To search for a particular subject term, click on the highlighted link containing that term at the bottom of the article. For example, if you are seeking more articles about animals, click on the highlighted link which says Animals/Reptiles/Amphibians.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, September 20, 1875
News of the week
Mrs. Jones of North Somerville found the other day, a loving letter to Mr. Jones from a New York woman, and the next day discovered another; whereupon she broke a chair and two pitchers over her husband's head and tried to shoot him with a pistol. He succeeded in disarming her, when she took a dose of strychnine, but so large a one as to overdo the business.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, September 20, 1875
News of the week
Moses Hull of Boston and a crowd of other lunatics, profaned the Sabbath and the beautiful Lake Walden at Concord on the 12th by a noisy meeting, advocating free love and Spiritualism, and resolved "that our present system of marriage is slavery, and that, considering that idiocy, insanity, prostitution, adultery, rape, drunkenness and murder are its legitimate fruits, it is the duty of every lover of humanity to protest against it".
Gazette & Courier - Monday, August 30, 1875
The rage for short dresses
A song which Mme. La Mode is at present much engaged in singing is:
"If your foot is pretty, show it".
[OK I can’t resist sharing one verse of this wonderful 1857 ditty "sung by W.N. Smith, the great bone-player of Bailey’s Circus"
If your foot is pretty, show it,
No matter where, or when;
Let all fair maidens know it:
The foot takes all the men:
The face, so fair and lovely,
May charm the gazer’s eye,
But if the foot is homely,
He’ll quickly pass you by,
He’ll quickly,--He’ll quickly,
He’ll quickly pass you by.
See the rest of the lyrics at the Library of Congress’s American Memory site].
Dresses are growing shorter and shorter in front; to that extent it is almost as impossible not to know what sort of hose a lady wears. I cannot speak enthusiastically of this fashion. A woman’s charms are hightened [i.e. heightened] by their partial concealment, not their full exposure, and the poet who sang of a lady whose name I forget:
"Her feet beneath her petticoat
Like little mice stole in and out"
or words there or thereabouts, would perhaps have considered the lady’s feet regular full grown rats if he’d had a square look at them. [;-) ] And modesty - how about that? I remember at the time the short skirts, disclosing the very tops of boots, were worn in Paris. Eugenie, the lovely Empress, and Napoleon III went to pay a state visit to the sovereigns of Austria.
When Napoleon and Eugenie arrived at Vienna, they found Franz Joseph and the beautiful Empress Elizabeth awaiting them at the railway depot. Eugenia wore a delicious little short costume, in which she looked "ravissante", of course, but the Empress Elizabeth, unaffected by the latest French mode, wore the usual long dress of women. Eugenie sprang into the imperial carriage, making a display so lavish and beautiful of sky-hued hose of symmetrical proportions that such another would have secured an engagement to any ballet dancer on the spot, and then the lovely Elizabeth gathered up her skirts and placed her feet upon the carriage step.
Instantly Franz Joseph drew her drapery from her hand, and passing it closely about her, exclaimed "Take care, your Majesty, you might show your feet". Rather a smart speech, but I have often wondered whether such underhanded or underfooted slaps at guests were considered the correct thing in the Viennese code of gentility.
There’s no telling what Franz Joseph would say if he could see some of the women who prance up and down Long Branch piazzas. Might show their feet indeed! They do. And more. The first glance at these women with skirts so curiously short in front gives one an erroneous impression. Who says there’s danger of the American population fading out before the foreign cohorts’ prolific hosts, when __? Oh, no, quite the wrong tack - that’s the way they wear the dresses now. pardon, Madame! (Olive Logan’s Long Branch Letter).
Gazette & Courier - Monday, August 23, 1875
The Spiritualist campmeeting, though on the whole orderly and conducted with decorum, has witnessed one or two little episodes the past week that were for the time unpleasant. One of the sisterhood took occasion to publicly charge upon a man and woman unbecoming conduct. The parties accused demanded satisfaction upon the spot; officers were called, and there was talk of legal proceedings, but the disturbance was finally quelled and balm applied to the wounded. On the eve. of the moonlight excursion to the lake, a fellow insulted a lady in the pavilion, and her husband who was by gave him a severe chastisement. The police, however, have made few arrests, and these were of outsiders who tried to create disturbance.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, August 23, 1875
There is still another sensation in this region. This time it is an elopement. A Monroe man of 35 ran away with a girl of 15, living in Readsboro, Vt. The father of the girl came to Monroe to see if a marriage certificate had been obtained, and finding there had been none, followed the runaway pair to Hoosick, N.Y. Here it appeared they had been married, but the father traced them back to Pownal, Vt. and then gave up the search. The girl left behind her a note, saying that when she got settled down, she should send for her clothes.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, August 23, 1875
News of the week
The details of a brutal and long continued case of assault have just come to light in Philadelphia. A well known and wealthy married man named John L. Kates, some years ago, seduced a 15 year old girl named Pemberton, and has held her in a life of semi-slavery ever since. Recently she attended a picnic without permission, and when she returned, he charged her with infidelity, knocked her down, beat her in a brutal manner, and then tearing all the clothes off her, poured burning fluid all over her, and set fire to her with the fiendish purpose to burn her alive.
The interference of some people in the house alone prevented the consummation of his design. On Fri. eve. last, he again whipped her in a brutal manner and swore he would disfigure her so she would never be able to go out. Tues. the neighbors complained of him, and he was arrested and held in $2200 bail for appearance at court.
Mary E. Woodard vs. Samuel S. Eastman et al. - This was an action of libel brought by the plaintiff, the wife of Elbridge O. Woodard of Greenfield, against the defendants, publishers of the Gazette & Courier, claiming $5000 as compensation for the damage to her character, by a certain item published in the paper of the defendants on the 25th of Jan. last. The following is the plaintiff’s declaration, and the plaintiff says the defendants printed and published, and caused and procured to be printed, published and circulated, in a certain newspaper, edited and issued by the defendants at Greenfield, in the same county, this false, scandalous and defamatory libel of and concerning the plaintiff, a copy whereof is hereby annexed:
Copy of libel annexed: "Our village was disturbed by a lively row Sat. eve. It appears that Elbridge G. Woodard, whose wife is employed in the kitchen of the Mansion House, had learned from intercepted letters that one Bailey, a blacksmith of Shelburne Falls, had planned an elopement with Mrs. W. Woodard [meaning thereby the plaintiff; and further meaning that she, the plaintiff, had secretly devised, agreed and arranged with the said Bailey, and he with her, to run away and leave her lawful husband, the said Elbridge G. Woodard, and to live with him, the said Bailey, in adultery], his brother Galusha Woodard, and a friend were in waiting at the appointed hour, and when Bailey made his appearance at the rear of the Mansion House, pounced upon him, one Woodard using his fists and the other a whip-stock. Officer Kimball finally separated the parties, but Bailey was badly punished. Thoroughly scared, he rushed for his team at the American House, and made hasty tracks for home, while Woodard, in another sleigh, followed in his pursuit."
Whereby the plaintiff was and is greatly injured in her name, character and reputation, and was and is held up and exposed to public ignominy, shame, and disgrace, and was and is otherwise, greatly damnified. By the plaintiff’s attorney, Charles G. Delano.
Defendants’ answer - And now the defendants come, and for answer say, that they admit that they are the publishers of the Gazette & Courier, and that the article set forth in plaintiff’s declaration was published in the issue of January 25, 1875. The defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in said declaration, and leave the plaintiff to prove the same. They deny that said alleged libelous article is false, scandalous or malicious. They deny that said plaintiff has been in any way injured in her name, character or reputation by said publication...And the defendants aver that said article, as published by them, is substantially true; and they say that the village was disturbed on said Sat. eve. by a lively row; that the plaintiff was employed at the Mansion House; that letters had been intercepted, and that the plaintiff’s husband had learned from said letters that one Bailey had planned an elopement with the plaintiff; that said husband and Galusha, his brother, were in waiting at the appointed hour, and that when Bailey made his appearance in the rear of the Mansion House, they pounced upon him, one with fists, and the other with a whip-stock; and that the parties were separated by Officer Kimball; and Bailey was badly punished, and rushed for his team at the American House, and drove rapidly homeward, pursued by Woodard.
And the defendant further say that said article, set forth in plaintiff’s declaration, was so published by them in good faith, without malice toward the plaintiff, as current news of the day, and substantially as stated by the husband of the plaintiff to the defendants and to the bystanders and to others, on said Sat. eve., and at other times...That said words "that one Bailey planned an elopement with Mrs. W." do not, in their plain, common and natural import, accuse the plaintiff of any action whatever in the matter. It is Bailey who has planned...By C.C. Conant, Defendant’s Att’y.
It was decided to proceed with the case, and C.G. Delano, Esq., counsel for the plaintiff, opened by alleging that the words of the obnoxious item were false, and would be an injury to his client for a long time; would lacerate her feelings and hold her up before the community in shame and disgrace. Admitting that a portion of the facts were true, he said the objectionable words were those which alleged elopement...The counsel then read an item alluding to the libel case, from a recent issue of the Springfield Union, the responsibility for the publication of which he tried to trace to the defendants...
The first witness called by the prosecution was the junior editor of the Gazette & Courier, who was asked under oath, the extent of the circulation of the paper. [This is rather a delicate question with some publishers, but we have no reason to be ashamed of our growth, in the court room or elsewhere]. Mary E. Woodard was next put upon the stand. She had lived in Greenfield about 10 years, and had been married 17 years to Elbridge G. Woodard. She held property and did business in her own name. The publication of the article which she had alleged was libelous, had been made the subject of no little talk and comment about town, and she cited instances when it had been the occasion of sneers and derision when she walked the streets.
People who had been friendly before now cut her acquaintance. She described an interview which she had with Mr. Eastman after the publication of the item. She said that she was real sorry that it had appeared, and asked him to retract it; but he said it was all true, and he could prove it. On the cross examination she said she had worked at the Mansion House 3 days, at the time of the disturbance there. Her husband came for her that night about 7 o’clock in the eve. to take her home. He went out to get his horse; had been gone half an hour when he came back and said there was a gentleman at the door who wanted to see her. She went to the door, saw a gentleman and went right back.
Afterwards she heard a noise but didn’t hear anything said. Didn’t know what the disturbance was about; didn’t anticipate any row; didn’t know what it was. Saw Bailey the week before at the house of friends at Shelburne Falls, and played cards with him. She saw her husband the next day after the fracas, but didn’t see him again that night. She never got a letter from Bailey; didn’t know whether her husband had intercepted one or not; she never wrote to him. She had lived in Coleraine a number of years with her husband. He was in the war 3 years. She had no talk with Mr. Doolittle after the trouble at the Mansion House about the matter, never told anybody that her husband had intercepted letters.
She never told Maggie Tracy anything about it nor Jim Butler. She never had any trouble at Coleraine with her husband; never heard any stories about her character; didn’t remember asking Hugh B. Miller if an accusation of unchastity by her husband was sufficient ground for divorce. She never told Euclid Owen that she was "going to get a good slice out of Eastman". never asked him if they could go back more than 5 years on her character. Didn’t sit on a sofa with Bailey at Shelburne Falls; never told him that he was the "first man that ever turned his back on her". In direct testimony she did not expect her husband to call upon her the night of the fracas. He asked her if she got a letter from Bailey, and she told him she hadn’t.
The prosecution rested their case her, and C.C. Conant Esq. opened for the defense. He told the jury that he would prove that the complainant’s character could not have been greatly injured by the publication, because it was already soiled by a reputation for unchastity in this and an adjoining town; but it would appear in testimony; that the statement published was substantially true. He would show that Bailey received a letter, and came to Greenfield to meet her in obedience to it; that this proposed meeting was the reason that Woodard committed the assault, and because Bailey was going to run away with his wife. Before the witnesses for the defense were called to testify, Lilla B. Woodard, a daughter of the plaintiff, was put upon the stand by the prosecution, and she said that she had complained to her mother about the treatment she receives from the children at school in consequence of the scandal.
The first witness for the defense was Samuel S. Eastman, the senior editor of the Gazette & Courier. He described the interview with Mrs. Woodard at his house after the publication. she asked him if he had not published something about her, and he replied by inquiring if Bailey did not come to meet her, and if letters were not intercepted. She did not deny, but she said "You can’t prove it". She did not ask him to retract or apologize, but was violent in her talk and behavior, and said she would give him all the law he wanted.
E.A. Hall, the junior proprietor of the Gazette was called to the stand, and said that he wrote the item giving an account of the disturbance, that he had no malice towards Mrs. Woodard, and knew her only by reputation. In the cross examination he told how he obtained the facts, as published, by Officer Kimball, whom Woodard had told that he (Woodard) had intercepted letters from Bailey to his wife, arranging to run away with her. Darwin F. Hamilton, a clerk in the post office, did not recollect of a letter passing through the office directed to Mrs. Woodard.
George Doolittle, proprietor of the Mansion House, said the plaintiff worked for him two days at the time of the fracas. He recollected the disturbance. Mrs. Woodard was in the pastry room at the time, adjoining the kitchen, where the sound of voices outside could be plainly heard. He saw Mrs. Woodard when she came for her pay, and she said she ran away because of the trouble. Maggie Tracy, meat cook at the Mansion House, testified that she slept with Mrs. Woodard the night after the disturbance. Mrs. W. told her then that her husband said he had received letters from Shelburne Falls directed to her.
Mrs. Woodard told her that she was "a’feared" to go home. At the time of the disturbance, she (Maggie) was in her room, second story, facing Federal Street, and heard Woodard say that the man was going to run away with his wife, and that he had letters in his pocket to show it. Joseph A. Bailey of Shelburne Falls was the next witness put upon the stand. He saw Mrs. Woodard at Shelburne Falls, at the house of one White, where he joined with her in a game of cards. He left her about 11 o’clock. He came to Greenfield the night of Jan. 23, and hitched his horse at the American House; went to the Mansion House alone; met a man at the entrance of the stable yard, of whom he inquired for the hostler; the man lead him to a short distance and then assaulted him.
He didn’t know as he saw Mrs. Woodard or any other woman. He received a letter from "M.E. Woodard" that day, asking him to meet her in the eve. at the American House. He met a man there, by the name of Hossington, who told him that she wasn’t there. When he was with her at White’s, at Shelburne Falls, she said, when he was seated beside her on a sofa, that "I was the first man that ever turned his back on her". On the cross examination, Bailey said that Hossington told him at Shelburne Falls, the day of the fracas at Greenfield, that he would get a letter from Mrs. Woodard. When he stopped at the American House he went in and took a drink of whiskey. He denied that he knew Mrs. Woodard was at the Mansion House. When asked his name during the fracas, he said it was "Hilliard".
Hugh B. Miller of Coleraine was next called. He had known plaintiff since 1860; her reputation for chastity in Coleraine was not good, and he should think that it was the same at Greenfield. Thomas D. Purrinton of Coleraine knew this woman, and her reputation for chastity was not the best. Charles Webster Smith of Coleraine had heard people say "she" was not what she should be. J.B. Clark of Coleraine said her reputation for chastity was not the best. Dwight Jewett of South Deerfield was acquainted with the plaintiff, and her general reputation for chastity was bad. When cross examined, he said her father and brother had called her character into question. C.B. Tilton of South Deerfield corroborated Mr. Jewett’s statement. Alfred Wells of Greenfield knew Mary Woodard’s reputation, and it was bad. Bela Kellogg of Greenfield said her reputation for chastity was not what it should be.
J.H. Beals testified that his place of business on the night of Jan. 23, was opposite the kitchen of the Mansion House on Federal Street. He thought the noise of the fracas could be heard 20 rods. The distance from the pastry room across the kitchen was 14 ft. He could hear the talk in his store with the door shut. He heard Woodard ask Kimball to arrest Bailey, and when the officer said he would arrest him if he didn’t stop, Woodard said "Mr. Kimball, you don’t understand, this man has had sexual intercourse with my wife" or words to that effect.
C.H. McClellan being called, said that he was a storekeeper in Greenfield. Had known plaintiff in Coleraine and Greenfield, and her reputation for chastity was not good. J.M. Monson has known her for some years, and her reputation has been bad ever since he knew her. Euclid Owen testified to having had conversation with plaintiff in reference to the case. She had asked him how much she was likely to get; a thousand dollars would do her a great deal of good; she meant to "get a good slice out of Eastman". she asked if they could go back on her character to the time she lived in Coelraine. He told her that they could not go back more than 5 years.
Henry L. Miller said that his shop was 22 paces from the entrance to the Mansion House. He heard Woodard’s voice answer to a question "This man was going to run away with my wife". He heard it distinctly. George A. Kimball, the officer who quelled the disturbance, testified that he heard the noise of the fracas as far off as Howland & Lowell’s store, some 15 rods. He found Bailey in the custody of Woodard, told the latter to let him go, and the former to clear out. Kimball declined to arrest Bailey because he had no authority. In answer to his inquiry, Bailey gave his name as "Couillard". Woodard said his name wasn’t Couillard, but Bailey, as he had a letter in his pocket.
The disturbance was within 3 ft. of the windows of the kitchen. Thomas Todd, employed in the Federal Street Market, testified that he went out when he heard the row; saw a fellow running and Woodard after him. In answer to his inquiry, Woodard said the fellow was after his wife. Heard Woodard say to Mr. Kimball, that he had got a letter in his pocket to show the man’s name. This last statement was corroborated by Samuel J. Lyons, who heard a portion of the conversation. Miss Belle W. Eastman, daughter of the senior proprietor of the paper, corroborated her father’s testimony in regard to the conversation between him and Mrs. W., at the interview at the former’s house. She remembered distinctly shutting the hall door when ushering Mrs. W. into the house. Mrs. Woodard did not ask her father to retract the statements in the publication.
The defense here rested their case, and the prosecution then called the following witnesses, who had known the plaintiff and had not heard her reputation called in question: S.L. Shattuck, George W. Potter, Joel Wilson, Hattie A. Sessions, Sarah H. Brown (of Leyden), Lewis W. White. The latter lives at Shelburne Falls, and it was at his house where Bailey was introduced to Mrs. Woodard. They played "Old Maid". Hossington, his wife’s brother, was present. He didn’t see anything out of character. The testimony of Mrs. White was substantially the same. Elbridge G. Woodard, the husband of the plaintiff, was slow called to the stand. He couldn’t describe much of the Mansion House fracas.
He said the letter he told Kimball he had in his pocket was from the Warrior Mowing Machine Co., on the back of which he had some memoranda. He said he heard Bailey was coming there from Bill Hossington. He didn’t have any letter which he had destroyed. He didn’t know that he had told S.D. Bardwell of Shelburne Falls that he had destroyed a letter from Bailey to his wife. He didn’t know that he had left instructions at the post office to have all letters addressed to his wife detained and given to him. On the night of the fracas he didn’t know Bailey. He thrashed a man he did not know, and that he couldn’t see in the dark. He followed him to Shelburne Falls.
Went to Bardwell’s to enter a complaint against Bailey for riding out with his wife. He was over there the same day in Bailey’s shop with Hossington, told him about Bailey and his wife. He didn’t tell Mr. Bardwell that Bailey said he had had all he wanted out of Mrs. Woodard. At this point the prosecution called to the stand Dr. Charles L. Fisk, L.L. Luey, George Pierce Jr., James Newton, A.A. Rankin and S.O. Lamb, who couldn’t recollect that they had heard Mrs. Woodard’s character called to question.
S.D. Bardwell, a magistrate at shelburne Falls, was called by the defense in rebuttal. Woodard came to him on the night of the 23rd of Jan. saying that he had taken a letter from the post office in Greenfield, directed to his wife, purporting to come from Bailey, arranging a meeting. He (Woodard) was exasperated and proceeded to catch Bailey when he came according to his appointment. A complaint of rape was made on Woodard’s representation. On cross examination Mr. Bardwell said that Bailey was tried before him on the complaint, but was discharged because neither Mr. nor Mrs. Woodard appeared against him. Euclid Owen was also called to the stand to contradict Woodard’s statements. Woodard told him that he was about starting for Conway that Sat.; he went into the post office and took out a letter for his wife and noticed it was from Shelburne Falls. He opened it and found it was from Bailey. He didn’t say what he did with the letter.
The evidence in the case was now in, and W.S.B. Hopkins Esq. of Worcester presented the cause of the defense to the jury. It was one of those cases that it was always unpleasant to try, but nevertheless should be tried fully and fairly. There were several points in the statements of the alleged libelous article upon which both sides agree. The counsel for the prosecution objected to the portion which says: "One Bailey, a blacksmith at Shelburne Falls, had planned an elopement with Mrs. W." Were these words libelous? The words were capable of two constructions, and it was left for the jury to determine which was intended...
[Follows a long rehashing of the evidence]. Judge Aldrich charged the jury at considerable length, and with unusual clearness. He explained the difference between slander and libel. A libel is a false imputation which is written or published, holding up the slandered party to more public ridicule and contempt than would words spoken in slander. the plaintiff claims that she has sustained damage in consequence of the article published. The defendants admit the publication. they say that it is not libelous, does not hold up Mrs. Woodard to shame and ridicule. It was not claimed that there was any actual malice on the part of the defendants.
The question of inference or interpretation of the words should be decided by the jury; they should determine the obnoxious meaning; should see practical common sense to reach a verdict; they should decide whether the words were applicable to the plaintiff or not; whether Bailey planned an elopement with Mrs. Woodard or without her aid. If the import of the language was that it was a plan of Bailey alone, then it was no imputation upon Mrs. Woodard. the defendants say that if it was a charge upon Mrs. Woodard, they can prove that it is true. It was for the jury to say whether the truth was established or not.
The judge reviewed the evidence. If what Woodard said in the fracas was competent evidence, it must be proven that it was within the hearing of his wife. This the jury should determine. If the matter is libelous and also true, you must find for the defendants, if libelous and untrue, the verdict should be for the plaintiff. In fixing damage to character, the jury should take the standing of the woman before the public for chastity. A bad character may be hurt, and it was for them to determine the extent. It was competent for the defense to show a bad reputation 10 years before. If a woman years ago was lascivious, the presumption is that her character continues the same. The jury were to judge whether before the publication she was a pure woman.
The case was given to the jury at 4:30 on Thurs. Their first duty was to choose a foreman, as E.D. Merriam, the foreman previously chosen, was challenged off. The judge kept the court open till 9 o’clock in the eve. and then adjourned, and the jury were out all night. At 9 the next morning, they announced that they had still failed to agree, and were called into the court room. The judge took the occasion to say that he thought the case a clear one, and it should not have detained them but a short time. In a case of this type, the burden of proof rested with the plaintiff. It was necessary for the defendants to show only the truth by a preponderance of evidence.
They should show the truth by a fair amount of testimony, absolute truth was not insisted upon. It was the duty of the jury to render a verdict if possible. They should pay proper respect to each others’ opinions. He then sent them out to make another attempt. About half past 11 in the forenoon, the jury sent in for instruction, asking if the word "appears" used in the article alleged to be libelous, did not indicate that there was no direct charge. His Honor instructed them that that was the very point which they themselves must determine. He added that he wanted them to understand that he was not detaining them. If they were satisfied that they could not agree, they might say so and be dismissed. But the jury retired to their room, and in 5 minutes returned a verdict for the defendants. They had had a siege of 19 hours and were dismissed until Mon. morning.
The counsel for the plaintiff had filed a bill of exceptions, which has not yet been approved by the judge.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, June 7, 1875
News of the week
John L. White of Boston is under arrest for outraging the person of Emma G. Escabel, the 10 year old daughter of his washerwoman, the girl having yielded to him through the influence of a promised visit to Barnum's hippodrome and a new silk dress.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, May 10, 1875
A sad sequel to an unhappy married life
The sad story of the death of Mrs. Anna Curtis, soprano of the Church of the Atonement in New York from the effects of an abortion, and of her previous unhappy intimacy with Benjamin Gregory, the organist of the church, has a sequel equally sad. Her husband, Tyler Curtis, who was in San Francisco at the time of her death, received the sad event from a telegram asking him what should be done with his wife's body. He hurriedly telegraphed to have the body placed in a receiving vault until his arrival. While packing up his effects preparatory to leaving San Francisco, he got an evening paper in which he read with grieved amazement the story of his wife's shame. Dazed and heartbroken, he took the train for New York, where he arrived on Apr. 8. The sudden shock to his feelings was too much for him to bear, and he sank rapidly, dying on Thurs. from grief and prostration under the blow which he had received. [For more on this story, see the New York Times article of March 19, 1875 entitled "Mrs. Tyler Curtis' Funeral"].
Gazette & Courier - Monday, April 5, 1875
News about home: Greenfield items
L.L. Lucy introduces himself to the public in our advertising columns. Although he opens a new store, he is not a new hand at the grocery business. He proposes to introduce the cash system, and if he can make it work it will be a great benefit to himself and customers. He occupies the two stores on the west side of Botsford's Block, and has them neatly fitted up.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, March 29, 1875
The hanging of the bandit Vasquez
The hanging of the bandit Vasquez [Tiburcio Vasquez] the other day in California, closed a career that in the romance of crimes deserves to be ranked with the stories of Robin Hood, Dick Turpin, Claude Duval and Fra Diavolo. Vasquez had a spice of all these romantic villains in his composition. He joined the delicacy of a woman with the ferocity of a wolf and the courage of a panther. He had the manners of a Spanish don and the morals of a savage.
/ He had committed 37 murders, stolen some thousands of horses, and abducted a dozen or more women, who for the most part were willing to go.
/ He was a California Don Juan. The frontiersmen knew now whether to fear their lives, their herds, or their wives and daughters. Murders, horse thieving and love episodes alternated in the career of the bandit. He has been the leader of several bands of which he has finally remained the sole survivor. A thousand hair breadth escapes seemed to prove that he possessed a charmed life. His first murder was committed at 10, on account of a woman, and he was finally trapped through a fondness for their company. His life of crime lasted for 29 years, though he was but 36 at his execution. His name will be a household word in California for a generation.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, March 29, 1875
The Beecher trial
(A few interesting tidbits from the long article) - Direct testimony and cross-examination of Bessie Turner, who re-affirmed her testimony about Tilton's attempt to seduce her. She said: The second visit of Tilton to my room was in 1869, and the first in 1858...My impression is that Mrs. Tilton was absent from home; I was sleeping alone in the second story front bedroom...Tilton came in to bid me good night, and he stroked my hair and remarked how soft it was; he put his hand on my neck. I removed it and he said "Why Bessie darling, how modest you are". He said that people in the best classes of society generally gave such caresses; that even ministers gave them; I told him I did not care what people in the best society did; he talked to me about marriage and affinities, and asked to allow him to love and caress me; I thought this conversation on his part was very strange; I was then about 17 years of age. I was not shocked; I studied over his language, as I did not know what he meant.
/ I was angry when he put his hand on my neck; I had, up to this time, been very much attached to Mrs. Tilton, but do not think I told her then of that occurrence"...She describes a making up between Tilton and his wife after a separation...Mr. Tilton claimed Paul was not his child. He claimed none of them except Florence. He said he had seen Mrs. Tilton and Mr. Beecher time and again having sexual intercourse on the red sofa. He also named two other gentlemen with whom she had improper relations...(Sometimes Mr. Tilton locked Mrs. Tilton in her bedroom)..."I told Mr. Tilton he should treat his wife kindly as she was always crying, and he said she was weeping for her sins with Mr. Beecher".
/ Bessie Turner was on the witness stand several days...On Thursday some of Mrs. Woodhull's colored servants were put upon the stand to prove Tilton's connection with that woman and the conspiracy to blackmail Beecher. James B. Woodley testified: "I have often seen Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull sitting talking together with their arms around each other; this was very natural I thought. It occurred almost as often as Mr. Tilton was at the house or the office...A colored woman named Lucy Ann Giles was called and testified: "I have lived in Brooklyn 9 years and worked as cook for the family of Victoria Woodhull. I was employed there in 1870 for about a year and a month. I saw Mr. Tilton there on the 3rd of July 1871 for the first time. He was writing and stayed there all night. He did not sleep on the sofa lounge that night...I saw him in Mrs. Woodhull's bedroom 3 or 4 times...When I went in on the 4th of July night, Mrs. Woodhull was in her bed gown and Mr. Tilton had off his coat and vest and was in his stocking feet". (There was also testimony about a plot to embarrass Beecher and Plymouth church to obtain money - $100,000 - to hush up the scandal. This was a conversation between Woodhull, Tilton, a Col. Blood and Miss Claflin).
Gazette & Courier - Monday, March 22, 1875
Montpelier has a first class sensation in a suit for damages for breach of promise and seduction
Montpelier has a first class sensation in a suit for damages for breach of promise and seduction, brought by Miss Hattie J. Bradshaw of Manchester, N.H., against John W. Page, a graduate of Dartmouth and son of the wealthy banker and State Treasurer, John A. Page http:/
age.html Another suit is entered by the same plaintiff in the same court against Dr. J.N. Brigham [probably Dr. Gershom Nelson Brigham http://homeoint.org/history/bio/b/brighamgn.htm ], a well known physician of Montpelier, for procuring an abortion upon her.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, February 22, 1875
The Beecher trial
The Beecher trial - The cross examination of Tilton closed on Mon. Mr. Tilton testified: "I cannot say if the statement that Mr. Beecher preached on Sunday, to a dozen or more of his mistresses was in the publication of the True Story. I do not remember saying that if Mr. Beecher resigned I would shoot him in the streets. What I did say was that if he published his letter of resignation, which reflected on my family, I would shoot him in the streets, and I most assuredly would have done so. I did not write my wife’s letter of Dec. 7, 1872, neither did I draft it. It was written by her after consultation with me as to the phraseology of a part of it. At the interview, a short time after this, between Mr. Beecher and myself, either this letter of Mr. Tilton’s or a copy of it was shown to him. Mrs. Tilton was present to pronounce upon a card prepared by Mr. Beecher. Mrs. Tilton is an extremely sympathetic woman, willing to yield to the influence of others, and ready to take advice. I knew Elizabeth when I was 10 years old. We became confessed lovers at 16, and were married at 20. When she came to her downfall I found that she was wrapped up in her religious belief, and sinned when in a trance at her teacher’s bidding". Mr. Sherman read a letter from Mr. Tilton to Mrs. Tilton, dated at the Hudson River depot Jan. 2, 1868, declaring that she was all to him that a wife could be, and denouncing himself for his conduct and suspicion of her as a ’whited sepulchre containing dead men’s bones". He thought he had the sweetest family that God ever gave to a man. Another letter dated at Pittsburg [i.e. Pittsburgh] Jan. 30, 1868, referring to a letter from Mrs. Tilton that aft., explained that he was more cheerful, and the knowledge of her love to him was more to him than the world could give, or that he deserved. Another sentence of the same letter stated that his love went out in a great stream to his children, and a great portion of it to her". Kate Cory said she came from Bellevue Hospital, where she had been for several weeks. She then testified as follows: "I was in the service of Mr. Tilton about 6 years ago. When I was there, Mrs. Tilton went to Monticello. I went with her. I saw Mr. Beecher go into Mrs. Tilton’s bedroom, shutting the door after him. when he came in I was in the next room, which was separated by folding doors from it. This was before she went to Monticello. I saw her in the back parlor after her return, sitting on Mr. Beecher’s knee. It was then in the evening, but I saw them distinctly. The folding doors were open. I saw her head on his shoulder and he said "How do you feel, Elizabeth?" and she said "I feel so so". I did not see anything else. This was about 3 weeks after her return from Monticello. Mr. Beecher called 3 or 4 times before she went to Monticello. The reason I left was because of some words I had with Bessie Turner. I think I left in the cold weather but do not remember if it was before or after election. Mr. Tilton then resumed the stand, and was asked what he meant by stating before the investigating committee that to her mother Mrs. Tilton always maintained her innocence. The court decided to allow the question, and the witness replied: "She always said she loved God, and he would not have permitted her to enter into these relations if they were sinful; that it was only an expression of love; that love sometimes conveyed its meaning by a shaking of the hand, most of the time, or by sexual intercourse". Mr. Tilton was finally dismissed form the witness stand Wed. aft., after having occupied it continuously for 12 days - two days longer than Moulton. Joseph Richards said: "I reside at Montclair, N.J., but lived 10 years ago in New York. I am a brother of Mrs. Tilton, and often visited at their house. I have know Henry Ward Beecher. When I was publisher of the Independent I saw him very frequently, probably for 8 years. I probably met Beecher first at the residence of Tilton, when they lived on Oxford Street, but I often saw him at the house on Livingston Street. I do not know how often. I saw Beecher there during the day. I saw him in the parlor of the house. On one occasion I went to the house at 11 o’clock and found him there when I called". Witness explained to the court that he was there by dire necessity and not by his own seeking, and that he was placed in what might be seen as a very cruel position. Witness then continued: On one occasion I called in the morning at the home, and opened the parlor door and saw Beecher in the front room, and Mrs. Tilton making a hasty motion with flushed face and leaving her position beside him, which left an impression on my mind. I cannot say the date of this definitely. I do not know if it was as early as 1868, but it was a number of years ago, and probably was prior to 1870.I went to the open part of the house before I went to the parlor. Beecher was sitting about opposite the front entrance beside the door. Mrs. Tilton was moving toward the front window. I did not remain long in the parlor. The most damaging testimony yet given was given on Fri. by Mrs. Moulton, for years a member of Mr. Beecher’s church. He actually acknowledged to Mrs. Moulton the whole truth of the charge of adultery with Mrs. Tilton. She testified: "On one occasion, when I expressed to Mr. Beecher my wonder that he could preach to young men against the sin of adultery when he was so deeply implicated in it himself. He replied that he was better fitted to do so by the trouble he had passed through.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, February 15, 1875
The Beecher trial
The Beecher trial - Tilton is still on the stand undergoing a cross-examination. He was asked if he testified before the committee of Brooklyn Church that Mrs. Tilton, for a year after her confession, insisted that she had not broken her marriage vow, and if she said that she never did anything which at the time she believed to be wrong...
Gazette & Courier - Monday, February 8, 1875
The Beecher trial
The Beecher trial - The trial was resumed on Mon. and Tilton allowed to testify. He said Beecher was brought to him by Moulton, who retired. I crossed the room and locked the door, went back and sat down opposite Mr. Beecher. [Tilton said] "I then told Mr. Beecher the story Mrs. Tilton told me, saying to him that in the early part of July Mrs. Tilton had come home unexpectedly from the country and told me that she had a burden on her mind and she wished to throw it off...Before telling me she exacted a promise that no harm should come to the person nor the story be disclosed to him. She said it was a secret between herself and Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, that her friendship had developed into love and then into sexual intercourse, such intercourse beginning after the death of her son Paul, and that visiting Mr. Beecher on Oct. 10, 1868, she had surrendered her body to him, and on the following Sat. eve. at her residence the act had been repeated, and that this had continued from the fall of 1868 to the spring of 1870; that in the fall of 1870 she had communicated these facts to me, that she had professed to me that Mr. Beecher had for her a warmer love than for any other woman; that his house was not a happy one, and his marriage did not render him contented and happy, that his solicitations had been frequent and in many cases almost violent; that she felt she could never look me in the face until she made a free and open confession...[Tilton told Mr. Beecher]...He [Beecher] put his hands on his head and said "This is all a wild whirl...This will kill me"...The cross examination of Tilton commenced Wed. and elicits nothing new. It lasted through the week.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, February 8, 1875
Misery and murder
Misery and murder - Not long since several papers gave a short paragraph concerning a young girl in Lynn who threw her infant, 2 weeks old, into the dock, was arrested for the crime, confessed her guilt, and was sent to jail to be tried for murder. The same papers informed us that the seducer walked into court, and after paying a fine of $25 and cost, walked out free. One or two papers alluded to the inequality of the law which permitted a young man of 21 to escape and a mere child of 16 to suffer. A few kind hearted fathers wished "the man sent to jail and the girl set free", mothers looked at their school girls of the same age and shuddered, while the gallant and chivalrous brothers vowed vengeance on the culprit of their own sex. Here and there one heard, "Oh, it is pitiful!" and there all public interest seemed to end. But even with this surface knowledge of facts, the great heart of humanity throbbed with pity for the unfortunate girl. There is, without doubt, too much mawkish sentimentality in the communities, too much tenderness toward criminals who are criminals indeed. The defaulter walks abroad at noon day, while Patrick O'Rafferty is in jail for stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry children. But the inequality in punishment depends quite as much on the morbid sense of our people as on existing laws. If every man who feels the wrong and injustice would devote a day or half of a day toward creating new and better laws, a healthier moral sentiment would soon prevail, and just laws would be faithfully and judiciously executed. With such thoughts in mind, the writer of this article made an effort to learn some of the facts in the case of Lizzie Corcoran. We were permitted to see her for a few moments in jail and found her a small young girl, with a tired, pale face - a child's face, but pleading and pitiful. A very brief interview convinced us that the girl was neither coarse nor hardened. Obeying the well known law of prisoners, no allusion was made to her case, but offers of kindness and sympathy were received with thanks and tears of gratitude. Through her relatives in Lynn, we learned her sad story. At the age of 7 years she was left motherless. At 13 she went out to service, meeting with the usual fortune of a young and ignorant servant in strange families. After a time, she was employed by a family in West Lynn who were connected in a distant way to the girl's step-mother. Here she met http://resources.roo...i?gb=321&action=view Joseph Nicholson , who made her his victim. No one knew or suspected her of wrong doing; her stepmother and friends all testify to the good conduct and quiet manners of the child. When her babe was born she was living in an American family in Lynn, who turned her out of doors at once. "Not content with this", says the informant, "although the babe was born at 3 o'clock in the morning, she was sent out as soon as it was light to order wood and coal, and then told to go home". Sick and miserable, she went to her stepmother and told the story of her disgrace. Although cramped by poverty, she was sheltered and cared for as well as circumstances would permit until the child was 2 weeks old. During that time she appealed to its father to help her; he refused to marry her or give her any pecuniary assistance. A second time she went to him and implored him to give her $2 or $3 that she might have the child christened, and then place it in the home for Little Wanderers. Again he refused, and the heartbroken girl was nearly crazed with guilt. The sad sequel came all too soon. With the child she could not work, and her father's house was more than full. She left home, resolved to place it in the Home, telling her stepmother she would spend the night with her aunt in Boston and come home the next day. Think of it! On a winter afternoon, with her babe of 2 weeks in her arms, the nursing and care she needed were not for her. Alone, sorrowful, disgraced, wretched, sick and miserable, the child started on her pitiable errand. What madness came upon her, whether she again appealed to the man she had loved and trusted, none may tell. No human hand was stretched out to her, no kind voice fell on her ear, no place in all God's world seemed open to her or the little one in her arms. A life of desolation she dared not end by death. The body of the babe was found in the dock, talkative people informed against her, and the desperate, wretched child confessed her guilt. Joseph Nicholson confessed himself to be the child's father, and walked away after paying a fine so small the vilest might pay and sin on; but Lizzie still suffering, must suffer yet more, and be confined in jail to await her trial for murder. A hardened woman might have done the same terrible thing and escaped detection; but her perfect simplicity and ignorance of the law in every respect is also apparent, when she imagined herself powerless and unable to insist on proper support from the father of her child. She only knew the terrible fact of her disgrace, and felt the bitterness of being spurned and scorned by the man she had trusted and loved. One of the most touching features of the case was her persistent efforts to make "Joe" do something for her child. There was no lack of mother love, no attempt to screen herself at his expense, only a child's pitiful pleading for help where help had been promised. All night she wandered about after committing the deed, and all the following day, and the afternoon. In a moment of frenzy the poor girl was guilty of infanticide, while her blood was still fevered by sickness and lack of proper attention. At home, she knew how hard it was for a poor, hard working father to fill the little mouths; abroad was the world, which she, like poor Hetty in 'Adam Bede' "dreaded like scorching fire". Turn where she would, it was all misery and wretchedness, all despair and disgrace. "Dispair", says George Eliot, "no more leans on others than perfect contentment", and Lizzie Corcoran knew the full meaning of despair when she left the home of poverty to find a home for her unwelcome child. In a few weeks she will be tried for murder. Two legal gentlemen have already kindly consented to act as her counsel, and the tone of the public press is highly favorable to the unfortunate girl. Horrible as the crime of infanticide is, cases sometimes occur where the palliating circumstances are strong enough to enlist the sympathy of all thinking people. Had Lizzie Corcoran been the daughter of a rich man she would have been shielded and sheltered from disgrace and crime, but the daughter of a poor laborer, without suitable means of support, without moral training or restraining tenderness, who will venture to call her "fallen", when a life has been such a bitter, hard thing to her who has never had a chance to rise?" (Boston Globe).
Gazette & Courier - Monday, February 1, 1875
The old story
The old story - Today there walks with head erect a man, who after ruining an innocent, unsuspecting girl, married another, who was almost her near neighbor. His wife is very beautiful and attractive. When the story reached her ears, and the poor little babe was brought to her notice, her heart almost broke, and she resolved to leave the man, although he had only been her husband a few months. Relations thought it best to take no steps in the matter, and she was dissaaded from obtaining a divorce. But the smooth faced villain was not content with the misery he had wrought, but sought to regain his power over the girl during the temporary absence of his wife. Poor thing, she was trying so hard to be worthy of the forgiveness of her father and sister who had not cast her out. One day, a car filled with passengers was passing down the street. One young man in the car called the attention of another to a beautiful girl who was about entering a store, and named her as the mistress of ___. He had mistaken the innocent young sister, and a woman in the car, who overheard the remark and knew the girl, made it her business to call at the house of the two sisters and relate what occurred in the cars. The young lady turned upon her importunate sister and with vehemence reproached her for the disgrace she had brought upon the family, and added that she would no longer live in the same house with her, but would hereafter live with a relative in another city, where she could escape insults. The poor wounded heart gave way and the forsaken one fell to the floor in strong convulsions. In 3 days she died. Her betrayer sat upon the step of his father-in-law’s dwelling and watched the funeral as it passed (Wash. Car., Louisville Journal).
Gazette & Courier - Monday, January 25, 1875
(Greenfield) Our village was disturbed by a lively row Sat. eve. It appears that Elbridge G. Woodard, whose wife is employed in the kitchen of the Mansion House, had learned from intercepted letters
(Greenfield) Our village was disturbed by a lively row Sat. eve. It appears that Elbridge G. Woodard, whose wife is employed in the kitchen of the Mansion House, had learned from intercepted letters that one Bailey, a blacksmith of Shelburne Falls, had planned an elopement with Mrs. W. Woodard, his brother Gallusha [also seen as Galusha Woodard or G.L. Woodard; might possibly even be Lewis Woodard]and a friend were in waiting at the appointed hour, and when Bailey made his appearance at the rear of the Mansion House, pounced upon him, and Woodard using his fists and the other a whip-stock. Officer Kimball finally separated the parties, but Bailey was badly punished. Thoroughly scared, he rushed for his team at the American House, and made hasty tracks for home, while Woodard, in another sleigh, followed in his pursuit.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, January 11, 1875
Moths in the candle
Moths in the candle - Every moth learns for itself that the candle burns. Every night, while the candle lasts, the slaughter goes on, and leaves its wingless and dead around it. The light is beautiful, and warm, and attractive, and, unscared by the dead, the foolish creatures rush into the flames, and drop, hopelessly singed, their little lives despoiled. It has been supposed that men have reason, and a moral sense. It has been supposed that they observe, draw conclusions, and learn by experience. Indeed, they have been in the habit of looking down upon the animal world as a group of inferior beings, and as subjects of commiseration on account of their defenselessness, yet there is a large class of men, reproduced by every passing generation, that do exactly what the moths do, and die exactly as the moths die. They learn nothing by observation or experience. They draw no conclusions, save those which are fatal to themselves. Around a certain class of brilliant temptations, they gather night after night, and with singed wings or lifeless bodies they strew the ground around them. No instructions, no expostulations, no oservation of ruin, no sense of duty, no observation of ruin, no remonstrances of conscience, have any effect upon them. If they were moths in fact in fact they could not be sillier or more obtuse. They are indeed, so far under the domination of their animal natures that they act like animals, and sacrifice themselves in flames that the world's experience has shown to be fatal. A single passion, which need not be named - further than to say that, when hallowed by love and a legitimate gift of life to life, it is as pure as any passing of the soul - is one of the candles around which the the human moths lie in myriads of disgusting deaths. If anything has been proved by the observation and experience of the world it is that licentiousness, and all illicit gratification of the passion involved in it, are killing sins against a man's own nature - that by it the wings are singed not only, but body and soul are degraded and spoiled. Out of all illicit indulgence come weakness, a perverted moral nature, degradation of character, gross beastliness, benumbed sensibilities, a disgusting life, and a disgraceful death. Before its baleful fire the sanctity of womanhood fades away, the romance of life dies, and the beautiful world loses all its charm. The lives wrecked upon the rock of sensuality are strewn in every direction. Again and again, with endless repetition, young men yield to the song of the siren that beguiles them to their death. They learn nothing, they see nothing, they know nothing but their wild desire, and on they go to desecration and the devil. Every young man who reads this article has two lives before him. He may choose either. He may throw himself away on a few illegitimate delights, which cover his brow with shame in the presence of his mother, and become an old man before his time, with all the wind drained out of his life; or he may grow up into a pure, strong manhood, held in healthy relation to all the joys that pertain to that high estate. He may be a beast in his heart, or he may have a wife whom he worships, children whom he delights in, a self respect which enables him to meet unabashed the noblest woman, and an undisputed place in good society. He may have a dirty imagination, or one that hates and spurns all impurity as both disgusting and poisonous. In brief he may be a man, with a man's powers and immunities - or a sham of a man - a whited sepulchre - conscious that he carries with him his own dead bones, and all uncleanness. It is a matter entirely of choice. He knows what one life is, and where it ends. He knows the essential quality and certain destiny of the other. The man who says he cannot control himself not only lies, but places his Maker in blame. He can control himself, and if he does not, he is both a fool and a beast. The sense of security and purity and self-respect that come of continence, entertained for a single day, is worth more than the illicit pleasures of a world for all time. The pure in heart see God in everything, and see Him everywhere, and they are supremely blest. Wine and strong drink form another candle in which millions of men have singed themselves, and destroyed both body and soul. Here the signs of danger are more apparent than in the other form of sensuality, because there is less secrecy. The candle burns in open space, where all men can see it. Law sits behind, and sanctions its burning. It pays a princely revenue to the government. Women flaunt their http://www.findartic...v79/ai_20824275/pg_6 gauzes in it. Clergymen sweep their robes through it. Respectability uses it to light its banquets. In many regions of the country it is a highly respectable candle. Yet every year, 60,000 persons in this country die of intemperance, and when we think of the blasted lives that live in want and misery, of wives in despair, of loves bruised and blotted out, of children disgraced, of alms houses filled, of crimes committed through its influence, of industry extinguished, and of disease engendered, and remember that this has been going on for thousands of years, wherever wine has been known, what are we to think of the men who still press into the fire? Have they any more sense than the moths? It is almost enough to shake a man's faith in immortality, to learn that he belongs to a race that manifests so little sense, and such hopeless recklessness. There is just one way of safety, and only one, and a young man who stands at the beginning of his career can choose whether he will walk in it, or in the way of danger. There is a notion abroad among men that wine is good; that when properly used it has help in it, that in a certain way it is food, or a help in the digestion of food. We believe that no greater or more fatal hallucination ever possessed the world, and that none so great ever possessed it for so long a time. Wine is a medicine, and men would take no more of it than of any other medicine if it were not pleasant in its taste, and agreeable in its first effects. The men who drink it, drink it because they like it. The theories as to its healthfulness come afterwards. The world cheats itself, and tries to cheat itself in this thing; and the priests who prate of using this world as not abusing it, and the chemists who claim a sort of nutritious property in alcohol which never adds to tissue, and the men who make a jest of water drinking, and know perfectly well that wine and strong drink always have done more harm than good in the world, and always will until that millennium comes, whose feet are constantly tripped from under it by the drunkards that lie prone in its path. The millennium with a grog shop at every corner is just as impossible as seurity with a burglar at every window, or in every room in the house. All men know that drink is a curse, and young men sport around it as if there were something very desirable in it, and sport until they are hopelessly singed, and then join the great sad army that, with undiminished numbers, presses on to its certain death. We do not like to become an exhorter in these columns, but, if it were necessary, we would plead with young men upon weary knees to touch not the accursed thing. Total abstinence, now and forever, is the only guaranty in existence against a drunkard's life and death, and there is no good that can possibly come to a man by drinking. Keep out of the candle. It will always singe your wings or destroy you (Scribner).
Gazette & Courier - Monday, January 4, 1875
And now Theodore Tilton comes to the front again, in a card replying to Mr. Beecher's latest editorial. He accuses Mr. Beecher of having adulterous intercourse with his wife between 2 and 3 years.
And now Theodore Tilton comes to the front again, in a card replying to Mr. Beecher’s latest editorial. He accuses Mr. Beecher of having adulterous intercourse with his wife between 2 and 3 years.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, December 7, 1874
Elizabeth Varley, only 15 years old, who eloped from Fall River with her brother
Elizabeth Varley, only 15 years old, who eloped from Fall River with her brother-in-law, William Franklin a year ago, was arrested with him at Readville, R.I. a few days ago, and on trial they pleaded guilty. During their absence they have lived in 10 different towns in various parts of New England. The girl stated that at the age of 13 she had led a dissolute life in England.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, November 30, 1874
The trial of Dr. Waite of Pittsfield, for the seduction of a Mrs. Wilson, has resulted in a verdict of $10,000 damage for the plaintiff. The trial, which lasted several days, excited a great deal of
The trial of Dr. Waite of Pittsfield, for the seduction of a Mrs. Wilson, has resulted in a verdict of $10,000 damage for the plaintiff. The trial, which lasted several days, excited a great deal of interest. http://www.utexas.ed...cerpts/exholgre.html Mr. Dawes was one of the counsel for the plaintiff.