History of Crawford and Richland counties, Wisconsin, Part 120

Author: Butterfield, Consul Willshire, 1824-1899. [from old catalog]; Union publishing company, Springfield, Ill., pub. [from old catalog]
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: Springfield, Ill., Union publishing company
Number of Pages: 1298

USA > Wisconsin > Richland County > History of Crawford and Richland counties, Wisconsin > Part 120
USA > Wisconsin > Crawford County > History of Crawford and Richland counties, Wisconsin > Part 120

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).

The case of R. C. Rounsavell vs. Elihn and D. G. Pease, was one of the most important eivil actions tried at the October term of cir- cuit court in 1876. The faets in this case, as near as they can be learned from conflicting statements, were as follows: Elihu and D. G. Pease were proprietors of a store at Richland Centre. One day an agent for a sewing ma- chine company called at the store to get Mr. Pease to take the agency of the machines. Mr. Pease had his team at the door in readiness to go to Rockbridge. He told the agent that he would take the agency, but had no time to look over the contract which the agent pro- dueed. The agent prevailed upon Mr. Pease to sign the contract, however, and said he would fill it out afterward and leave a copy of it at the store. Mr. Pease claimed that he understood that he was merely taking the agency of the machines. The contract which he signed, however, when the blanks were filled, proved to be an order for a certain number of machines. In due time the machines arrived. Mr. Pease was not sue- cessful in selling the machines, and refused to pay for them. The company then brought this action on the contract. The attorneys were Miner & Wulfing, for the plaintiff, and O. F. Black and Eastland & Son, for the defendants. The court after a full hearing, held, and so in- structed the jury, that if the blanks in the con- tract had not been filled out as agreed it was not binding. The jury took the view that the blanks were not so filled out, and Messrs. Pease received a judgment for costs. The case was carried to the supreme court and the decision in the circuit court was affirmed.

850

HISTORY OF RICHLAND COUNTY.

The case of Griffin vs. the Town of Willow, came up for trial at the fall term of court in 1876. It was an action by Daniel Griffin and wife for injuries to their persons which they alleged they sustained by reason of the defect- ive highway. The evidence showed that at the place where the accident occurred, a ditch and break-water ran diagonally across the road, and that upon Griffin driving his wagon into this ditch, the axle-tree was broken, the wife was thrown from the wagon, the horses ran away, and both the plaintiffs sustained personal inju- ries. J. W. Lusk, of Sauk county, brought the action for damages; but not having time to try the case he left it in the hands of James IT. Miner, E. C. Wulfing and James Lewis, for trial. M. M. Cothren and O F. Black appeared on behalf of the town. The case was warmly contested and the jury disagreed, being equally divided. A new trial was had in the spring of 1877, when J. W. Lusk was present and man- aged the case himself. In the meantime, Mr. Cothren had become circuit judge and took his place upon the bench. Lusk was advised to take a change of venue, but he thought he would receive as good treatment from Cothren as any other judge. O. F. Black and W. E. Carter, this time defended the town. Again the case was warmly contested; but Cothren in his charge to the jury and admission of the evidence, left the plaintiff no chance; so the defendant received a judgment for the costs. Lusk carried the case to the supreme court, where the judgment of the circuit court was reversed and the case came back to circuit court in Vernon county for a new trial. The matter ran along for some time, and finally the case dropped from sight.

The case of Thomas J. Whitcraft rs. Town of Rockbridge, was one of the most im- portant eases upon the docket for the fall term of court in 1876. James H. Miner and E. C. Wulfing appeared on the part of the plaintiff, and Oscar F. Black for the defense. Mr. Whit- craft, in company with others, wa in a wagon

crossing the Pine river in the town of Rock- bridge, when the old "rickety" bridge gave way, and in the fall Mr. Whiteraft was badly hurt. He was laid up for some time, and his injuries were of such a nature that possibly he might never fully recover from their effects, Ile made a proposition to the town of Rock- bridge to settle the matter for $250, but the town refused to give that much. Ile therefore began snit against the town for $500 damages. The road upon which the defective bridge was located was one which had been formally adopted by the county This was done to legalize an act of the board of supervisors, in appropriating a small amount from the county funds to be applied towards repairing this par- ticular road. The defense of the town in this action was based upon this fact. The defense set forth that the road in question was a county road; had been formally adopted by the county; and if any injury resulted from its being out of repair, the county must be liable, not the town. But after an exciting trial the jury viewed the matter in a different light, and gave Thomas Whiteraft a verdict of $316 and costs, amount- ing in all to $452.83.

In April, 1876, Hon. M. M. Cothren was again elected circuit judge, and served until January, 1883.

At the April term of court in 1877, the case of State of Wisconsin rs. Thomas McClary and Hugh Brooks first came up for trial. This was probably the most important criminal case that has ever been tried in Richland county. A great deal of feeling was engendered over the case, and it has been difficult for the historian to arrive at the true state of facts; but as near as they can be gleaned, the history of the case was as follows:

Many years ago, Hon. Charles G. Rodolf erected a valuable grist-mill on Mill creek, in the town of Eagle. Mr. Rodolf was very popu- lar, and his mill gained a very large patronage. One morning, in 1868, while the employees of the mill were at breakfast, the mill was dis-

851

HISTORY OF RICHILAND COUNTY.

covered to be on fire. All efforts to save it were futile. The mill was burned to the ground, and very little was saved. Various conjectures were advanced at the time as to the origin of the fire. Mr. Rodolf soon rebuilt his mill, and one night about 12 o'clock, when it was well nigh completed, the mill was again discovered to be on fire, and this time some one was seen running from the mill. The party who discovered the fire went up stairs and there found an old glass-box partly filled with rags, shavings, papers, and other combustible ma- terial, all on fire. This was extinguished. Mr. Rodolf suspicioned one of his neighbors, had him arrested, taken before a justice of the peace at Richland Centre, and held to bail. Hle was afterwards indicted by the grand jury. Subsequent developments, however, proved that this party was entirely innocent, so the case was dropped. The work on the mill progressed. It was finished, and continued to run until the night of Feb. 6, 1876. Upon this memorable night, for the citizens of that vicinity, at be- tween the hours of 12 and 1 o'clock, it was again discovered that the mill was in flames. It was totally destroyed, together with about $1,000 worth of wheat and flour, which was in the mill. The day after the mill burned the Rodolfs came to the conclusion that the mill had taken fire from the stove, which was in an office adjoining the mill. Two prominent and, it seems, plausible reasons were given for this. One was, a snow had fallen early in the evening before the mill burned, and no tracks could be found the next morning ; the other reason was, the unsafe condition of the stove. In the spring of 1876, it was whispered around the neighborhood that Thomas C. McClary had stated that he had burned the first mill and had threatened to burn the other. The Rodolfs picked up scraps of evidence, and it was re- ported they had offered a large reward for in- formation regarding the burning of the mills.

Hugh Brooks, one of the defendants men- tioned, told Rodolf that Thomas MeClary had

hired him (Brooks) to burn the mill, agreed to give him $500, and had given him $5, and that he (Brooks) had burned the mill. Brooks soon after stated to another party that he had not burned the mill, nor had Mr. McClary hired him to, but there was money in it which he conld make easier than by hard work. Brooks was arrested in July, 1876, and was locked up in jail, without any examination or order of commitment. At about this time the sheriff and C. G. Rodolf went to Spring Valley, Minn., to apprehend Mr. McClary, he having removed there in November, 1875. The friends of Me- Clary sent Scott Kincannon to advise McClary what was being done. After full consultation, Kincannon and McClary's attorney at Spring Valley advised him to keep out of the way for a while, and in the mean time find out what they could. The sheriff and Mr. Ro- dolf returned without Mr. McClary. Dur- ing the hot days of August, Mr. Brooks got restless and fled. He was again arrested and lodged in jail and remained there until Nov. 1, 1877. While in jail Mr. Brooks told several persons that he had burned the mill. This he afterwards denied; said he did not burn the mill, and stuck to it, so swearing upon his final trial, and claimed Rudolf hired him to so state. Mr. McClary's friends paid Mr. Kincannon liberally for his trouble, time, expense and counsel ; and from the part he had taken it was supposed he knew the whereabouts of Mr. McClary. Mr. Ro- dolf sent for Mr. Kincannon to call and see him at Muscoda. Mr. Kincannon said he had sympathy for Mr. Rodolf's family, and in consideration of the $103 paid and $97 to be paid, he told Mr. Rodolf the whereabouts of Mr. MeClary. F. C. Rodolf, by the aid of this information, arrested Mr. McClary in Illinois and brought him back to Richland Centre, in irons, in March, 1877. Mr. Brooks and Mr. MeClary were taken before a justice of the peace, and after an examination, Mr. Brooks was remanded to jail, and Mr. Me- Clary held to bail in the sum of $12,500, to await trial. Mr. McClary's bail was afterwards

852

HISTORY OF RICHLAND COUNTY.

reduced by court commissioner Durnford to $6,000 which was furnished.

At the April term, 1877, they were proceeded against by the State jointly, upon information, for arson. Mr. McClary's friends saw at once that his being associated with Mr. Brooks would be a sad blow for the defense. But how to get Judge Cothren to give separate trials was a question. A successful plan, however, was devised. Mr. Brooks made an application for a change of venue, setting forth in his affidavit that he feared he could not get an impartial trial in this circuit on account of the prejudice of the judges. The change of venue was accord- ingly granted, and the case of State rs Hugh Brooks was taken to Dane county for trial. The attorneys were O. F. Black, E. C. Wulfing and George C. Hazelton, for the State, and James H. Miner, James Lewis, Eastland & Son and Dutcher & Brooks, for the defense. The trial at Madison was a long one, some forty witnesses being in attendance. The most important point raised in the trial was over the admission of testimony. Mr. Brooks had admitted before a justice of the peace that he had been hired to, and did burn the mill. The defense objected to the admission of this as evidence, on the ground that it was a confidential statement made to an officer of the law. The point was hotly argued and the judge sustained the objection. But during a recess for dinner he consulted one of the criminal lawyers who was in the city, and when court again convened he reversed his former decision and allowed the admissions of Mr. Brooks to be introduced. This placed Mr. Brooks in a bad position before the jury, and he could expect no leniency. If he had not burned the mill, as he claimed in his defense, then he was guilty of trying to get Mr. McClary in prison by false swearing, and if his former statements were true, then he was guilty. After being out a short time the jury re- turned a verdict of guilty, and the judge sentenced him to five years in the penitentiary.

The final trial of the State of Wisconsin rs. Thomas McClary, for complicity, took place at the fall term of circuit court in 1878, in Rich- land Centre. The trial excited great interest and was attended by a large concourse of people from all parts of the county. A great number of witnesses were sworn and examined. The testimony in a great measure was the same facts that have been related. Mr. Brooks after having made his first confession, that Mr. MeClary had hired him to burn the mill, de- nied it, and stated that Rodolf had hired him to make the confession and throw the blame upon Mr. McClary, in the hope of forcing money from him (McClary). This was taken advantage of by the defense. Throughout, the case was managed in a most able manner upon both sides, not a stone being left unturned. The charge of Judge Cothren seemed to leave no hope for the defense, as will be seen from the following extracts from the charge, which will also serve to throw some light upon parts of the testimony introduced: Indge Cothren said to the jury: "If you find from the evidence that the defendant had a grudge against Rodolf, the owner of the mill, and had made threats that the mill should be destroyed, it justifies the conclusion that the defendant was under the influence of motives that might reasonably be supposed sufficient to prompt him to hire a person to burn the mill.

"If you find from the evidence that he em- ployed, directed or counseled Ilugh Brooks to burn the mill, you should find him guilty of the offense charged in the information. Brooks has been judicially found guilty of burning the mill. It was not the result of an accident. You will consider the conduct of de- fendant in going from place to place to escape arrest, leaving his family and having letters directed to him under an assumed name. Such condnet usually attends consciousness of guilt. Such conduct is not consistent with the possibil- ity of innocence. It is inconsistent with the probability of innocence, and if not explained

853

HISTORY OF RICHLAND COUNTY.

upon some reasonable hypothesis, which ren- ders it consistent with his innocence, it raises a strong presumption against him of guilt. You will consider the statement made by Mr. Kincannon (if you believe that the defendant made it) that he only paid Mr. Brooks $5 when told that they would prove he paid Mr. Brooks 850, and give it such weight as you think it de- serves. You will consider the statement made to Tuek Rodolf when arrested (if you believe that it was made) that if it had been twenty- four hours later he never would have got him in this world, and give it such thought as you deem it entitled to. And in the same connection you will consider the state- ment made to the sheriff, George Matteson, that if he had got his money before Tuck got hold of him, he would have given them a bigger chase, and give it such weight as you think it deserves. It is established that Hugh Brooks fired the mill. If you believe that James Mckinney went with Mr. Brooks at the time the mill was fired, and believe that defendant had told Mr. Mckinney that he had hired Mr. Brooks to do the burning, and had asked Mr. Mckinney if he would do it in case Mr. Brooks failed, your belief from the evidence will lead to the result that the defendant is guilty, as charged in the information. If you believe from the evidence that Mr. Mckinney went with Mr. Brooks at the time the mill was fired, and be- lieve that he was induced to go with Mr. Brooks upon Mr. Brooks' representation that the de- fendant had employed him to do it, and had agreed to pay him $500 for doing it, and finding in connection with the evidence, will justify you in finding the defendant guilty, though you should doubt that defendant had told Mr. MeKinney that he had hired Mr. Brooks, and doubt that defendant had asked Mr. Mckinney if he would do it in case Mr. Brooks failed. It is possible that Mr. Brooks never burned the mill. But we are not in this case to look for that possibility for the purpose of engendering a doubt. Ile has been tried and found guilty.

That settles the question that he was at the mill and fired it. To raise any doubt upon that subject would require the clearest and most con- vineing proof that he did not do it. Every question involved in the idea that the burning might have been caused by a defective stove, that there was doubt about his doing it, on ac- count of tracks in the snow not having been found, and his absence from the place of burning was passed upon in that case. You will take the fact that IIngh Brooks burned the mill as a fixed fact, and take that for your starting point, unless you are satisfied, from the evidence, that Mr. Brooks did not do the burning. Was the defendant accessory to the burning? Mr. Brooks in the beginning, charged that Mr. McClary employed him to do it. Mr. McClary fled. That is a circumstance. It is claimed that defendant, when informed of the charge, did not deny the charge. That is a circumstance. It is claimed that he made statements, inconsistent with his innocence, to Mr. Kineannon, to Tuek Rodolf and George Matteson. You are to judge. James McKinney says that he was present when the mill was burned. It is shown that he was in the neighborhood and might have been present. He is shown to be a man of bad reputation for truth and veracity. It does not follow that because his reputa- tion is bad that the jury are bound to disbelieve what he said. A bad man may tell the truth. It is for the jury to say whether they believe him or not. Is his statement con- firmed by others? They are to consider his manner of telling his story. His apparent in- telligence and suavity, his means of knowledge, the interest he can have for telling a falsehood. Would he be like y to accuse himself of a hein- ons crime if it were not true? They are also to inquire whether the defendant is shown to be a man likely to confide in such characters as Mr. Brooks and MeKinney. Did he associate with them? Was he here in Richland Centre eating at Mr. Mckinney's house at the time Mr. MeKinney said he was? Had the defend-

854

HISTORY OF RICHLAND COUNTY.

ant boasted of a previous burning and threat- ened a subsequent one? Is Mr. Mckinney's statement consistent with the fact of burning, and with his relations to the defendant and Brooks? If itis, and has inherent evidences of truth in itself, and fits in with all of the circum- stanees of the case and harmonizes with them, it may afford the jury the most incontestable evi- denee of the defendant's guilt. You are to pass upon the credibility of every witness, and are the sole judges of whether any one is to be believed. Mr. Mckinney is brought upon the stand by the public prosecutor. He is solemnly sworn to tell the truth. There is no apparent reason for supposing that he has any pecuniary interest in telling a falsehood. No reason appar- ent for his entertaining feelings of personal hos- tility towards the defendant. He has every reas- on for shrinking from branding himself as a mid- night incendiary. The presumption is that one will not falsely accuse himself. When he does inculpate himself does it not indicate that he testifies as one feeling the solemn obligations of his oath? It is your duty as reasonable men to believe or disbelieve? It is claimed that there is doubt of Mckinney's statements, aris- ing from tracks not having been found leading to or from the mill. To make this a ground for doubt you must be satisfied that there was such an examination made for tracks, as to very . satisfactorally establish the fact that their The case of N. H. Sliter vs. Luke Dean and Giles Cook, which was tried at the April term of courtin 1879, attracted considerable attention. Sliter was a Baptist preacher ; a small, bright, dapper fellow of a sensitive, mercurial tempera- ment, and a good speaker. He preached in the town of Sylvan, where he had a large congrega- tion. One Sunday, in the fall of 1878, he made some remarks which a young man, who was in the audience, took offense at, and deemed per- sonal. After the services were over, the young man walked up to the pulpit and threatened the preacher with bodily harm. Sliter shoved the young man back. The affair produced great ex- were not any tracks made, when they must have been made if Mr. MeKinney's statements are true. To warrant you in convicting you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The doubt must be reas- onable and not merely imaginary. It must be such as to lead you to say my conscience is not satisfied of his guilt. Mere pity ought not to deter you from finding according to your con- vietions. Society in bringing criminals to jus- tice, acts upon the principle of self defense. Let the guilty go free from the sympathy or soft heartedness of juries, and it is difficult to say who is safe or whether property possesses any | citement at the time ; but for several months

value. The jury is clothed with the defense of the publie when passing upon the guilt of the guilty. If from the whole case you entertain a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, you will acquit him. If you have no reasona- ble doubt of his guilt you ought not to be de- terred from any mere sentimentality from say- ing guilty."

After delivering his charge to the jury, Judge Cothren turned to the sheriff and ordered him to take the defendant in charge, and place him in jail, this notwithstanding the fact that he was under bail. The jury retired; the judge and a few others went to supper, but the major portion of the crowd hung around the court house in feverish excitement. In a short time the bell clanged! Every one rushed to the court house to hear the verdict, searcely any one, not even the defendant or his attorney, even hop- ing for a verdict of not guilty. But in this they were mistaken; for, notwithstanding the charge of the judge, the verdict when read was not guilty! The old court house never before or since witnessed a scene like that which was then enacted! The judge ordered the defendant re- leased and almost every one went to their homes feeling that justice had been done. Thus closed probably one of the most important criminal cases that have passed into the history of Rich- land county.

HISTORY OF RICHLAND COUNTY.

855

nothing was done regarding it. In the mean- time the young man had left the State. Finally, at the end of this time, Luke Dean, who was an elder in the Church and a local preacher, pre- vailed upon Giles Cook to procure the arrest of Sliter upon the charge of the assault mentioned. Sliter was arrested in Richland Centre. He he was taken before 'Squire Webb, of the town of Sylvan, and remained under arrest all day and part of the night awaiting trial, but the prosecution put in no appearance and the case was dismissed. Sliter then commeneed this action against Luke Dean and Giles Cook, for malicious prosecution, to recover damages. The Church in Sylvan, where Dean was a member. and also the Church at Richland Centre, where

Sliter occasionally preached, were divided in sentiment over the affair. The trial in eireuit court was had at the April term, 1879, and was an exciting one. The attorneys were Black & Burnham for Sliter, and Miner & Berryman and Ex-Judge Mills, for the defendant. After a full hearing the jury returned a verdict of $270 for Sliter. Mr. Sliter afterward abandoned the pulpit and began reading law. He now lives somewhere in the northern part of this State.

In April, 1882 George Clementson was elected judge and is the present incumbent. The Fifth distriet now embraces the counties of Richland, Grant, Iowa, La Fayette and Crawford. Terms of court are held in April and October each year.

856

HISTORY OF RICHLAND COUNTY.

CHAPTER IX.

THE BAR OF RICIILAND COUNTY.

There is probably nothing of more interest in this history, to the general public, than the his- tory of its bar, past and present. In this chap- ter, as far as possible, are given sketches of every attorney who has practiced in Richland county.

THE BAR OF THE PAST.

Among those who have practiced before the ; courts of Richland county in the past, and who have been resident lawyers, were the following: John J. Moreland, A. C. Eastland, J. W. Coffin- berry (or C. Bre), A. P. Thompson, E. M. Sex- ton, Byron W. Telfair, Josiah McCaskey, D. B. Priest, William F. Crawford, Amos Nudd, 'abont four years when he left there. In 1852 Charles G. Rodolf, John S Wilson, Lawrence he came to Richland Co., Wis., locating at Van Dusen, C D. Stewart, W. C. Wright, W. S. Black, James Lewis, E. C. Wulfing, George Jarvis and A. E. Stroud.

Among others who have been members of the bar, but not actively engaged in the practice of law, were: William McFarland, W. H. Dewns, Josephus Downs, Ira S Haseltine, Hascal IIas- eltine, George C. Wright, A. B. Slaughter, Robert Akan, G. W Hladder, D. S. Hamilton, C. D. Bellville, Le Roy D. Gage, R. R. Hamilton, W. F. Hart, E. Livingston and E. C. Hammond.

All of the early settlers agree that John J. Moreland was the first lawyer to locate within the limits of Richland county. Mr. Moreland came here from Indiana as early as 1850, and settled at Richmond (now Orion). Ile was one of the first prosecuting attorneys of the county, and remained at Richmond until 1853, when he moved to the northeastern part of Iowa. Mr. Moreland claimed to have been in practice prior

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.

History of Crawford and Richland counties, Wisconsin, Part 120

Author: Butterfield, Consul Willshire, 1824-1899. [from old catalog]; Union publishing company, Springfield, Ill., pub. [from old catalog] Publication date: 1884 Publisher: Springfield, Ill., Union publishing company Number of Pages: 1298

Author: Butterfield, Consul Willshire, 1824-1899. [from old catalog]; Union publishing company, Springfield, Ill., pub. [from old catalog]
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: Springfield, Ill., Union publishing company
Number of Pages: 1298