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, August 30, 1875
News of the week
The attempt of Patrick H. Masterson upon his own life and that of his divorced wife at New Haven, Ct. on Sun. was one of the most atrocious affairs in the history of the city. It was all done on a public street, and Masterson was obliged to chase the woman before he could get her within reach of his knife. He supposed that he had finished her the first time he stabbed her, but seeing her start up after he had stabbed himself, he started for her again, cursing her as he ran, the blood meanwhile pouring from his neck. The fact that he was knocked down evidently alone prevented him from killing the woman. He had previously tried to kill George Kirtland, father of the woman.
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 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 5, 1875
The community, usually so quiet, had a genuine sensation the other day. It appears that one Partridge, who has lived in the vicinity for some time, separated from his wife a year or two since. The couple were never divorced, but the woman, not waiting for that process, remarried, and has since lived in Boston. Partridge kept possession of their child, against the mother’s will.
Two women came to Montague a few weeks since, both well dressed and city bred in appearance. From inquiries they made, it was found that they were after the child, and Partridge was put on his guard. But two weeks later he met on the road a stranger with a lady closely veiled. It occurred to him afterward that the lady was his wife, and hastening to the place where the child was living, he found that she had been forcibly taken away, the mother of the child using a pistol to frighten those who opposed her. Partridge has gone to Boston, and says that he will stay there until he recovers the child.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, June 14, 1875
In the city of New York, on the 1st day of June, by the Honorable Abraham Lawrence, Justice of Supreme Court, Lucy Rose from Truman Rose. Divorce absolute. Parties formerly of Greenfield. [See Descendants of Wells first generation on the web].
Gazette & Courier - Monday, April 26, 1875
News of the week
Chief Justice Low of Utah has cited Brigham Young to show cause why he should not comply with the order of the court to pay Ann Eliza Young $5000, pendente lite, heretofore granted by ex-chief Justice McKean.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, April 19, 1875
Supreme Court Record
The April term of the Supreme Court was held on Tues., Judge William C. Endicott of Salem presiding. The following jurors were summoned...There were no trials by jury. The following cases were disposed of: Inhabitants of Deerfield in equity vs. Officers and Stockholders of Deerfield River Bridge - Bill and amended bill; dismissed. Maria L. Burnett, libelant, vs. Henry L. Burnett - The parties reside in Erving. Libel dismissed...Jeremiah Bardwell et als., app'ts. from decree of Judge of Probate, vs. Samuel B. White, Adm'r. - Decree of Judge of Probate affirmed. James W. Chamberlain, libelant, vs. Sarah M. Chamberlain. The parties belong in New Salem. Libelant non suit...Franklin County National Bank in equity vs. Eber N. Larrabee - Dismissed. Henry L. Burnett, libelant, vs. Maria L. Burnett - Divorce a vinculo for adultery. Custody of children decreed to libelant...Edwin G. Reynolds, libelant vs. Flora M. Reynolds. The parties belong in Leverett. Decree absolute...Thomas Dunn. libelant, vs. Kate Dunn - parties reside in Greenfield. Libel dismissed without prejudice...Otis Root, libelant vs. Adaline Root...The parties belong in Montague. Divorce decreed from the bond of matrimony for desertion...George H. Nichols, libelant, vs. Mary A. Nichols - The parties belong in Coleraine. Divorce decreed from the bond of matrimony for desertion...E. Stillman Dix in equity vs. the Shelburne Falls Five Cents Savings Bank et al. Injunction restraining respondent from selling until further order of the court. [?] Chenery petition for discharge as trustee of Almira Richards. Petition granted.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, April 5, 1875
The Beecher trial
The Beecher trial [highlights]...Victoria Woodhull prints a long card in the Herald, denouncing Theodore Tilton as a liar, and claims that his friendship for and subsequent desertion of her cause was a positive injury to her...Beecher was on the stand Thurs. He declined being sworn, but affirmed. The examination commenced with the birth of Mr. Beecher in Litchfield, Conn. in 1813 and continued with the death of his father, Rev. Lyman Beecher in 1863, at the age of 86 years, the death of his mother when he was 3 years old, their removal to Boston, his father's family consisting of 13 boys, 11 of whom were raised to man's estate, in relation to the earlier years of his life, his removal to Brooklyn and connection with Plymouth Church, his connection with Tilton on the Independent, his acquaintance with Moulton.
/ He was asked how many children he had, and he replied "I have 4 with me and I have 5 waiting for me". Then he was questioned as to his visiting the families of a portion of his congregation with whom he was on terms of intimacy, and replied with much warmth and dignity that, although he had been enjoined against doing so, he had maintained his right to do so; that he considered in addition to being a clergyman, he was a gentleman and a man of honor, and that he did not care who became jealous or what remarks were made. Speaking of the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Tilton, he said "They were one of the fairest pairs I ever married, and I had strong hopes for their future". Mr. Beecher then described his visits to the Tilton household, his taking Mrs. Tilton out to drive on two occasions, Tilton on one occasion asking Mrs. Tilton to go, Mr. and Mrs. Tilton's troubles, and a separation advised.
/ Friday Mr. Beecher testified to the trouble in Tilton's family, denied Mrs. Tilton's ever sitting on his knee. Mr. Evarts, raising his voice, asked Mr. Beecher in the most explicit terms whether he had ever had sexual intercourse with Mrs. Tilton. There was a great hush in the court room, and the spectators held their breaths and leaned forward to catch the answer. It came quickly and in a firm tone, "Never, sir"...[long article follows].
Gazette & Courier - Monday, March 22, 1875
News about home (Greenfield)
Washington Hall was not too capacious for the throng of people who attended the mock trial of the Greenfield Lyceum Fri. eve., for every desirable seat in the body of the house was occupied. The witnesses for the prosecution having been examined at the previous session of the court, the defense was opened by Attorney Cooley, and a number of witnesses were put upon the stand, including the prisoners who testified on their own behalf.
/ The plea for the defendants was made by W. Johnson and the summing up for the prosecution was by B.S. Parker. The pathetic eloquence of the counsel, who set forth the points of the case in the brightest color, caused visible emotion among the jurors and the audience.
/ Chief Justice Lee's charge to the jury gave a plain outline of their duty. He cautioned them not to let any tender sympathy or pity for the prisoners, bias or warp their convictions of justice. The jury retired under the charge of Sheriff Owen; they returned once for instruction on a doubtful point, but soon found a verdict of guilty. The prisoners stood up and received their sentence. The penalty for their misconduct was to pay for a supper to be partaken of by the officers of the court at Richardson's, and failure to comply they were to be burned at a stake before the monument on the Common. Thus ended the trial which had furnished some decidedly rich developments, and was attended with only less interest than the case of Tilton vs. Beecher. The programme of the next meeting to be held at Grand Army Hall next Fri. eve. will include a criticism of the trial by Newell snow, and the discussion of the question, "Resolved: that poverty develops character better than wealth", with P. Field to open the affirmative, and W.D. Chandler the negative.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, February 8, 1875
A young man in Charlton has advertised his wife, and she responds and defends her course by s
A young man in http://www.clarku.ed...fumville_lake05.html Charlton has advertised his wife, and she responds and defends her course by saying that since her marriage 3 months ago, she has been "struck, choked, and tied up by a rope".
Gazette & Courier - Monday, February 1, 1875
Fight it out like Pa and Ma do
Fight it out like Pa and Ma do - A story is told of a daughter of a prominent person now in the lecture field which is peculiarly interesting and suggestive of unconscious wisdom. A gentleman was invited to the lecturer’s house to tea. Immediately on being seated at the table the little girl astonished the family circle and the guests by the abrupt question: "Where is your wife?" Now the gentleman having been recently separated from the partner of his life was taken so completely by surprise that he stammered forth the truth. "I don’t know" replied the infant terrible, "why don’t you know?" Finding that the child persisted in her interrogation, despite the mild rebuke of her parents, he consented to make a clean breast of the matter and have it over at once. So he said with the sullenness that was the result of inward expletives: "Well, we don’t live together as we think, as we can’t agree, we’d better not". He stifled a groan as the child began again, and darted an exasperated look at her parents. But the little torment would not be quieted until she exclaimed, "Can’t agree? Then why don’t you fight it out as Pa and Ma do?" "Vengeance is mine", laughingly retorted the visitor after Pa and Ma exchanged looks of horror, followed by the inevitable meal.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, February 1, 1875
A woman entered an action for breach of promise. The defendant allowed the case to go by default, and a jury was drawn to assess damages. On being questioned, the woman swore that she had never seen
A woman entered an action for breach of promise. The defendant allowed the case to go by default, and a jury was drawn to assess damages. On being questioned, the woman swore that she had never seen the man; but that she had heard a good account of him from his former wife, had corresponded with him and prepared to marry him. The jury awarded her 5 pounds. We need scarcely add that this strange affair occurred in Ireland, in one of the Dublin courts, but even there it was pronounced very remarkable.
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 4, 1875
The gossips of St. Louis have had plenty to busy their tongues with the last week, in the remarkable developments that have followed the recent death of Thomas Pratt, "a prominent citizen". Mr. Pratt
The gossips of St. Louis have had plenty to busy their tongues with the last week, in the remarkable developments that have followed the recent death of Thomas Pratt, "a prominent citizen". Mr. Pratt was general superintendent of the http://genealogyinst...alogy.com/1875-2.htm city gas works - by an explosion in which he was killed - had been a resident of St. Louis for 30 years, and had accumulated a half a million of property. He had married a wife there, was a prominent member of Rev. Dr. Burlingame's church, and was universally regarded as a man of high character. But since Mr. Pratt's death a petition has been filed in the probate court for his estate by a woman in London whom he married long ago and who has borne him 7 children. Three of these are dead, and one lives in Australia, and the other three live in St. Louis, Mr. Pratt having recognized them as his children and contributed to their support, but representing that their mother, whom he had married in England, was dead. The revelation that he has never been divorced, but has been supporting two families during all this period, naturally causes a big sensation.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, November 30, 1874
Edward S. Stokes [also seen as http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/erie04.Html Edward S. Stokes [also seen as http://www.lostnewyo...otos/Plate-85-b.html Ned Stokes ], though lost to sight, is not wholly forgotten. He has money, and that is a good quickner [i.e. quickener] of the memory. It is one of the maxims of New York that a man can't be very bad as long as he has plenty of money. In the recent attempt to get up a library for the prisoners at Auburn, Stokes contributed $500. Mrs. Stokes is one of the most showy women on the street. Her husband is legally dead and the courts have given her a formal release. She does not sit weeping at home, but enjoys life with the merriest. She attracts much attention by her taste and showy dress. Tilden was a great political friend of Jim Fisk, and the chances of a pardon the next two years are quite slim.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, November 16, 1874
The Oregon Senate has amended the divorce law so that husbands and wives having no children may get a decree of divorce by simply refusing to live together.
The Oregon Senate has amended the divorce law so that husbands and wives having no children may get a decree of divorce by simply refusing to live together.
Gazette & Courier - Tuesday, November 10, 1874
The Episcopal convention finally closed its protracted session at New York Tues. night, and adjourned to meet at Boston in 1877. Before adjoining a long pastoral letter was issued, expressing strong
The Episcopal convention finally closed its protracted session at New York Tues. night, and adjourned to meet at Boston in 1877. Before adjoining a long pastoral letter was issued, expressing strong denunciation of the present system of divorces and the profanation of the Lord’s Day, the participation in indecent amusements, and indecencies enacted on the stage.