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
Oration of Hon. George B. Loring at Bloody Brook, Sept. 17, 1875
Oration of Hon. George B. Loring at Bloody Brook, Sept. 17, 1875 - Fellow citizens: 200 years ago an event occurred on this spot, which on account of its significance and its touching details, has passed into that long heroic line over which the mind of man is compelled to pause and ponder...At the name of Bloody Brook the men, women, and children of New England started and held their breath in horror, in that primeval time when the sickening tidings were borne on the wings of the wind as it were from hamlet to hamlet...
The sad event of the 18th of September 1675, calls upon us still to remember the trials through which our fathers passed and to rejoice over that fraternal spirit which bound them together in their day of sorrow, and watered the soil of this charming valley with the choicest blood of the sons of Essex. I stand on ground made sacred to you by the sacrifices of your hardy and devoted progenitors; but I meet here the names of Lothrop and Stevens and Hobbs and Manning and Dodge and Kimball and Trask and Tufts and Mudge and Pickering, of the three-score braves who died that you might possess this goodly land and these pleasant homes...
How would they who were familiar with the cruel warfare of the savage; whose ears had heard the shrieks of the tortured mother mingling with the groans of her dying child, and whose eyes had beheld her fear, her patience and her despair; whose highway was an Indian trail, and whose home was a frontier block-house - how would they rejoice over these sunny fields, these laughing harvests, these busy towns, these tasteful homes, this cultivated landscape adorned with these institutions of learning and religion; and how would they count their own sufferings but small when compared with the manifold blessings which have descended upon the spot made sacred with their blood?
...Deerfield two centuries ago, was on the very confines of civilization - one of the outposts of a feeble Christian people, who had hardly a foothold on this continent, and between whom and the strongholds of power and wealth and learning, rolled 3000 miles of stormy and almost unknown sea. The fate of a great and wide spread empire rested then in the hands of a few colonists scattered along the Atlantic seaboard, divided in interests and tastes, perishing continually from exposure and want, not all actuated by the highest motives, but all recognizing, as by an unerring instinct, the fundamental principle out of which was to grow the American government, and all in danger of being exterminated at any time by the "pestilence which walketh in darkness and the destruction which wasteth at noonday".
Scattered up and down the great extent of territory stretching from the Passamaquoddy Bay to the capes of Florida were but about 200,000 souls, of whom Massachusetts, with Plymouth and Maine, may have had 44,000; New Hampshire and Rhode Island, with Providence each 6000; Connecticut from 17,000 to 20,000; that is, all New England, 75,000...
These people had come largely from that "Germanic race most famed for the love of personal independence". They were not men of high estate, but they were men who possessed an inherent love of land, with all the individual honor and freedom which go along with it...
Of one colony said "Spotswood, a royalist, a High churchman, a traveler", "I have observed here less swearing and profaneness, less drunkenness and debauchery, less uncharitable feuds and animosities, and less knaverys and villanys than in any part of the world where my lot has been"...
In all their customs they were obliged to exercise the utmost simplicity and they voluntarily regulated their conduct by those formal rules, which, in their day, constituted the Puritan’s guide through the world. We are told, as an illustraton of their character and manners, that by the laws of the Plymouth Colony, in 1651, "dancing at weddings was forbidden". In 1660, one William Walker was imprisoned one month for courting "a maid without the leave of her parents".
In 1675, because "there is manifest pride appearing in our streets", the "wearing of long hair or periwigs", and so "superstitious ribands, used to tie up and decorate the hair were forbidden under severe penalty"; the keeping of Christmas was also forbidden "because it was a popish custom". In 1677 an act was passed "to prevent the profaneness of turning the back upon the public worship before it was finished and the blessing pronounced".
Towns were directed to erect a cage near the meeting house, and in all this all offenders against the sanctity of the Sabbath were confined. At the same time children were directed to be placed in a particular part of the meeting house, apart by themselves, and tything-men were ordered to be chosen, whose duty it shall be to take care of them. So strict were they in their observance of the Sabbath that "John Atherton, a soldier of Col. Tyng’s Company", was fined 40 shillings for wetting a piece of an old hat to put into his shoes, which chafed his feet on the march; and those who neglected to attend meeting for 3 months were publicly whipped.
Even in Harvard College students were whipped for gross offenses in the Chapel, in presence of students and professors, and prayers were had before and after the infliction of the punishment. As the settlers of Deerfield are described as being of "sober and orderly conversation", we may suppose that these laws and customs were here rigidly enforced.
[Here follows a section on "subsistence and diet of your ancestors". Also talks about how they were good farmers, fishermen and readers]...
...Possessed evidently of a common origin, for "between the Indians of Florida and Canada the difference was scarcely perceptible", they were divided into tribes, which differed from each other mainly in their fighting capacity, and the vigor with which they roamed from place to place; and they were liable at any time to be swept off by disease, or exterminated by war, or absorbed by other and more powerful tribes.
In language, the North American Indian was limited by the material world, an abstract idea finding no birthplace in his brain and no expression on his tongue. "In marriage the Indian abhorred restraint, and from Florida to the S. Lawrence polygamy was permitted". Divorce meant merely desertion. The wife was a slave. Domestic government was unknown. The Indian youth grew up a warrior, adorned with vermilion and eagle’s feather, as fleet of foot as the deer, and as tolerant of hunger as the wolf; the Indian girl grew up a squaw, degraded and squalid and servile.
A rude agriculture, resulting in a weedy corn crop, and a few squashes and beans, was the Indian’s, or rather the Indian woman’s occupation; he had neither trade nor manufactures. "There can be no society without government; but among the Indian tribes on the soil of our republic, there was not only no written law - there was no traditionary [sic] expression of law; government rested on opinion and usage and the motives to the usage were never imbodied [sic] in language; they gained utterance only in the fact, and power only from opinion...
The Indian had a government without laws; a State without institutions; a church without faith, or creed, or head; a town without schoohouse or meeting house; a punitive system without jails or gibbets; a history based on tradition; a religion based on superstition; he was ignorant of the ownership of land; and knew nothing of a system of inheritance.
As in peace he was an idler - so in war he was a marauder. An organized army was to him unknown. He fought in small bands, seldom over 50 in number, to surprise and slaughter. He pursued, and killed, and scalped. He had neither commissariat nor hospital. He fought his enemy in the rear and in ambush; and he tortured and roasted and devoured his captives. These were the national characteristics which our fathers found on this continent.
Nor did their attempts to modify and humanize and Christianize them meet with much success. The Indian could be tamed, but he was the Indian still...Neither John Eliot nor Roger Williams was able to change essentially the habits and character of the New England tribes..."They are unspeakably indolent and slothful; they deserve little gratitude; they seem to have no sentiments of generosity, benevolence or goodness".
The Moravian Loskiel could not change their character...In New Hampshire and elsewhere schools for Indian children were established; but as they became fledged they all escaped, refusing to be caged. Harvard College enrolls the name of an Algonquin youth among her pupils; but the college parchment could not close the gulf between the Indian character and the Anglo American.
The copper colored men are characterized by a moral inflexibility, a rigidity of attachment to their hereditary customs and manners. The birds and brooks, as they chime forth their unwearied canticles, chime them ever to the same ancient melodies; and the Indian child, as it grows up, displays a propensity to the habits of its ancestors...
The trouble lay deeper. Year after year the Indian discovered an irreconcilable difference between himself and the stranger...When he entered the home of the settler, he discovered that the joys of the fireside could never be found in the group squatted beneath the shelter of the wigwam. He felt the antagonism - and his soul burned within him. The strife was not for land...It was for supremacy. And as revenge is stronger than ambition, and hate is stronger than avarice, so the war raged with unspeakable fury, and was as cruel as the passions of a desperate savage could make it.
The great contest which grew out of this antagonism, and lasted more than a year, unabated either by the heat of summer or the frosts of winter, threatening destruction to the New England colonies, was known as Philip’s War. With the story of this conflict you are all familiar. The peaceful death of Massasoit at a good old age, after a long life of friendly relations with the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies; the sadder death of his son Alexander, worried out of life by the failure of his intrigues against the colony, and the exposure of his meanness and his crimes; the gradual development of the worst of passions in the breast of Philip, and his passage from treachery to war are all fresh in the memory of all who have traced the hard path which our fathers traveled in the work of settling these shores.
The war which began in Swanzey on the 24th of June, 1675, reached this spot on the 18th of September - three months of murder, and fire, and all the bloody horrors of savage warfare. At the time the war broke out Deerfield had been settled 10 years, or had been deeded for the purposes of settlement to John Pynchon that length of time. It was then, as it is now, one of the most delightful spots in New England...
And here in the luxurience of that natural beauty, and in the wealth of wood and stream, the Indian found his favorite resort. In this town and in the towns of Hadley and Hatfield he mustered a numerous and a powerful tribe. And upon these lands purchased by the settlers, with titles confirmed by the court, the whites and Indians lived together in peace for years. It is amazing with what rapidity the war, once opened, spread from village to village, and from tribe to tribe in this wilderness...
The Pocumtucks had received their orders - and in a day had stepped from the blessings of peace to the misery of war. having promsied to deliver up their arms, on suspicion that they might misuse them, they broke their promise, fled to Sugar loaf Hill, engaged with Captains Beers and Lothrop commanding the English here, lost 26 of their number, and then sought shelter under the standard of King Philip...
Deerfield too was abandoned; and the attempt to secure a quantity of wheat which had just been partially threshed by the farmers there before their flight, resulted in the massacre which still thrills me with horror, and the anniversary of which we have met to commemorate...From behind hundreds of trees the savages poured their deadily [sic] fire. At the first volley many were killed, and the remainder were panic stricken...Lothrop...was among the first to fall. The savages, numbering nearly 700, "rushed upon the defenceless men, and the work of slaughter was soon complete.
But 6 or 7 Englishmen escaped to tell the tale, of whom one had been shot and tomahawked and left for dead, and another forced his way through the yelling ranks of the savages with the but [sic] of his musket...
While the Indians were employed in mangling, scalping and stripping the dying and the dead, Captain Moseley, who, as has been observed, was ranging the woods, hearing the report of musketry, hastened by a forced march to the relief of his brethren. The Indians, confiding in their superior numbers, taunted him as he advanced, and dared him to the contest. Moseley came on with firmness, repeatedly charged through them, and destroyed a large number with the loss on his side of but 2 killed and 11 wounded...
A quantity of bones lately found in that quarter is very probably the remains of the Indians who fell there at the close of the action. The united English force encamped for the night at Deerfield. They returned in the morning to bury the dead and found a party of the Indians upon the field stripping the bodies of their victims. These they quickly dispatched, and the remains of the brave young men, or some portion of them, were committed to the earth near the spot which we have this day consecrated anew to their memory.
The stream on whose banks they fell, and whose water ran red with their blood, has been called from that day, in memory of the disaster, Bloody Brook...[Two more entire columns follow, but they are quite blurry and unreadable].
Gazette & Courier - Monday, September 13, 1875
Court record - The fifth week of the Superior Court continued the business of the term, beginning Tues. with the following trials before the court:
John O’Donnell vs. Bartholomew Reardon & Trustees - Finding for the plaintiff, amount $68.68, and the charging of the Trustee (the Keith Paper Co.) with $76.07...Erastus Cowles vs. Edwin A. Ball - This was an action of trespass, wherein the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, who, being a highway surveyor, had, in repairing the highway on Deerfield Meadow, trespassed upon the plaintiff’s land, plowing into the Broughton Pond road, a turf embankment some 3 ft. wide and 68 rods in length.
Also, by removing a stone at the western terminus of the road. The question at issue being the true location of the northern line of said road. The defendant claimed that he had not exceeded the original limits of the road, which was laid out in 1796. The case developed the fact that the race of old men were not yet extinct, and the remembrances of the greater portion of Deerfield were required on the pros and cons of the matter in dispute. Finding for the defendant...
Henry Couillard vs. Elihu Smead - This was an action by the plaintiff, as tax collector of Shelburne, to recover $33.85, being a tax assessed in 1871. The defendant claimed that the tax had already been paid by J.B. Whitney, who, acting as his agent, handed the plaintiff the money in the yard of his livery stable at Shelburne Falls, and moreover, fixed the date as Apr. 29, 1871.
The circumstances attending the alleged payment were detailed by Mr. Whitney, while the plaintiff, while testifying that at the date named he was at Winchester N.H., engaged in the joint occupation of "courting a woman and trading horses", succeeded in raising an issue of fact, which, after a subsequent attempt by the plaintiff’s side to show the true status of the witness Whitney, for truth and veracity, and the counter attempt of the defense to discredit Couillard on the same ground; the truth might be said to indeed be "trembling in the balance". Finding for the plaintiff, amount $40.78...
The inhabitants of Leverett vs. the inhabitants of Rowe - This was an action to recover for money expended by the town of Leverett in assisting a pauper by the name of Rice, and whom it was claimed, had a legal settlement in the town of Rowe. The circumstances of the case were quite peculiar. One of the ways by which a person gains a settlement in a town is by the possession and residence on an estate of freehold for 3 years.
A settlement once gained of course continuing until a new one is gained elsewhere. In this case, Mr. Rice owned and lived upon a place in Rowe, but a few days previous to the expiration of 3 years he returned the deed of land to the original grantor, who then conveyed the property to a new party. Mr. Rice continued to live upon the land for some few weeks after giving up the deed as mentioned.
The new party who took the property did not take possession; neither did the original grantor exercise any act of ownership except the mere transferring of the deeds till after the expiration of 3 years. The question arises whether the fact of giving the deed back by Rice to his grantor, did moderate the circumstances, divest Rice of his seizin of the freehold. If not, of course he gained a settlement; while if the residence or the seizin were cut short by a few days, the statute would not be complied with and the town would not be liable. The point raised was so peculiar that the Judge reserved his decision...
Lucius Smith vs. Austin Drake, appt. The case came up on appeal from a magistrate’s findings. The court found for the plaintiff and assessed damages of $7.42...
The following cases were disposed of by judgment without trial: Samuel B. Fletcher vs. Henry Herring - This case has stood upon the docket for a long time, having been tried by a jury in 1873. It was settled on agreement by a verdict for the plaintiff, amount $19...Moses Stebbins vs. Jasper Gillett - This was another of the old cases consisting of many items of an account with offsets. Judgment was granted on award of referee...Edward H. Fitts vs. Samuel Sugland - Judgment on award of referee for plff. Damages, $4. Each party to pay their own cost...
Turners Falls Lumber Co. vs. David A. Wood - This was an action on 2 promissory notes, one of $1200...and the other of $518...Judgment for plaintiffs on both...Edwin Pierce et al. vs. Levi A. Bates Jr. et al. Judgment for plaintiffs against Bates for account of $52.50...Edwin Pierce et al. vs. Allen Mansfield - Judgment for plaintiff on a promissory note...for $58...
William L. Bradley vs. Edward Barney - Judgment for plaintiff on a promissory note...for $212...Bradley Fertilizer Co. vs. Edward Barney - This was an action on a note given by George Fuller of Deerfield, upon which the defendant was sued as surety, for $300. Judgment for plaintiff on the same...
Asa C. Lewis vs. Lorenzo D. Joslyn appt. Judgment for plaintiff, amount $30...Nathaniel Holmes et al. vs. Stephen L. Pratt - Judgment for plaintiff on note...for $59.10, upon which $40 had been paid before suit. William R. Armstrong vs. R.L. Goss. Judgment for plaintiff...for $400...Nathaniel Holmes et al. vs. Thomas Lap[?]. Judgment for plaintiff for $11...
George W. Potter et al. vs. R.J. Goss. Judgment for plaintiff on 2 notes, one for $732 and another for $82.89, also an account of $319. Total, $1134.52. Frank L. Eldridge vs. R.L. Goss et al - Judgment for plaintiff on note, amount $350...In the case of S.L. Shattuck et al. vs. George Jones, in which a verdict for plaintiff was given by the jury, a motion was filed for a new trial. But the motion has been overruled.
The docket has been well cleared of old cases this term, some 40 being settled out of court, to which no reference has been made in our reports. Judge Aldrich has earned the thanks of suiters by his persistent labors in holding this, the longest term of the Superior Court, known for many years. The court adjourned for the term Fri...The law term of the Supreme Judicial Court will begin Sept. 28, with the full bench.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, September 6, 1875
A domestic tragedy in Pennsylvania
The village of Silver Springs, Pa. has its domestic tragedy. Jerome Wilcox and his wife, neither of whom were better than they should be before or after marriage, after a year of wrangling separated a few months ago. The woman at once took up with another man, and was out walking with him late the other night, when Wilcox, who had learned of their intimacy, met them in the road, and drawing a knife stabbed his wife 5 or 6 times, inflicting probably fatal wounds, and then going a little further cut his own throat from ear to ear. The other fellow, at first sight of the knife, took to his heels, leaving the woman to the mercy of her enraged husband.
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, August 16, 1875
There was a genuine sensation in this community about a fortnight ago, and the excitement has hardly subsided now. The cause of this unusual stir was an attempt at suicide by a young man who belonged in a neighboring town, and who, after an absence of some months, came here to renew the vows he had made to a lady who is a temporary resident of Monroe. The lady, for some reason, had been weaned from her attachment, and it was the old story of suicide for spite. The young man swallowed arsenic pills in her presence, but fortunately, his friends interfered to save his life.
But so determined was the fellow to make his exit from this world of disappointments, that the aid of several men was required to hold him while the doctor that had been called administered the remedies. But he was finally brought out of it, and before many days took a sensible view of the situation, was glad he was rid of the girl, and went off about his usual business.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, August 16, 1875
News of the week
Six Niagara people visited the Cave of the Winds Mon. aft. without a guide, as they had frequently done before, and after passing through it, two of them, Ethelbert Parsons, 29 years old, and Miss Lottie C. Philpott, 25, descended to an eddy which is never visited by the guides. While bathing, the lady lost her foothold and was caught by the gentleman, but the current carried both into the river below, where they were drowned. They were soon to be married.
[See the whole sad story in the Aug. 13, 1875 New York Times Archives, entitled "Accident at the Falls. Also check out Cave of the Winds on Wikipedia].
Gazette & Courier - Monday, August 16, 1875
Marriage without acquaintance
There was a marriage in Middletown, N.Y. Thurs. eve., the parties being a young lady who has resided there and a telegraph operator from Peru, Indiana. It is related that a little over a year ago, through mutual friends, the parties commenced a correspondence, which finally culminated in the young man proposing marriage. The young lady gratefully accepting, Thurs. was fixed upon as the happy day, and the young man arrived Wed. eve. The young lady met him at the depot, from out the crowd they selected their destinies, and the next evening they were made one.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, August 2, 1875
A New Jersey girl sells herself for $15,000
A somewhat eccentric though wealthy gentleman named Gates has recently been creating quite a sensation in and about Somerville. He is well advanced in years, being upward of 70, a widower and a cripple, with one married daughter, an only child. He moved into Hillsborough township over a year ago, and bought considerable real estate, giving one farm to his daughter.
He is said to have been quite lavish with his money - to such an extent that his family became alarmed, and an effort was made by his daughter to have him declared insane and placed under guardianship, but this effort proved a failure. Among other eccentricities was his evident fondness for the society of young ladies.
On the 5th of July he became acquainted with a young lady from the West, who, with her mother, was temporarily staying in Somerville, and who is not yet out of her teens, to whom he made proposals of marriage. The girl took one hour to consider the matter, and then signified her acceptance, although it is said against the wishes of her mother, and on Mon. of last week the parties were united in marriage, the ceremony taking place in Plainfield - the mother in the mean time having become reconciled. Fifteen thousand dollars was the marriage portion of the bride, which sum was at once placed at her disposal.
[Read the sequel of the life of Joshua B. Gates at the New York Times Online Index of May 29, 1877, entitled "Story of an old man’s marriage" and that of May 30, 1877, entitled "Joshua B. Gates’ marriage: his young widow’s claim for dower; her side of the story; Gates’ alleged cruelty; the divorce proceedings"].
Gazette & Courier - Monday, July 26, 1875
The following pieces of new music have been received from Oliver Ditson & Co., Boston: "There’s Millions in it", words by George Cooper, music by J.H. Thomas; "Darling, We are Growing Old", written by Albert A. Hill, music by C.D. Blake; "Little Darling", words by Samuel N. Mitchell, music by H.P. Danks; "There is No Harm in Kissing" https://jscholarship...mage.JPEG?sequence=7 words by George Cooper, music by W.H. Rockway; "A Night in June, Idyl for Piano" by G.D. Wilson; "Sweet as summer" by Charles V. Cloy; "Boat Song, Reminiscent of Saratoga Lake" by G.D. Wilson. For sale at Moody’s.
The following piece of music from the same publishers are for sale at J.H. Lamb’s: "Centennial Chimes Galop" by J.H. Milliken: "Dream at Twilight Waltz" by Charles V. Cloy; "The Open Door", words by George Cooper, music by J.H. Thomas; "Two Songs with Chorus: Bring Our Darling Home Again" and "Mamma, I’ll Return to You", words by John Rutledge, music by H.P. Danks; "The Letter to the Candle" by R. Coote; "Silver Threads Among the Gold" words by Eben E. Rexford, music by H.P. Danks; "Golden Locks are Silver Now", words by Harry Miller, music by Charles E. Pratt; "The Old Home Ain’t What it Used to Be" by C.A. White http://www.pdmusic.org/1800s/72tohawiutb.txt
[What an interesting list! Did you notice that "Silver Threads Among the Gold" appears in 3 different forms, with different writers for each? And also instead of "The Old Grey Mare She Ain’t What She Used to be", it’s the Old Home instead.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, July 26, 1875
John Jordan, a discarded lover of Miss Coyne of Taylorsville, Pa., was fatally shot by Miss Coyne Mon. night, while attempting with a gang of roughs to force an entrance to the Coyne house to eject one Oarnoshan[?], who had supplanted Jordan in his affections of the woman, and to close the tragedy, Miss Coyne, while handing the pistol to her son, accidentally discharged it, the ball lodging in Miss Coyne's side, and producing a serious and possibly fatal wound.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, July 19, 1875
Course of true love
The "course of true love" does not run smooth for a young and unwise girl belonging to Fall River. She listened to the flattery of her father's bar-keeper, and deserting her home proposed to share an adventurer's fortunes. She was caught in New York, and will be returned to her parents.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, May 31, 1875
Curious story of a boy villain
Cambridge, Mo. furnishes to the world one of the most precocious young villains of the period, and also one of the best illustrations of parental forgiveness. A boy named Pomeroy Beeding, who was inclined to be wild, was sent by his father from Cambridge to Fayette to School, where he soon got deeply in debt and became engaged to a girl, who broke a previous engagement to accept his hand. Mr. Beeding immediately took him home, and the boy having no money, formed a design to murder his father, mother, and brother-in-law, so as to get their property.
/ He offered a man named Stanton $1500 to do the job for him. Stanton, in order to expose the boy's criminal intentions, pretended to accept the terms, and made an appointment with young Beeding to meet him in a certain log hut one night, to arrange the details of the tragedy. Stanton got two men to accompany him to the hut, unbeknown to the boy, and while the latter was telling how he wanted the crime committed, the men sprang from an ambuscade, and seizing the boy, carried him to his father. Mr. Beeding had him horse whipped, gave him a draft for $50 and discarded him. The boy immediately left for St. Louis and has not been heard from since.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, May 24, 1875
News about home: Greenfield items
The usual quiet of the west end of Main Street was broken on Sat. eve. by a lively row. It seems that Lewis Watson, who drives Slate's milk wagon, after finishing his week's work, came down to Greenfield to do a little sparking, and while billing and cooing along with his lady upon his arm was suddenly attacked by David R. Knights, Michael Butler and Patrick Butler. The girl had been sweet on one of the Butlers, and it was the old story of jealousy and revenge.
/ Watson was not proof against the trio and he got roughly handled, and on Thurs. last brought action for assault against his assailants. Justice Davis held a trial Thurs. eve. at the Grand Jury room. The defendants endeavored to prove an alibi and brought witnesses, who testified to their being in saloons during the eve., drinking gin and beer. Pat Butler was discharged, but Mike Butler and Knights were fined each $20 and costs, and the Magistrate took occasion to reprimand them severely for their brutal rowdyism. C.C. Conant Esq. appeared for the Government and John A. Aiken for the defendants, who appealed.