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 6, 1875
Cheapside as it was more than 50 years ago
Cheapside as it was more than 50 years ago - A good deal of business was transacted at Cheapside even as late as 1819. Two stores were in operation, one situated on the west, the other on the east side of the covered bridge. Robert Bardwell and Clark Houghton were the storekeepers. A line of boats, owned by Clark Houghton, run [sic] regularly to and from Hartford, and freight came in there to be distributed among the merchants of Greenfield and vicinity, even to merchants in Rowe, Whitingham, Wilmington and others west of here.
In later years Allen & Root of Greenfield run a line of freight boats to Hartford, and had a store on the landing, and sold quite a large amount of heavy goods. Uncle George P. Field had a bakery there and sold crackers - and good ones, too - to the people in all this region. Robert Field tended the gate, and made cut nails by hand, with the aid of a heading machine, and had a two story building on the side of the road next to the river.
There was no tavern there in those days, so the storekeepers had license to retail the ardent. The consequence was that in dull days, or rainy days, lots of thirsty bodies presented themselves to be lined inside with something to take. Old St. Croix was cheap then - about $1 per gallon; new rum .33 per gallon. Oh, how they did drink!
The main farm in Cheapside was owned by a man who died many years since, and not one foot of said farm is owned at present by any of his heirs; neither is there now a slab to mark his resting place in the cemetery, near the railroad station at Old Deerfield.
At the time when a division of the old county of Hampshire was talked of, there was a strong effort made to have the shire town of the (then) new county of Franklin established at Cheapside, but the man who owned at that time, hundreds of acres of land in that locality, would not sell any for the purpose, so that village today is not as valuable as in 1819. W.
[Those interested in Cheapside simply must read "History of Greenfield: Shire Town of Franklin County, Massachusetts" by Francis McGee Thompson, and Lucy Cutler Kellogg].
Gazette & Courier - Monday, August 23, 1875
The second week of the Superior Court was opened at 10 o’clock Mon. The jury in the case of Peleg Adams vs. John Single, and the countersuit of Single vs. Adams, brought in a verdict on each action separately, viz.: In the former for Adams, amount $522; and in the latter for Single, $808, giving a difference in Single’s favor of $286.
The criminal cases were then taken up before the second jury as follows: Timothy Sullivan of Greenfield, on two indictments for larceny. The transaction itself was so lately chronicled that it is unnecessary to repeat it here, but simply to state that the defendant is the party who carried off Conductor Tharp’s clothing, and A.N. Hull’s shoes from the Mansion House. He was found guilty and sentenced to two years at the State Prison at Charlestown; two days solitary. District Attorney for Commonwealth.
Patrick Fraine of Charlemont was tried on two indictments. One for arson and another for larceny from the building, both being tried at the same time. The first charge was for the alleged firing of the Zoar depot last March, and the second for stealing from the same. The defendant worked upon the railroad at the Tunnel and boarded at Zoar. The parties with whom he boarded testified that Fraine came home the night of the fire at 5 minutes before 9, and the alarm was given about half past 9.
The defendant, who had no council, cross questioned the witnesses with considerable shrewdness, and brought out from the depot master the fact that some railroad men were in the depot during the eve; the west end of which was used as a store, and that there was a large fire in the stove, so much that some of the party complained of the heat, but it was claimed that the fire was out, or nearly so, when the store was closed.
The party who lived near, and who seemed to have discovered the fire first, described it as wholly confined to the southwest end, or store part, and there seemed to be no fire in the rest of the building. The evidence seemed very small to hold the defendant on the charge of arson, and the verdict of the jury acquitted the prisoner at the bar therefor.
On the allegation of larceny, the evidence was more conclusive, two witnesses testifying to the defendant having pennies and 5 cent pieces in his pockets, some being in a pocket handkerchief and others done up in a pair of stockings in the defendant’s coat at the place he boarded. On this charge he was found guilty and sentenced to 2 years in the House of Correction at Pittsfield. District Attorney for Commonwealth.
Marshall H. Porter of Williamstown and Henry Smith of South Deerfield, for larceny, and the former also for receiving stolen goods. The defendant, Porter, a dark mulatto, who gave his age as 30, said he was visiting at South Deerfield. He claimed to have had nothing to do with the larceny, but said the articles found on him were given him by Henry Moore, although he acknowledged he knew they were stolen.
It appeared by the confession of Smith, who is a bright colored boy of about 16 years of age, that the larceny alleged consisted in entering the store in the building connected with the Bloody Brook House at South Deerfield; the boy Smith watching in the shade of a large elm tree in front of the store, while Porter and Moore entered the store by the bulk-head and did the stealing. The articles taken were 2 or 3 watches, a revolver, candy, some currency and silver coin and other miscellaneous items.
Henry Moore, indicted with the others for the larceny, was bailed by his father, an was not on hand to be tried with the others. Porter and Smith were found guilty and sentenced each to 3 years at the House of Correction in Pittsfield; District Attorney for Commonwealth, A. Brainard for Smith. A bench warrant was issued for the arrest of Henry Moore, who has become scarce in this region since the time he was required at this court to plead with the others to the alleged burglary.
George Doolittle of Greenfield, for assault and battery. The present case came up on an appeal from sentence of the magistrate. The said assault and battery was made upon H.E. Keuran, while visiting the Mansion House, the defendant being keeper of the hotel. The case was virtually decided on the testimony of Doolittle himself, who, after detailing the fact of seeing Keuran passing back and forth through the bar room to the wash room, had ordered Keuran to leave and not be hanging around there, to which the reply was made that he had as much money in there as the defendant, and should go when he got ready, at same time drawing a pocket knife and threatening bodily harm if he was put out; upon which the defendant struck him with his fist, and as he was going out struck him two more blows.
The fact of any knife being drawn was denied by Keuran, who also said he had no such knife as described with him at the time. Several witnesses detailed the facts as they saw them, several testifying they saw a knife in Keuran’s hand, but the court ruled that even if there was any justification for the first blow self defense did not require the others, and according to the defendant’s own testimony, the said blows were given when Keuran was getting away about as fast as he could. Verdict of guilty. Sentence deferred. District Attorney for Commonwealth, A. DeWolf for defendant.
The case of Michael Moran for larceny came up on appeal from a magistrate’s trail, and on motion the complaint was quashed for informality. D. Aiken for defendant.
Frank P. Bell of Coleraine for assalt and battery had a lengthy trial occupying the most of Thurs. The alleged assault was made with a shovel upon George H. Phillips, one of the Selectmen of the Town, and also another assault upon Newton G. Lake, who was with him at the time. The defendant has not lived very peaceably with certain of his neighbors for some time, and probably dates back to the adultery case of a few years ago, at which the present defendant was one of the parties.
The present difficulty seems to have arisen about one Joshua Fairbanks, a town pauper, at the time living at Bell’s house. Mr. Phillips testified that he went to the defendant’s house, either to get Fairbanks or to notify defendant that the town would not pay for his support. Upon which the defendant ordered them away, using abusive language, and that afterward he came out armed with a shovel and not only assaulted them with his fist, but struck at them with his shovel, and finally thrust the shovel against Mr. Phillips, knocking him down.
All this the defendant denied. The jury, however, found the "Christian Hill" defendant guilty. when the time for sentencing arrived, Bell had departed, he having been on bail since his preliminary trial before the magistrate. His bail was called and defaulted, and a bench warrant issued for his arrest. District Attorney for Commmonwealth, C.C. Conant for defendant. This closed the criminal cases and the civil list was resumed with.
Joseph H. Hollister vs. Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance Co. In this case the plaintiff claims a sum due him on a policy in said company. The company, however, defend, alleging that the plaintiff has no claim on them, as he had failed to pay an assessment made in the required time, and his policy had consequently lapsed to the company. The court ordered the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, upon the law involved on an agreed statement of facts, and the case goes at once to the Supreme Court on the questions of law. C.C. Conant for plaintiff, D. Aiken for defendant.
Edward E. Coleman et al. vs. Loren S. Bartlett et al. - This was an action of contract for the recovery of the price of a turbine water wheel, made by E.E. Coleman & Co. of Shelburne Falls, for Loren S. Bartlett & Son of Northampton - the value of the wheel, worksetting the same and interest, amounting to $567.
The wheel in question was put into the mill some 2 years ago, and the contract therefor, the defendants allege, was that the plaintiffs agreed to put in the said wheel and to warrant it to work to the satisfaction of the defendants; that it should use less water and give more power than the wheel they were then using; but after trying the wheel for some time, with the same water as on the old wheel, found they got less power and could not operate the mill; and that on notice given of these facts to the defendants, they endeavored to remedy the defects, but still it did not work to their satisfaction, and they therefore refused to pay for the same.
The case was very thoroughly heard and a great amount of evidence introduced to show the conditions under which wheels are usually put into mills, the nature of turbine wheels in general, and much other matter relative thereto - of interest, perhaps to mill owners, or to the relative value of turbines and the conditions necessary to their successful working; but as a whole, the general interest in the case was not so great as in many others. Verdict for defendants. S.T. Field for plffs.; DW. Bond & H.H. Bond for defts.
Lyman J. Wait vs. Justin Thayer et al. - This case was partially presented to the jury, but was suspended to enable counsel to go to Brattleboro to take the deposition of S.F. Warner. The action is on a promissory note of $1000, given by Warner and endorsed by Thayer, Sargent & Co.of Northampton, Mr. Warner being at the time a member of the above named firm. The case attracts considerable attention on account of several nice points of commercial law involved.
While waiting for the taking of the deposition mentioned, the case of Joel R. Davenport vs. the inhabitants of Coleraine was taken up before the same jury. This action is for injury alleged to have been received by the plaintiff while traveling on the highway in said town. The case is still on trial.
The cases of Mary M. Hillman vs. The Inhabitants of Charlemont, and that of Chandler A. Vincent vs. The Inhabitants of Rowe stand next in order of trial. It will probably take the most of the present week to finish up the cases still standing for trial.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, August 23, 1875
In Bolton, at one time on Sun., within the space of 1 mile, on one of the principal roads in town, 25 persons in different stages of intoxication were counted, from the beastly drunk to the slightly sprung, and were all more or less noisy, and yet the Selectmen have not granted a single license.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, August 16, 1875
Situated up among the hills, yet we have some beautiful valleys as well as the lovely mountain scenery - we are a busy people - few if any loungers or unemployed, all have something to do, notwithstanding the cry of hard times so often heard. There are 3 cotton mills, many more lumber mills, 2 butter box manufactories, most kinds of mechanic shops, all of which are doing a good business.
Some very fine carriages are made here; there are several stores, 5 churches, two Methodist Episcopal, one Congregational, 2 Baptist. Five secret societies, viz. Grand Army Post, Sons of Temperance, two Sovereigns of Industry and a Grange; that we have a good hotel we hardly need assert as those who pass this way know, as well as others who read the papers.
We have many good farms well cultivated and from appearances are about to yield satisfactory harvests; the late rains have done much to improve crops. The farmers are getting wiser and are raising less tobacco than in former years, other crops receiving more attention such as grass, corn, oats, etc. and are looking well.
We know of no place in town where intoxicating liquors are sold, and one drunk is rarely seen. We have no railroad but there is considerable talk of one. Our schools, some 15 in number, are good, comparing favorably with those around us, and our mail facilities and modes of conveyance to and from are equal to larger towns, and places on railroads with the exception of the iron horse.
A good number from more crowded towns stopping here during the warm weather, yet there is room for others.
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 9, 1875
News about home: Greenfield items
The heavy rain early last week prevented work on the line of the Troy & Greenfield railroad, and the men flocked into Greenfield for a spree. This is a phase of railroad building with which we are likely to become familiar with during the coming year. The contractors complain, with good reason, at Greenfield's gin mills, and threaten to see if there isn't anything that they can do about it.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, August 9, 1875
News about home: Greenfield items
About 4 o'clock nearly every aft., from half a dozen to a dozen or more men, mostly railroad hands at work on the Troy & Greenfield railroad can be seen staggering toward the depot from the various rum holes of this village, to take the train west. This is the "practical" working of the license law. It did not use [i.e. used] to be so under the prohibitory law and the State Constables.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, July 12, 1875
News about home: Greenfield items
Besides the drug stores and beer saloons, only one license has been granted in this town, that to F.S. Hagar. But there is not a bar in the village, if we may judge from the daily evidence in our streets, that is not dealing out its vile poisons. Who doubts now that "license" does not mean "free rum"?
Gazette & Courier - Monday, July 5, 1875
News about home: Greenfield items
We do not know how long our town authorities will allow the unlicensed grog shops to flourish at the entrance of School Street, with their almost daily rows and fights. On Tues. there was one while the children were on their way to school in the aft., which they were obliged to see and hear the vile and profane language. Two thirds of the children who go to our High and Grammar Schools pass these places, and if our town authorities will not do their duty and take this matter in hand, the parents of the children should see that they are shut up.
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.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, May 17, 1875
News about home: Greenfield items
Henry N. Mygatt, who had been a clerk in Seward & Willard's store for about a year and a half, met a sad death in Springfield on Thurs. He terminated his employment here on Wed. and left town with the expressed intention of going to Washington, where his father resides. It appears that he stopped in Springfield, where, Thurs. aft., about 2 o'clock, he visited a saloon, and calling for drink, told the bar tender that he wanted to take some medicine in his liquor. He said that he had been up nights until his nerves were so disturbed that he had to take something to quiet them before he slept.
/ He poured the medicine - subsequently discovered to be chloral - into the glass from a small vial, drank it with the liquor and went out. He then went to the Berkshire House, and at the bar there took another portion of the chloral with some liquor, and then called for a room, saying he wanted to go to bed. He was shown to his room, and nothing more was thought about it till someone entered the room about 5 o'clock and found him dead in the bed. He had apparently gone directly to bed and fallen at once under the deadly influence of the chloral. From letters and cards found upon Mygatt's person, a telegram of inquiry was sent to Seward & Willard, who requested the Springfield authorities to give proper attention to the remains, and immediately forwarded a dispatch to Mygatt's friends in Washington. Those who were intimate with him here, do not think that it was his purpose to take his own life, but in a nervous mood he took the chloral to obtain sleep and rest, and was a victim of an overdose. Mygatt was 34 years of age and a young man of a fine gentlemanly appearance. He was for some time clerk in the Patent Office at Washington, and for 4 years was an orderly with Admiral Alden on the Wabash, accompanying General Sherman on his European trip a few years ago; and in one way and another had seen a good deal of the world. Mr. Willard became acquainted with him South, and induced him to come to Greenfield. His father reached Springfield on Fri. and took the remains home to Washington. The report that Mygatt had a wife in Washington is incorrect. The affectionate letters referred to, which were found in his pocket, were probably from his sister.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, May 10, 1875
News about home: Greenfield items
The disappointed applicants for licenses don't like the way things are managed at all. They worked hard last fall for the election of Gaston, with the understanding that it would bring "free rum", and now to be told that they are not to enjoy the benefits of the new law, cuts them to the very marrow. They hold little indignation meetings on the sidewalks and make the air blue with their "mild" threats. But judging from the intoxication that is every day apparent, the results are all still in full blast. For the benefit of these offenders we will quote the sections of the law that bear on their cases...[Quotes passages from law].
Gazette & Courier - Monday, May 10, 1875
There is a strong public sentiment in town opposed to the granting of licenses at all. Frequent exhibitions of drunkenness by those who have come to our village for pleasure from other towns, have disgusted our people with the accursed traffic, and we earnestly hope that our Board of Selectmen will carry out their town wishes and those of a majority in the community by refusing to permit the legal sale of liquor in any way, shape or fashion.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, May 3, 1875
News about home: Greenfield items
The meeting here on Friday of the Selectmen of the County for consultation and uniform action on the matter of license, was attended by about 25, representing the larger towns of the County. R.N. Oakman of Montague was chosen chairman, and freely expressed his views on the subject under consideration. The first proposition entertained was a motion that it be the sense of the meeting not to grant any licenses at all. This was favored by the Selectmen of some of the smaller towns, but after some discussion was voted down.
/ It was then voted to license hotels under the first class as a general thing; that is, innholders in whom the Selectmen have confidence. It was voted to license apothecaries doing a regular business, to sell all kinds of liquors not to be drank on the premises, under the fourth. A vote was passed not to grant license under the first class, that is to sell liquors to be drank [sic] on the premises to any but innholders, and not under the second class to sell malt beer, cider and light wines not containing over 15 per cent of alcohol, as this, it was thought, would open the way for sale of all kinds of liquor, but it was voted to grant licenses to sell beer and cider to such bona fide victualers as the Selectmen should think best.
/ The fifth class, licensing wholesale dealers, it was decided to leave to the discretion of the Selectmen. A resolution was adopted that the Selectmen should give the law a fair trial, granting licenses for a good and sufficient price, and that they should see that the provisions of the law were rightly enforced. No uniform scale of prices was adopted, but that point was left for each board to determine for its own town.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, May 3, 1875
News about home: Greenfield items
18 applications for licenses under the new law were filed at the Selectmen's offices on Sat. Only one license was issued, and that to Messrs. Howland & Lowell, druggists. The other druggists are to receive them, and the three hotels in the village. Licenses to sell beer and cider will be issued to S. Reuth, Adam Partenheimer and Gotleib Sauter. These are probably all that will receive the sanction to sell by the Selectmen. Petitions, signed by over 200 persons in the village, were sent to the Board on Sat., praying that licenses would be restricted to the hotels and apothecaries.
The Selectmen hold a regular monthly meeting at their office at Montague Center on the last Sat. of each month at 6 o'clock p.m. At the last meeting it was voted to accept the proposition of Clement Merchants and sons of Wendell to support Tirsa McNall, a town pauper, during her natural life for the sum of $100. R.N. Oakman was elected, under direction of the board of Statistics of Labor, to take the census and industrial statistics for the present decennial year for the town. The matter of licenses was thoroughly discussed, and although the Board are unanimously opposed to license as compared with prohibition, it was agreed to execute the present law according to its true intent and meaning as a restrictive measure.
Gazette & Courier - Monday, April 26, 1875
News about home: Greenfield items
The Selectmen of Greenfield invite the Selectmen of all the other towns in the County to meet with them at Washington Hall on Fri. next, to consider the matter of granting licenses under the new liquor law, and if possible decide upon some uniform action.