicted and sentenced to five years' imprisonment in the Ohio Penitentiary. Mr. Marriott heard the trial, carefully listened to all the testimony, and thought the verdict and imprisonment unwarranted. The prisoner's counsel not prosecuting the case further Mr. Marriott voluntarily took up the case, had the testi- mony transcribed and filed a petition in error in the Circuit Court to the judgment of the Common Pleas Court. Pallatta had in the meantime been taken to prison and was serving his sentence. He did not know that his case was being prosecuted and never did know until Mr. Marriott telegraphed him the action of the Circuit Court and he was released from prison after having served about six months of his sentence. Pallatto was a poor fellow; a stranger in our country, spoke our language very imperfectly; in fact could hardly make himself understood at all. He had no means to employ coun- sel and no friends who were willing to assist him, and our subject took up his defense, purely as an act of justice and charity, look-
ing only for his reward in that time when the Great Judge shall say, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethern, ye have done it unto me."
Following is an extract from the brief presented by Mr. Marriott in the celebrated case, the same offering the portion of the argument referring to the testimony given at the trial. The brief discussed the law of the case at length, but the Circuit Court reversed the case solely on the ground that the evidence did not warrant the jury in rendering a verdict of guilty:
"How a jury could conclude and 'find beyond a reasonable doubt' from the testi- mony in the case, that the defendant pur- posely shot Feenan is beyond the power of our minds to conceive, and we here invite the court to a careful and close examination of the testimony as given.
"Can the verdict be explained except upon the grounds of a prejudice against the defendant, possibly because he is an Italian, and stood friendless and alone amongst strangers, in a strange land.
" At the time of this trial and for some time previous, the public mind was and had been inflamed by published accounts of the wickedness of the Italians in different sec- tions of the country, and the popular mind was so wrought up that a mere word would be sufficient to incite mob law against Ital- ians wherever found in this country; and beyond a doubt the jury partook of this prejudice and were influenced in their ver- dict by it.
" We assert with confidence that had an American citizen of Delaware county been placed upon trial for exactly the same of- fence that Pallotta was charge with, and had exactly the same testimony been pro- duced here, precisely the same state of facts, the jury would have acquitted him without go- ing from the jury-box. The shooting was with- out any motive whatever, so far as the testi- mony disclosed. No words were spoken be- tween the defendant and the man shot; they
38
MEMORIAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL RECORD OF
had never met before, no provocation is shown to have been given either by Feenan or any one else. The act of shooting was entirely motiveless, -it cannot be accounted for upon any other ground than accident, - and this is what the defendant says it was. That it was purely accidental, -not intended, - is consistent with every word of the testi- mony given upon the trial and shown by the testimony of the defendant. When a crime is committed we instinctively and naturally look for the motive which impelled it; in this case we look in vain for motive; not even a shadow of a motive is dis- closed. Wharton, in his treatise of the criminal law, on page 121, uses the lan- guage:
" 'No doubt when a tender mother kills a child or a friend kills a friend, and noth- ing more than the fact of killing is proved, we may be led to infer misadventure, acci- dent '-for we have the sworn testimony of the defendant, corroborated by all the evi- dence of the case, to prove the shooting to have been accidental.
"The defendant stands before the jury with the presumption of innocence in his favor, with which the law surrounds and shields every person charged with crime, un- til that presumption is removed by clear, unequivocal, positive proof of guilt; and this proof must be so strong that there does not remain a reasonable doubt of guilt before that presumption is removed.
"If the testimony can be reconciled con- sistently with the innocence of the defend- ant, it is the duty of the jury so to reconcile it, and declare him innocent. So jealous is the law in guarding the liberty of the in- dividual that it will not allow that liberty to be invaded or taken from him until every doubt of his guilt has been removed by strong and convincing proof. In this case we claim that there is an entire absence of testimony proving the guilt of the defend- ant, that he intentionally committed the crime charged against him or that he intend- ed any wrong whatever; on the contrary the testimony shows that the unfortunate act which has deprived him of his liberty was
purely accidental, and we say therefore that he is wrongfully deprived of his liberty. Let us calinly and dispassionately review the testimony as the record presents it and as it was presented to the jury upon the trial.
" Giacoma Pallotta, in company with his uncle came to Delaware on the morning of the 18th of August from the city of Columbus, where he was then making his home and where he had been for more than six years. He was not a tramp or beggar, but is shown to have worked at honest labor in the city, when work could be obtained; and when he could not find employment where he made his home he would go into the country and try and earn an honest penny by selling scissors, knives and pistols, and by sharpening scissors and knives. So far as the testimony shows he was peaceable and law-abiding; he had never been arrest- ed in his life, nor had he ever before this unfortunate occurrence been charged with any crime. Witnesses who had known him for six or seven years and whose standing in the community where they live has never been questioned, and whose reputation for truth and veracity has never been doubted, say of him that he is honest, industrious, peaceable and law-abiding. No witness lifts his voice to speak aught againt him or casts a shadow upon his life up to the mo- ment of the unfortunate act for which he was tried. He spent the day in Delaware, plying his occupation till evening, when he went to the railroad depot west of the city with the purpose of taking the evening train for Marion. If he spoke an unkind word during the whole of that day to a liv- ing soul it is not recorded in the testimony, and was not disclosed in the trial of the case to the jury. He went peaceably about the town, earning an honest dime wherever he could, until the hour of his leaving for Marion, and while waiting for the train which would carry him from Delaware he is asked by a young man who is waiting for the train to sharpen his knife, which he cheerfully did and then returned it to him.
"The testimony shows that after handing the knife to its owner, the young man, who
-
39
DELAWARE, UNION AND MORROW COUNTIES, OHIO.
sat down by Feenan on a bench and began to wipe the knife off on his shoe, the de- fendant reached in the box of his machine and took out a revolver, took two steps toward the persons who were sitting on the bench, and shot. The man who was the unfortunate victim of the shot was Feenan. They had never met before, had never spoken a word to each other; there had been no quarrel between the defendant and any person there on that occasion. Nothing had occurred, so far as the testimony dis- closes, to provoke the defendant to make the most innocent assault of words upon any person on that occasion, or during the day. The shooting cannot be explained consistently with the defendant's guilt and it cannot be reconciled on any other hypo- thesis than that it was accidental and the result of misfortune.
" The conduct of the defendant after the shooting, -what he said and did, -is not in- consistant with his innocence and is easily explained when the surroundings are taken into account. . He was in a strange country among strangers, knowing little of our customs or laws; he evidently thought his life was in danger, and he was ready to act upon the suggestion of the only friend he had, and when that friend told him to flee he was quick to act upon the suggestion and ran for his life. But notice his conduct. How at variance with the conduct of a desperado, - reckless man that he must have been if he had intentionally shot Feenan. To what place of refuge did he flee? Why! with his pursuers close upon his heels, all the time in plain sight, he crawled under a pig pen.
"Think of this would-be murderer delib- erately shooting down a fellow, in broad daylight, at a public place, with numerous persons around-then running to a pig pen and crawling under it; and when the per- sons come up, he crawls out trembling and says, 'I did not shoot the man.'
"Mervin Kuhns, the Fostoria murderer, would scarcely have shown such courage and daring. Yet because of his fleeing and the contradictory statements he made to the town marshal, his feeble statement of inno-
cence is rebutted and he was properly con- victed. They say moreover that he was not excited, that he was remarkably cool for a man who had shot another,-and this is claimed in face of the fact that the defend- ant crawled under a pig pen to hide from an excited mob who were calling out: 'Get a rope and hang him.' He must have been very deliberate and composed when he made to the marshal the statement claimed. Be-
sides, there is great doubt as to what he did state to the marshal, or at least of what he meant to state, for the marshal says him- self it was hard to understand what he said and he even had to get an interpreter to talk to him before he could understand what he meant.
"That the defendant was shocked and horrified at what he had unintentionally done, when he saw that he shot Feenan and saw the blood flowing from the wound, is perfectly apparent from his conduct which followed. Instead of doing that which a desperate criminal would have done, to wit: retained the revolver as a defense against arrest, he threw the pistol down and fled to a pig pen. He did not know and could not tell how the shooting occurred. One thing he knew and has always asserted, -that is, that he did not intentionally shoot; and had no purpose of doing Feenan or any one else harm; and this is decisive of the case. And now, having presented these views, we are willing to rest the case with the court.
" I did not appear for the defendant in the trial below. I have never spoken to him, I never saw him until brought into court and arraigned upon the indictment, and I have never seen him since he was conducted from the court room after his trial. I was present at his trial and listened to the testi- mony given to the jury.
"I was impressed (as were others) with the insufficiency of the evidence to war- rant a verdict of guilty. I heard the verdict of the jury and was astonished at the same. I thought then as I think now, that it was not warranted by the testimony, and so believing, I, without promise of re- ward or the hope thereof, filed informally
40
MEMORIAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL RECORD OF
a motion for a new trial. Counsel who tried the case below not appearing, the motion was over-ruled and sentence pro- nounced. I then thought it was the duty of some member of the bar to present this case to the court upon the rec- ord and give the defendant one chance at least for his liberty, so I have brought the case before the court and now plead the cause of the 'stranger within our door,' and ask for him at the hands of this honorable court, a careful and unprejudiced review of the case (which I know it will give), and when I have secured that for him, I have done only that which I would wish another to do for me or mine should mis- fortune overtake me or them."
The marriage of Mr. Marriott was cele- brated December 31, 1874, when he was united to Miss Flora Minges, daughter of John E. and Lydia Minges, of Peru, Huron county, Ohio. Our subject and his wife have had four children, one of whom is de- ceased.
In his fraternal relations Mr. Marriott is prominently identified with the Masonic or- der, having taken all the degrees of both the York and Scottish rites, and having served as Master of Hiram Lodge, No. 18, F. & A. M., and also as High Priest of Chapter No. 54, Royal Arch Masons, at Delaware, Ohio.
RANCIS CLYMER STANLEY. The subject of this review is one whose ancestral history touches not only the pioneer epoch in the an- nals of the Buckeye State, but also traces back to the colonial history of the nation, and to that period which marked the incep- tion of the strongest republic the world has ever known. Himself a representative busi- ness man of Edison, Morrow county, it is
then particularly consistent that a review of his life be incorporated in this volume.
The father of our subject was Milton Stanley, who was a native of Columbiana county, Olio, where he was born November 5, 1812, the son of James and Rhoda (Cobbs) Stanley. The original American ancestor of the Stanley line came from England about 1660 and made settlement at Hanover, Lon- doun county, Virginia, he and his family being members of the Society of Friends, or, as they are ordinarily designated, Quakers. The mother of the subject of this sketch was Elizabeth (Martin) Stanley, a native of Tus- carawas county, this State, where she was born en the 22d day of January, 1815, the daughter of John and Sarah (Michner) Mar- tin, the former of whom came from Hol- land. He served for eighteen months in the American army during the war of 1812.
The Michner family came to America with William Penn and settled with his colony in Philadelphia. The great-grand- father Stanley came to Ohio in 1805 and settled in Columbiana county, being one of the early pioneers of that locality. The Stanley family was represented by six or seven young men, and the Cobb family, which settled there at the same time, com- prised in its number six or seven young women. The result of this association in that early day can readily be anticipated, for we find that three of the Stanley boys found their respective wives from the eligible mem- bers of the Cobb family. One of the former, James Stanley, was the grandfather of our subject. He died about 1818, leaving a wid- ow and four children, the father of our sub- ject being the eldest child. The mother sub- sequently consummated a second marriage.
Milton Stanley came to Marion county, Ohio, in 1835, settling three miles west of
41
DELAWARE, UNION AND MORROW COUNTIES, OHIO.
the point where the village of Cardington is now located. Here he entered claim to 160 acres of Government timber land, and began operations by causing the forest trees to yield dominion under the sturdy blows of the swinging ax. In 1852 he disposed of the farm, which had been well reclaimed, and removed to Indiana, settling on a farm in Marshall county, where he died on the first day of September, 1865. His widow survived until 1888, her demise occurring in Kansas. They were the parents of six children, of whom four are living at the present time, the complete record being given briefly as follows: Robert C. married Maria Cornelius, and they had ten children, their residence being in Ottawa county, Kansas; Mary Jane, wife of Newton Alldaffer, died in 1872, having been the mother of two chil- dren; James M., a resident of Tescott, Kan- sas, married Helen M. Tucker, and they have four children; Francis C. is the imme- diate subject of this review; Samuel O. is a resident of Ottawa county, Kansas; Lydia died at the age of thirteen years. The sons all served as volunteers during the late war of the Rebellion. The father and mother were devoted and consistent members of the Presbyterian Church. Milton Stanley was an ardent Abolitionist, and was one of the prime movers in effecting the organiza- tion of the Republican party in his locality, being a man of highest honor and of much influence, although he had never accepted political preferment in an official way.
Francis C. Stanley was born October 22, 1844, in Marion county, Ohio, and was raised on the farm, receiving his preliminary educational discipline in the district schools and supplementing the same by attending for one year the Friends' Academy, at Wood- bury, Ohio.
July 28, 1862, he gave the distinctive evidence of his patriotism and loyalty by enlisting for service in the late war, as a member of company D, Seventy-third Indi- ana Volunteer Infantry, entering as a private. The regiment was recruited at South Bend and after its organization was sent to Rich- mond, Kentucky, and there faced the forces of the rebel General, Kirby Smith, within six weeks after leaving home, -engaging the Confederate troops in a lively skirmish, and thereafter proceeding to Louisville, same state, covering a distance of forty-eight miles in twenty-three hours, -from Lexing- ton to Frankfort. Here the regiment was assigned to Harker's Brigade of Wood's Division of the Fourteenth Army Corps. This brigade was General Sherman's famous old brigade. In this command they started in pursuit of General Bragg, through Ken- tucky, traversing all sections of the State and having numerous skirmishes with the enemy. They drove Bragg from Kentucky to Nashville, Tennessee, and then pro- ceeded to Murfreesboro and participated in the battle at that point, being there assigned to General Strait's brigade, hav- ing been engaged in building fortifications about Murfreesboro for three months prior to such assignment, which was made April 1, 1863. In this connection Mr. Stanley proceeded with his regiment down the Cumberland river to Fort Henry, thence to Pittsburg Landing, and they figured as mounted infantry on the ensuing raid to Rome, Georgia, being with the com- mand of General Grierson from Pittsburg Landing to Corinth, Mississippi. They proceeded across Alabama, burning much property on the way; they had exhausted their amunition, were surrounded by the the enemy and being 300 miles below the
12
MEMORIAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL RECORD OF
Union lines, were surrendered by General Strait. Mr. Stanley participated in the following named battles: Stone River, Tennessee; Sand Mountain, Alabama; Black Warrior Creek, Alabama; Blount's Farm, Alabama; and many skirmishes with bushwhackers. May 3, 1863, he was captured and was sent to Atlanta, where he was held for a few days and then trans- ferred, to Knoxville, and finally to Rich- mond, where he was held in captivity at Belle Isle prison for a fortnight. The last of May he was paroled and was sent to Annapolis, Maryland, and then to Camp Chase, Columbus, Ohio. The terms of surrender were that officers and privates were to be paroled and that the offi- cers were to be allowed the retention of side arms. The officers were held for twenty-two months, with the exception of those who escaped through the tunnel at Richmond.
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.