Click here for a list of my other Pulaski/Rockcastle/Laurel County KY articles
-----------
[September 21, 1869] -
Brutal Murder.
Another Piece of Kentucky Lawlessness.
Special Dispatch to the Cincinnati Gazette.
LOUISVILLE, September 20.
Col. T. W. Napier, Sheriff of Lincoln county, was killed, and Ed. Davidson, Marshal of Stanford, was mortally wounded last night by a drunken man by the name of Sam. Holmes. There was a meeting, the nature of which i did not learn, at the Odd Fellow's Lodge, and Holmes was creating a disturbance outside of the house. Sheriff Napier undertook to arrest him, and Davidson went to assist the Sheriff. Holmes resisted the officers and shot them both. He made his escape. A large number of citizens turned out to search for Holmes, but he had not been found this morning. He is the son of a well-to-do and highly respected farmer in Lincoln county.
SECOND DISPATCH.
More about the Stanford Tragedy--Further Reward to be Offered--Fatal Affray in Tennessee
Special Correspondence of the Cincinnati Gazette.
LOUISVILLE, September 20.
Further particulars of the murder at Stamford are received. Sheriff Napier was shot there three times. He lived two hours and made his will. E. M. Davidson, shot in the lung, is lying in a precarious condition. The Judge of the Circuit Court offered $1,000 for the arrest of Holmes. The Governor will probably increase the reward. The shooting was done Saturday night--not last night.
To the Associated Press.
LOUISVILLE, September 20. -- News has been received of a terrible affray that occurred in Southern Kentucky. Captain W. Napier, the Sheriff of Lincoln county, was leaving the Odd Fellows' Hall, at Stanford, when one Samuel Holmes was found upon the sidewalk creating a disturbance. In endeavoring to arrest or quiet him Napier received a shot that killed him, and Ed. Davidson, Marshal of Stanford, who came to the Sheriff's assistance, was also mortally wounded. Great excitement prevails at Stanford, and the people are looking out for Holmes. A reward of one thousand dollars is offered for his arrest. Holmes is said to be a vagabond, doing nothing for a living, but depending on his father, a farmer, of Lincoln county. [1]
---
[September 21, 1869] -
KENTUCKY.
Louisville, Sept. 20.
News has been received of a terrible affray that occurred in southern Kentucky. Capt. W. Napier, the sheriff of Lincoln county, was leaving the odd fellows' hall in Shanford [Stanford], when one Samuel Holmes, was found upon the sidewalk creating a disturbance. In endeavoring to arrest or quiet him, Napier received a shot that killed him, and Ed. Davidson, marshal of Shanford, who came to the sheriff's assistance was also mortally wounded. Great excitement prevails at Shanford, and the people are looking out for Holmes. A reward of $1,000 is offered for his arrest. Holmes is said to be a vagabond, doing nothing for a living, but depends on his father, a farmer of Lincoln county. [2]
---
[September 1869] -
No. 1 on 1870 Census Mortality Schedule, Lincoln County, Pg 6. [3]
---
[October 19, 1869] -
It is estimated that at least 10,000 persons attended the funeral of the late Sheriff Napier, in Stanford, Kentucky. [4]
---
[March 5, 1875] -
The man who was arrested at Fort Smith, Arkansas, and who was supposed to be Samuel Holmes, Jr., the young man who killed Col. T. W. Napier, our former Sheriff, and dangerously wounded E. M. Davidson, the town marshal of Stanford, was released from confinement, as the man who was sent to see about him, failed to identify him. [5]
--
[October 22, 1875] -
We learn that an innocent man, Mr. Stewart Meyers, of Crab Orchard, Ky., was arrested in Louisville, the other day, by two officers of the police force of the city, as he was supposed to be Sam'l Holmes, Jr., who shot T. W. Napier and E. M. Davidson, of this [Lincoln] county. Of course Mr. Meyers was not the man Holmes. There had been a telegram sent to Louisville that Holmes would be in Louisville on the down train. Such idle rumors can be of no service to any one, and they may tend to excite people unduly. Such telegrams as these referred to would not be transmitted if the facts were known. [6]---
[December 21, 1877] -
Sam Holmes Captured.
Last Sunday morning at sunrise Samuel Holmes, who, for eight years and three months has evaded arrest although for the most of the time in this section of the country, where he roamed at will with but little more caution than that displayed by an ordinary citizen, was arrested and lodged in jail here by Deputy S. H. Hickle, J. B. Owens, S. M. Owens, A. A. Warren, S. S. Myers, Thos. Newland, L. C. Alcorn, Dr. L. F. Huffman, Dr. S. P. Craig, George S. Carpenter, John W. Bright, Jr., James Elmore, and ourselves. A portion of our party went on the night previous to the capture, to Mt. Moriah Church where we had heard that Holmes and Ben McRoberts, also a refugee from justice, had attended the protracted meeting the night before, but on arriving there found that we were on a cold scent and that the two fugitives had not been there at all. Returning to town about ten o'clock, we learned from Jailer Thos. Buford, that he had reliable authority for the assertion that Holmes and McRoberts were at a Mrs. Collier's. Increasing our number to thirteen, we left town at 11 o'clock and arrived at the place in question at about 1:30 A.M. There half of the party was stationed and the rest was taken to Mack Holmes' house half mile distant, where they were put on guard, both parties having agreed not to make any demonstration till day light. The slow hours of the night at last wore away and about day, Mack Holmes, who, with his family had spent the night at Mrs. Collier's, came out to go over to his place to feed his stock. A guard was sent with him with instructions to the party stationed at his house to search it and return with him to Mrs. Collier's. They did so, and while the search was going on, Sam Holmes, who had spent the night at his mother's near by, rode up without seeing the signal given him by one of the women. Our party not recognizing him, as none of them had seen him for years, he nearly passed the house before it was thought necessary to halt him. He was, however, ordered to stop, which he did, merely remarking that "I have done nothing, gentlemen, don't shoot me." Mr. Hickle then asked him his name, which he gave as Walker, Morgan Walker, but his disconnected account of himself gave him away and he was ordered to dismount and hand over his weapons. He did so at once and the weapons were found to be an improved Smith & Wesson pistol and a Colt's revolver, some 15 inches long. He begged not to be manacled, but made no resistance and was handcuffed to George Carpenter until we got to our horses, when he had the bracelets placed on both wrists and by a circuitous route hurried to Stanford, and was lodged in jail and heavily guarded until Monday, when Sheriff Hickle and posse by order of Judge Lytle, took him to Louisville.
THE CRIME
for which Holmes was arrested is the killing of Sheriff T. W. Napier, on the 18th day of Sept. 1869, while Napier and Town Marshal Ed Davidson, were attempting his arrest for shooting a pistol on the street. Napier was shot twice, the firs tin the bowels and the last taking effect in the neck and ranging down the spine, producing death in an hour. He also shot Mr. Davidson at the same time, permanently disabling him. He then mounted his horse and fled to his father's and from thence to Texas, as we learned in
AN INTERVIEW
with him. There he remained seven weeks and then went to Brashear City, La., where he took ship for Liverpool, England. From thence he went to Hull, then sailed to Hamburg, visiting the battle-field of Waterloo, and in March 1870, returned to Hull. Afterwards he again sailed to Hamburg and remained till the breaking out of the Franco-Prussian war, then he went back to England and sailed for New York. Arriving there he went out West and after roaming over several States he came to Allen county, Ky., in June 1871. Here he traded in cattle, and in September went South with a drove of mules. In June 1872 he made a visit to his friends in this county and remained three weeks and went to Baltimore. He wandered around then for some time, and in September 1873, came to Trimble county, Ky., where he remained till January 1873, when he came back to Lincoln, and since then, with occasional short trips to other States, has made his home here. Six weeks ago he was frightened off by Marshall Hunter's party to Tennessee, where he staid till a few days before his capture, when he learned that his mother was sick. He started home in company with two friends, (whom he refused to name) passed through Somerset and arrived at Mrs. Collier's at 8 o'clock Saturday night last. There he procured a fresh horse and went to his mother's and spent the night. Next morning about day he started back to Mrs. Collier's, intending to get his horse and return to Tennessee, but his calculations were thwarted by his captors and he was instead, brought to Stanford. In regard to his arrest he said: "I really feel relieved that it is over, for I've spent a wretched life dodging from pillow to post. I have been wanting to give myself up for a long time, but my friends objected, though I had determined any way to surrender myself at the next Circuit Court." He positively denies the report that he and Ben McRoberts were drunk in Crab Orchard last Saturday, and further asserts that he has not seen that much wanted gentleman for over three months. Holmes is a man of fine appearance, good address, and his demeanor after his capture was so gentlemanly that all who were thrown in contact with him were strongly impressed in his favor. He admits that he killed Col. Napier, but says that he was crazed by the demon drink. The act was committed when he was only 18 years old and he has already suffered an age of terrible punishment therefor. The capture of Holmes is the occasion of great joy among the law abiding citizens — as it ends the long period of outlawry that has cursed the county. Had the people five years ago arisen with the united determination of putting down lawlessness as they did two weeks ago, the state of affairs that have so long existed would never have originated. We have learned a bitter lesson by experience and it behooves every man who has a spark of honor for the laws of the land to stand by our officers and see that every man who breaks the law is forced to pay the penalty for it. [7]
---
[December 21, 1877] -
THE REWARD FOR HOLMES. -- There has been a standing reward for Sam Holmes of $1,000 by the county, $500 by the State, and $300 by a relative of the murdered Sheriff, making in all $1,800. The reward ought, and no doubt will, be paid to his captors, but there are those narrow minded enough to raise an objection to its being paid, because it was a Sheriff's posse that made the arrest. There are very few, however, and with such men as Judge J. A. Lytle, 'Squire W. R. Carson and a number of other magistrates, the lawyers and all the best citizens in favor of the county's part being paid, there is no doubt that it will be. The Governor is going to pay the State's part, as the following telegram shows:
FRANKFORT, KY., December 17, 1877.
W. P. Walton:
I have offered a reward of Five Hundred Dollars for arrest and delivery of S. Holmes. This is full amount allowed by law. It will be paid according to Section five, Chapter fifteen, General Statutes. I congratulate you all that law and order reign supreme in Lincoln.
JAS. B. MCCREARY. [8]
---
[December 21, 1877] -
ARRESTED ON SUSPICION. -- The man Hunter, who passed himself off on the Sheriff's posse that arrested Holmes, as the Marshal of Bardstown, was arrested on Tuesday night at Lancaster, by Messrs. S. S. Myers, E. B. Caldwell and Smith Mershon, and brought here under the supposition that he was the man whom the authorities of Texas had offered a reward of $5,000. He was brought here but was released on being recognized by Dr. Cox and Judge Saufley, as a stock trader of Clinton county. After his release he grew very indignant and threatened his captors with suits for heavy damages, but on it being suggested that he had better remain quiet or he would be sent to the Penitentiary for harboring Holmes, he grew suddenly quiet. The boys paid for his night's lodgings here and gave him money to pay his toll back to Lancaster and the would-be Marshal left in disgust. [8 ibid]---
[December 28, 1877] -
MYSTERIOUS -- FOUL PLAY SUSPECTED. -- Town Marshal Rude, of Sheppardsville, who arrested and brought to the jail here, Nick Morrison, charged with murder, learned while here of the reward offered for Sam Holmes, and decided after he went home to return to this county and take in Holmes and the promised $1,800. He came back about the 10th of November and got off the train at Hall's Gap. After reconnoitering around he sent two dispatches dated on the 13th, one from Stanford and another from Crab Orchard, telling his partner, Mr. J. W. Thompson, of Sheppardsville, to come to Hall's Gap at once with two shot guns, as he was sure of getting his game. On the 15th he sent another dispatch further urging him to come immediately. On the 16th, as we learn from a letter received from Mr. Thompson, he arrived at Hall's Gap and put up with William Foster for the night. From him he learned that Rude had left his house on the morning of the 16th, and that since he had not heard from him nor has his whereabouts been known. Mr. Thompson says that Foster told hi that he feared that Rude had met with foul play near Ball's still-house. The whole matter is suspicious, wrapt in mystery and should be looked into at once. [9]---
[December 28, 1877] -
Judge M. H. Owsley has kindly consented to hold a Special Term of the Circuit Court to-day to certify that Samuel Holmes was delivered to the Jailer of this county. The Governor will then order the payment of the reward, and it is more than probable that the boys will get the money next week. [9 ibid]---
[January 10, 1878] -
A MISSING MARSHAL.
Singular Absence of a Shepherdsville Official.
A reporter of the Courier-Journal took the early L. and N. morning train yesterday, to find out something more definite about the disappearance of the Marshal of Shepherdsville. He was told that Mr. J. W. Thompson, ex-marshal, was the man to get the information from, and the following is the story as told by that gentleman:
In the latter part of November Marshal Rude left here, saying he was going down to Stanford to try and arrest Sam Holmes. That is the last I heard of him until the 13th of December, when I received the following dispatches. The first reads:
J. W. Thompson, Shepherdsville, Ky.: Come on first train certain to Hall's Gap. Bring two shot-guns. O. M. Rude.
The second reads:
J. W. Thompson, Shepherdsville, Ky.: Come to Hall's Gap on first train. Sure game. Bring two shotguns. O. M. Rude.
I had some business to attend to in Louisville that day, so I did not go. Two days afterward I received the following telegram:
J. W. Thompson, Shepherdsville: Be sure and come to Hall's Gap to-morrow; don't fail. O. M. Rude.
I went to Hall's Gap that day, but failed to find Rude. I inquired and found that Sam. Holmes was at a ball in Stanford that night, but did not attempt the capture alone. I think we could have made the arrest if Rude had been on hand. I returned home the next day.
On the 26th of December I received a letter from G. H. McKinney, dated Stanford, saying it was thought there that Rude had been foully dealt with, and at the same time advised his friends to offer a reward for his body, and asked me to make inquiry and see if I could find any trace of him after the 15th. I took the train for New Albany, Ind., the home of his father, and found he was in that city on the 17th of December, two days after his disappearance from Stanford. My opinion is that he is now somewhere in Indiana. His accounts show a discrepancy of about $300. I think that is the cause of his disappearance.
Marshal Rude is the chief witness for the Commonwealth against Nick Morrison, whom he and I arrested last November, and for whom a reward of $250 was offered. He murdered a man in Milledgeville, Lincoln county, some four years ago. His trial is set for April 1.
After thanking Mr. Thompson for his courtesy and information, the reporter took his leave. [9.5]
---
[January 11, 1878] -
THE REWARD. -- We received on Wednesday the $500 reward offered by the State for Holmes and the boys are very happy over it. [10]
---
[January 18, 1878] -
THE FRAUDULENT MARSHAL HUNTER IN A NEW ROLE. -- It will be remembered that at the time Sam Holmes was arrested, one Hunter, of Clinton county, passed himself off (or agreed to the passing) as Marshal Hunter, of Bardstown. His actions at the time, and his resemblance to the description of a fugitive from Texas, for whom there was a reward of $5,000 caused several of our citizens to follow him up and arrest him. This was accomplished at Lancaster. We made a report of the capture at the time, at which the "Marshal" took umbrage, and meeting us Monday last on the street, demanded that we make a retraction or abide the consequences. With an expletive suitable to the occasion, we remarked that no retraction whatever, would be made, and that an attempt on his part to force one, might end in trouble. This silenced the gentleman so far as we were concerned, and he then remarked that Messrs. S. H. Hickle and S. S. Myers, had to take some things back. We replied that those gentlemen were fully able to take care of themselves, and then suggested the importance of a man against whom a warrant could issue for harboring a fugitive from justice, (he had acknowledged that Holmes stayed at his house four or five weeks,) keeping very quiet. He subsequently asserted that he intended bringing suits against these parties who arrested him, and for that purpose had employed the best counsel in Garrard and Lincoln counties. One of the parties who made the arrest, on hearing this, went to swear out a warrant against Hunter for harboring, &c., but the "Marshal" in the meantime had "smelt a mouse" and taking to himself wings, had flown away, this time, if possible, more "disgusted" than ever. [11]---
[March 22, 1878] -
cases to be tried: Holmes for the murder of Sheriff Napier; [12]
---
[March 29, 1878] -
HOLMES AND SAUNDERS. -- By permission of the accommodating deputy jailer, Mr. J. H. Graff, we visited Sam'l Holmes and Geo. Saunders in the Jefferson City jail while we were in Louisville, a few days ago. They were both looking well, Saunders especially; and appeared quite hopeful of the future. Holmes has acted as Inside Turnkey ever since his incarceration, and seems to be a favorite with the Keeper. They have both behaved well, we learn, and with the exception of knocking down a saucy negro or so, some months ago, have given the jailer no trouble. [13]---
[April 12, 1878] -
The first case on the docket is that of Samuel Holmes for the killing of Sheriff Napier. [14]---
[April 19, 1878] -
HOLMES AND SAUNDERS. -- The arrival of these prisoners from Louisville on Wednesday evening, was the occasion of considerable excitement both on the part of the curious and those who expected an attempt at rescue by the friends of the accused, who were at the depot in numbers. But the forethought of the officers in having a heavy guard at the train to escort the prisoners prevented all trouble, even if any was contemplated, and they were landed safely in jail, in the front room of which their friends were allowed to visit them. The prisoners are looking well though somewhat bleached by their long confinement. In this connection we desire to express our admiration of the manner in which Sheriff S. H. Hickle has managed affairs so far. His great desire to be prepared for an emergency and check any outburst in its incipiency. For this he can not be too highly commended and encouraged by the law-abiding citizens all over the county, therefore stand by him and give him your highest support. [15]
---
[April 19, 1878] -
The case of Sam Holmes for the murder of Sheriff Napier, is the first to be called this morning. [16]
---
[April 26, 1878] -
On Friday morning last, the trial of Samuel Holmes, for the murder of Sheriff Napier, on the 18th day of September, 1869, was commenced. Three days were consumed in getting a jury, during which 155 men were examined. After it was ascertained that a full panel could not be obtained in this county, Judge Owsley ordered the Sheriff to summon a 100 men from Garrard, the defendant having filed an affidavit protesting against the jury being brought from Boyle. The Commonwealth objected to the jury being summoned from the Paint Lick precinct, but made no objections to the other parts of Garrard. Consequently the order was made excepting that precinct. The last juror was obtained Tuesday morning, and after a short but full statement of the case by Judge George Denny, Jr., the examination of witnesses began. The following were the jurors selected: John Frye, J. K. Helm, J. J. McKinney, C. Vannoy, F. M. Ware, William Veach, of Lincoln, and Jas. Austin, Thos. Johnson, H. C. Hamilton, J. J. Poore, Thomas Moore and Stephen Hill of Garrard.
John Bright, Surveyor, explained map, showing where the killing was done.
E. M. Davidson: Was Town Marshal in the Fall of 1869. Just at ark, I went to drug store, corner Main and Lancaster streets. While there, heard pistol shot at Myers Hotel. Carson remarked "there's another job for yea," and I went at once to scene of shooting and was told that Sam'l Holmes had fired the shot and gone down the creek. As I slipped around the corner, I was called by Sheriff Napier, who was standing on the bridge near Myers House Stable. Napier told me to go around Main street and he would follow down creek. Neither of us had arms, but agreed to take rocks and knock Holmes down if he attempted to shoot. Ed. Pendleton went down street with me, each of us armed with a rock. As we got down to Presbyterian Church, we saw Holmes coming with a pistol in his hand, and stepping back into the church yard we asked him to give the weapon up. Just then Napier came up, and Holmes shot him in the bowels, and, as he fell forward, shot him again in the spine, the ball ranging downward. As the last shot struck Napier, he exclaimed, "Oh, Lord." Three shots were fired, one of which took effect in my body, going clear through it. After the shootings Holmes mounted his horse, which was tied nearby, and fled.
J. W. Alcorn: Am counsel for the defense. Napier was about 51 years of age. His physical condition was weak, he having received wounds during the Mexican and the late war. A wound in the arm from a musket ball was still sore, and bones were working out. Was with him twenty minutes after he was shot. Was shot in front and in spinal column. He expressed a belief that he would die and asked physicians not to probe his wounds.
He made a dying statement, and the Court having decided statement competent, Mr. Alcorn read as follows:--
"I heard that Samuel Holmes, Jr., had fired off his pistol in Stanford, and as an officer I went to arrest him for the offense. I found him in the Presbyterian lot, with Ed. Davidson trying to arrest him. I went up to him without any arms to arrest him; simply to arrest him and carry him before the civil authorities for trial. He turned upon me and shot me, and as I fell he shot me the second time. I had nothing but a small pocketknife, and that was in my pocket. This occurred on this, 18th September, 1869."
The foregoing contains the statement of Thos. W. Napier, a few moments preceding his death, as to the circumstances attending his wounding, from the effects of which he died, and of which he at that time said he was dying.
(Signed.) T. P. HILL.
Col. Napier lived 2 1/2 or 3 hours after he was shot.
Cross Examined: Napier's wound did not permanently disable him from service in army. Hair and beard were prematurely white. Had appearance of a vigorous man. Was tall, and weigh 215 or 220 pounds.
S. M. Carson: Live in Louisville now, but in 1869, lived in Stanford. Saw Holmes Sunday before Napier was killed. He broke out a window of my Saloon and I went for officers Davidson and Napier, to arrest him, but on my return with him Holmes was gone. Davidson afterwards came thro' Court-house yard and I saw Holmes on the opposite side of the street take his pistol out of his pocket and lay it across his lap. Monday, saw Holmes again, and he told me if I would say no more about the glass he would pay for it, but if I did, he would get me. Heard Holmes make some allusion to officers. Don't recollect whether the tone was friendly or otherwise. Don't think however, he was angry.
Adjourned for dinner.
S. D. Myers: Saw Holmes the evening of the killing, in a Saloon. He was creating a disturbance. Said he intended to kill John Myers and Col. Napier. This was an hour or so before he did kill Napier. Holmes got on horse and fled up the Crab Orchard pike.
Cross Examined-- Did not tell threat to Myers at the time, but subsequently told several persons. Did not put much confidence in his threat. I took Holmes' pistol from him, but on his promise to go home gave it to him again. There were other persons present.
Geo. D. Pope: Saw Holmes in bar-room and on the street the evening Napier was killed. Holmes drew a navy pistol and pretended he was going to shoot some birds. He said "by God I am going to use this pistol before I leave town." This was a few minutes before Napier was shot. went where shooting was and helped carry Napier to his room. Did not see any arms on him.
Cross Examined-- Holmes had had several drinks but was not drunk. I asked him to give me his pistol, but he said again, "No, boy God, I intend to use this pistol before I leave town."
James Daugherty: Holmes came to my shop on the day of the shooting and got me to clean and load his pistol. That was in the forenoon. About seven in the evening I met him going out of town. Saw Col. Napier about dark. Before I got to town Holmes turned and passed me coming back to town. Pistol was a large round barrel navy, and was not loaded when Holmes gave it to me.
J. S. Hocker: Am a lawyer. On the day Colonel Napier was killed I saw Holmes about 4 or 5 o'clk. Holmes said to me, "There are three men in this town that I would like to beat over the head with this pistol. If they were out of town I could do as I please." Felt pistol in his pocket. (Court refused to exclude testimony. Excepted to by deft's) Holmes did not appear to be drunk.
John Y. Myers: Saw Holmes 10 or 15 minutes before Napier was killed. He sat down by me at the Hotel and remarked that he was pretty drunk, at the same time taking out his pistol and turned the cylinder. The muzzle of the pistol was pointed toward me, and I took hold of it and turned it to the street when he fired. Holmes then jumped up and said, "By God, don't crowd me!" Heard 'Squire Carson order Napier and Davidson to arrest him. Napier was wounded at Milton, Tenn., in the right arm. Was in his usual health when killed. Was Sheriff at the time he was killed, and had been County Judge. Don't know whether Holmes' shot at Hotel was accidental or not. Told Napier and Daivson not to follow Holmes, as he would kill them. Don't know if they heard me.
W. B. Carson: Am a justice of the peace, and have been for 20 years. Saw Holmes fire pistol. Am not positive that I gave orders to Napier to arrest Holmes, but it is my custom to do so when an offense is committed, was excited and do not remember. Napier and I were on the ground about same time. Do not remember seeing Davidson. Always kept an eye on Holmes when he was around.
Dr. O. H. McRoberts: Saw Holmes, I think, the day Napier was killed. In talking about shooting, Holmes remarked that he would always shoot a man in the abdomen if he wanted to get him.
Dr. T. B. Montgomery: Saw Napier after he was shot. He was shot in naval and spine. He made his will in my presence, and seemed collected. He was shot just after supper, and died about 9 o'clock same evening.
Dr. S. P. Craig: Saw Holmes the day Napier was killed after supper, going toward Crab Orchard. About 1/2 mile from town he turned and came back. This was between sundown and dark. Don't remember to have seen Col. Napier come in same road. The wound in spine killed Napier.
Peyton Embry: Was about first to reach Col. N. He had no arms on his person.
At this point the Commonwealth rested its testimony in chief.
Col. W. G. Welch stated what the defendant expected to prove and read the law in his case.
TESTIMONY FOR DEFENSE.
Wm. M. Ball: Live at Mr. Holmes' old house. Day Col. Napier was killed Holmes came to my house between 1 and 2 o'clock for a bottle of whisky. Have frequently sold him whisky and food while he was a fugitive, and am not the only one who did. Never concealed him.
Geo. Holmes: Am a cousin of prisoner. Morning of day Napier was killed Sam was at my house, at 8 A.M., and at 8 P.M., after the killing. That night he was very drunk when he came to my house. Feel much interest in case. Went to Europe once to see Sam. I think he is about 26 years of age.
John Holmes: Am brother of def't. In September, 1869, Sam was in his 18th year. He left home on day of killing about 12 o'clock.Think Sam was born in 1850, don't know what month.
Gaines Paxton, col'd: Lived here, on lot adjoining the church yard, where Col. Napier was killed. The evening Napier was killed I was in alley and heard disputing in church lot. Saw three men and horse. Heard some one say, "I'm going to take you to jail." Someone responded, "I am not going to jail--I will give bond or pay fine." Marshal Davidson said, "Let the boy go; he'll pay the fine." "No," said Napier, "the damn little rascal has to go to jail." Holmes tried to get on horse but was pulled off, and then a pistol fired, and the man fell. Davidson cried, "Murder!" and wheeled and run and was shot. Have seen none of the parties since, except that Holmes was pointed out to me yesterday. I left Stanford five years ago. Did not run off because of indictment against me. Have not mentioned the matter until last Sunday, except on night it occurred. Tim Engleman came to Louisville and told me to come up as a witness. Was by myself night of killing. Holmes started to get on horse. Col. N. pulled him back three times, then Holmes shot him, and then shot Davidson running. This as fifteen or twenty feet from church.
Harrison Baughman, col'd: Was living here in 1869; since then have been West in Regular Army. Returned to Louisville two weeks ago. Mr. Tim Engleman came down and asked me to come up and be a witness in this case. I told him what I knew about it. That night Col. N. was killed I witnessed the affair. Col. N. said, "Stop, there, sir! I'll take you to jail." Holmes begged to be let go. When shooting took place I ran, and never told any one about it, until Mr. E. asked me about it in Louisville. Removed from here 8 months after shooting. Mr. Engleman paid my way up. Was on street when I heard talking, and went down to see what was the matter. Was in 15 feet of them when shooting occurred. They did not talk long. Horse was hitched to fence. Mr. Holmes made no attempt to get on horse. Mr. Holmes said, "I will come back tomorrow and pay my fine." Co. Napier said, "I'll take you now." Holmes did not try to get on horse.
Tim Pennington: A cousin of defendant. While Davidson was confined in his bed by wound he told me that he "did not believe that the boy would have shot him had Napier not come up in the manner he did. After he shot Col. Napier he saw me with a rock and shot me." I felt no particular interest int he case, but it is natural that a man should help his kin. Have since talked with Davidson about his statement when sick.
Col. T. P. Hill (of counsel for defense:) Went with Col. Napier to Crab Orchard on morning of the killing. Returned late in evening. Did not meet def't on road. Never told any one that I met Holmes.
Defense here closed in chief.
J. H. Shanks: Have known E. M. Davidson 20 or 30 years. His reputation for truth and veracity is above suspicion. He is a man of fair intellect when not excited, and his memory, i think, of average reliability.
Thos. Richards and G. A. Lackey corroborated this statement.
Prosecution and defense here closed in full.
The Court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that def't, Sam'l Holmes, before the finding of this indictment, and in Lincoln county, unlawfully shot and killed Thos. W. Napier, with malice aforethought, when such shooting and killing was unnecessary, and he had no reasonable ground to believe it to be necessary to protect himself from great bodily harm then about to be inflicted at the hands of deceased, they should find him guilty of murder.
By the term aforethought is meant a pre-determination to kill--however suddenly or recently formed in the mind before killing. Malice is either express or implied. Express malice is indicated by lying in wait, or antecedent threats; and malice is implied by the law from any cruel and unnecessary act done by one person to another, or from the unnecessary and deliberate use of a deadly weapon.
The Cout instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Napier was Sheriff of Lincoln, and was ordered by a Justice o the Peace to arrest def't, Holmes, for an offense committed in the presence of said Justice of the Peace, then such order was sufficient authority upon which Napier could act, and it was his duty to obey such order and make the arrest.
The Court instructs the jury that they are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and have the right to give the testimony of each witness such weight as they may think it entitled to.
The Court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, previous to the finding of the indictment and in Lincoln county and not in his necessary self defense, unlawfully shot and killed the deceased, but that such killing was done in sudden heat and passion, and without malice, they must find him guilty of manslaughter, and fix his punishment at confinement in the Penitentiary for a period of not less than 2 nor more than 10 years.
Although the jury may believe from the testimony that the def't shot his pistol off in the town of Stanford, yet if they further believe that such shooting was not in the presence of a Peace officer the defendant could not be legally arrested therefor, without a warrant.
The jury should in making up their verdict, take into consideration all the facts and circumstances proven in the case, and if from the evidence they believe the defendant has been guilty of a public offense, but have a reasonable doubt as to what grade of offense he is guilty, they shall find him guilty of the lesser.
If the jury believe from the evidence that at the time the defendant shot and killed the deceased he, the deceased, alone or with others, was attempting to arrest the defendant for the commission of a misdemeanor in the town of Stanford, when the misdemeanor was not committed in the presence of deceased or those with him, and when deceased had no warrant for his arrest, and when the attempt at said arrest was not made in the presence, or by the oral order of the Magistrate, given at the time the misdemeanor was committed, and if they further believe from all the facts and circumstances proven, that at the time of said shooting and killing, it was the only apparent means within the power of defendant to prevent said arrest, the law excuses him for the killing, and the jury must acquit, provided they believe he used no means to prevent the arrest which were not necessary for the purpose.
After the delivery of the instructions to the jury, Col. G. W. Dunlap opened the argument for the defense. He, like all the counsel on that side, argued that Col. Napier had no authority to make the arrest, and consequently the case could not be one of murder. This, and the youthfulness of the prisoner when the deed was committed, were about all that the defense had to rely on, and they did remarkably well with their scanty supply. Fontaine F. Bobbitt, for the prosecution, followed, and delivered one of the best speeches we have ever heard from him. At the conclusion of his speech the Court adjourned till 9 o'clock yesterday morning. Judge M. C. Saufley, for the defense, in a speech of an hour, did his duty to his client in an earnest and eloquent manner. W. H. Miller, for the prosecution, won golden opinions from those who had no bias in the case, and showed his ability to stand up firmly for the laws of the land. Then followed Col. Hill, who, as usual, made a telling speech. He appealed to the feelings of the jury, and strove by every argument to prove that Holmes was guilty of no crime. Judge Geo. denny, Jr., Commonwealth's Attorney, closed for prosecution in a speech that was spoken of as the best of his life. He did his duty boldly and fearlessly, and increased the high opinion in which he is held by the good people all over the District. At 4 o'clock the case was given to the jury, who retired, and being unable to agree were put in the charge of the deputy Sheriff till this A.M.
All during his trial, Holmes has maintained an unconcerned air, broken occasionally by fits of nervousness as the deed of nearly nine years ago is brought fresh to his mind. He is a remarkably handsome fellow. The sufferings of conscience or life of an exile do not seem to have marred the freshness of his youth or appearance. [17]
Harrison Baughman, col'd: Was living here in 1869; since then have been West in Regular Army. Returned to Louisville two weeks ago. Mr. Tim Engleman came down and asked me to come up and be a witness in this case. I told him what I knew about it. That night Col. N. was killed I witnessed the affair. Col. N. said, "Stop, there, sir! I'll take you to jail." Holmes begged to be let go. When shooting took place I ran, and never told any one about it, until Mr. E. asked me about it in Louisville. Removed from here 8 months after shooting. Mr. Engleman paid my way up. Was on street when I heard talking, and went down to see what was the matter. Was in 15 feet of them when shooting occurred. They did not talk long. Horse was hitched to fence. Mr. Holmes made no attempt to get on horse. Mr. Holmes said, "I will come back tomorrow and pay my fine." Co. Napier said, "I'll take you now." Holmes did not try to get on horse.
Tim Pennington: A cousin of defendant. While Davidson was confined in his bed by wound he told me that he "did not believe that the boy would have shot him had Napier not come up in the manner he did. After he shot Col. Napier he saw me with a rock and shot me." I felt no particular interest int he case, but it is natural that a man should help his kin. Have since talked with Davidson about his statement when sick.
Col. T. P. Hill (of counsel for defense:) Went with Col. Napier to Crab Orchard on morning of the killing. Returned late in evening. Did not meet def't on road. Never told any one that I met Holmes.
Defense here closed in chief.
EVIDENCE IN REBUTAL BY COMMONWEALTH.
J. H. Shanks: Have known E. M. Davidson 20 or 30 years. His reputation for truth and veracity is above suspicion. He is a man of fair intellect when not excited, and his memory, i think, of average reliability.
Thos. Richards and G. A. Lackey corroborated this statement.
Prosecution and defense here closed in full.
PLAINTIFF'S INSTRUCTIONS.
The Court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that def't, Sam'l Holmes, before the finding of this indictment, and in Lincoln county, unlawfully shot and killed Thos. W. Napier, with malice aforethought, when such shooting and killing was unnecessary, and he had no reasonable ground to believe it to be necessary to protect himself from great bodily harm then about to be inflicted at the hands of deceased, they should find him guilty of murder.
By the term aforethought is meant a pre-determination to kill--however suddenly or recently formed in the mind before killing. Malice is either express or implied. Express malice is indicated by lying in wait, or antecedent threats; and malice is implied by the law from any cruel and unnecessary act done by one person to another, or from the unnecessary and deliberate use of a deadly weapon.
The Cout instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Napier was Sheriff of Lincoln, and was ordered by a Justice o the Peace to arrest def't, Holmes, for an offense committed in the presence of said Justice of the Peace, then such order was sufficient authority upon which Napier could act, and it was his duty to obey such order and make the arrest.
The Court instructs the jury that they are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and have the right to give the testimony of each witness such weight as they may think it entitled to.
BY THE COURT IN LIEU OF INSTRUCTIONS, ASKED FOR ON SUBJECT OF MANSLAUGHTER.
The Court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, previous to the finding of the indictment and in Lincoln county and not in his necessary self defense, unlawfully shot and killed the deceased, but that such killing was done in sudden heat and passion, and without malice, they must find him guilty of manslaughter, and fix his punishment at confinement in the Penitentiary for a period of not less than 2 nor more than 10 years.
DEFENDANT'S INSTRUCTIONS.
Although the jury may believe from the testimony that the def't shot his pistol off in the town of Stanford, yet if they further believe that such shooting was not in the presence of a Peace officer the defendant could not be legally arrested therefor, without a warrant.
The jury should in making up their verdict, take into consideration all the facts and circumstances proven in the case, and if from the evidence they believe the defendant has been guilty of a public offense, but have a reasonable doubt as to what grade of offense he is guilty, they shall find him guilty of the lesser.
If the jury believe from the evidence that at the time the defendant shot and killed the deceased he, the deceased, alone or with others, was attempting to arrest the defendant for the commission of a misdemeanor in the town of Stanford, when the misdemeanor was not committed in the presence of deceased or those with him, and when deceased had no warrant for his arrest, and when the attempt at said arrest was not made in the presence, or by the oral order of the Magistrate, given at the time the misdemeanor was committed, and if they further believe from all the facts and circumstances proven, that at the time of said shooting and killing, it was the only apparent means within the power of defendant to prevent said arrest, the law excuses him for the killing, and the jury must acquit, provided they believe he used no means to prevent the arrest which were not necessary for the purpose.
After the delivery of the instructions to the jury, Col. G. W. Dunlap opened the argument for the defense. He, like all the counsel on that side, argued that Col. Napier had no authority to make the arrest, and consequently the case could not be one of murder. This, and the youthfulness of the prisoner when the deed was committed, were about all that the defense had to rely on, and they did remarkably well with their scanty supply. Fontaine F. Bobbitt, for the prosecution, followed, and delivered one of the best speeches we have ever heard from him. At the conclusion of his speech the Court adjourned till 9 o'clock yesterday morning. Judge M. C. Saufley, for the defense, in a speech of an hour, did his duty to his client in an earnest and eloquent manner. W. H. Miller, for the prosecution, won golden opinions from those who had no bias in the case, and showed his ability to stand up firmly for the laws of the land. Then followed Col. Hill, who, as usual, made a telling speech. He appealed to the feelings of the jury, and strove by every argument to prove that Holmes was guilty of no crime. Judge Geo. denny, Jr., Commonwealth's Attorney, closed for prosecution in a speech that was spoken of as the best of his life. He did his duty boldly and fearlessly, and increased the high opinion in which he is held by the good people all over the District. At 4 o'clock the case was given to the jury, who retired, and being unable to agree were put in the charge of the deputy Sheriff till this A.M.
All during his trial, Holmes has maintained an unconcerned air, broken occasionally by fits of nervousness as the deed of nearly nine years ago is brought fresh to his mind. He is a remarkably handsome fellow. The sufferings of conscience or life of an exile do not seem to have marred the freshness of his youth or appearance. [17]
---
[May 3, 1878] -
At the hour of going to press last week, the jury in the Holmes case was still out, but enough was known of the character of at least one of the jurors to predict with absolute certainty that no verdict would be reached. Friday morning the jury came before Judge Owsley and informed them that they were unable to agree, but he returned them to their room for further consultation. In the afternoon they again reported their inability to render a verdict and were dismissed. They stood eleven for hanging and one for acquittal. Counsel for Holmes, immediately on the discharge of the jury, made a motion for bail, but Judge Owsley very properly, and to his honesty and integrity be it said, refused to grant it, but agreed to allow them till Saturday morning to produce any law that they might find bearing on the question of bail in such cases. They were unable to show any thing but precedent, so Samuel Holmes and George Saunders, who had obtained a change of venue in his numerous cases to Rockcastle, were hand-cuffed together and a guard, in charge of Deputy Sheriff L. M. Lasley, took them to Louisville and lodged them in their old quarters in the Jefferson jail. [18] ---
[May 3, 1878] -
NOT CORRECT. -- The report having gained currency that Mr. Helm, the man who hung the Holmes jury, had been discharged from the Standing Jury by Judge Owsley because of his action in the Holmes case, we inquired into the particulars, and find that he was dismissed at his own request to attend to some farm duties. Mr. Helm has enough to bear, without having charges laid to him which are not true! [18 ibid] ---
[May 3, 1878] -
DISGRACED. -- If there is any one man that receives and merits the supreme contempt of the whole of the good and law abiding citizens of Lincoln county, that individual is James K. Helm, the man who disregarded his oath, disregarded the testimony, and disregarded his duty to the county to confer a favor on a friend and connection, by clinging to the assertion that Sam Holmes was guilty of no crime, when eleven men had resolved that he ought to suffer death. That he went on the jury for the purpose he so well carried out, there can be no doubt, and although his friends assert that domestic troubles have weighed on his mind until it has become impaired, there was too much method in his madness for it to be believed. When reasoned with by the jury, all that could be gotten out of him was "Napier had no warrant to arrest Holmes, therefore Sam had a right to protect himself." It was also intimated to him that his hanging the jury by refusing to agree to a compromise verdict would do no good, as Judge Owsley would not, and could not give bail in a case in which eleven of the jurors were for hanging. He offered to bet that he would be allowed bail, but as Judge Owsley had the good sense and courage to refuse it. Helm has done Holmes and injury that no future jury can undo. With the same testimony as before and the knowledge of the standing of the last jury, coupled with the believe that one man was "fixed," Holmes chances are worse now than ever before. It is said that the jury offered to agree to a manslaughter verdict and fix Holmes' punishment at ten years in the Penitentiary, but Helm refused to go higher than five years, and was not particularly anxious to go to that. There are those who believe that Helm was bought, but the better conclusion is that he acted as he did to pay a debt of gratitude both to Holmes and some of his intimate relatives. But be it for whatever reason it may, Helm is eternally disgraced in the sight of all honest men, and should ever hereafter hang his head in shame when in their presence. His father and brother deplore nearly as much as any one the attitude that he has placed himself in the eyes of the public, and feel the ill effects it will have on him in the extreme. [19]
---
[May 10, 1878] -
We give below a few press comments on that honest and conscientious (?) individual, Jas. K. Helm, the man who stands lower to-day in the estimation of law-loving and law-abiding citizens than any man in Lincoln county: --
Eleven in Holmes' case were of one opinion, but the twelfth juryman, who disagreed and hung the jury, is said to be a relative of Holmes. When he passes he is pointed out to strangers as "the man who hung the jury." -- [Courier Journal, May 3.
The jury stood 11 for murder, 1 for manslaughter. Holmes was refused bail and is now in the Louisville jail. He committed a cowardly, unprovoked murder, and ought to hang. Unfortunately for the good of society, there is generally found on every Kentucky jury a man who can be bribed or has a very "conscientious" mind. -- [Nelson Record, May 2.
The name of the man that hung the jury in the Sam Holmes murder case at Stanford last week is Jas. K. Helm. We understand that steps will be taken to prosecute him for perjury. Let it commence at once. -- [Lebanon Times and Kentuckian, May 1.
It will be seen that each of these articles came out prior to the one in the Interior Journal, and therefore these opinions were not formed from our article, but from the evidence published the week before! [20]
---
[May 10, 1878] -
Helm's Flimsy Defense.
To the Public: --
I desire to say a few words to the sober-thinking, sensible men of Lincoln and joining counties, in answer to the unprovoked, malicious personal attack made on me by the Editor of the Interior Journal. He denounced me in the following elegant style: "Disgraced, meriting the supreme contempt of the whole of the law-abiding citizens of Lincoln county, as the man who disregarded his oath, disregarded the testimony, disregarded his duty to the county, to confer a favor on a friend and connection; who went on the jury for the purpose of hanging it; offered to bet Holmes would be granted bail; acted as he did to pay a debt of gratitude; is eternally disgraced in the sight of all honest men, and should ever hereafter hang is head in shame when in their presence."
It would be difficult to condense in the same space a greater number of falsehoods, or more malicious slander. Let me specify a few --
1st. "To confer a favor on a friend." Maliciously false. Never saw Holmes in my life prior to the trial. Woudl not have known him if I had met him on the public highway. 2d. "Was a connection." Recklessly false. Not the most distant connection. 3rd. "Went on the jury for the purpose of hanging it." Coarsely false. After being accepted as a competent juror in the case, I went to Judge Owsley and Judge Denny and urged them to excuse me on the score of being very unwell. 4th. "Went on to pay a debt of gratitude." False. Never was acquainted with but one of the family, and have not seen him on an average of once a year in the last ten years. 5th. "Offered to bet Holmes would be allowed bail." False. Urged a compromise verdict on the grounds of his giving bail.
Now I propose to give a true statement of how the jury did stand. The first ballot, 6 for murder and 6 for manslaughter. After considerable discussion during the evening and next morning, we finally stood at 11 for ten years and 1 for five. Remained this way during the day. A few minutes before we left the room one of the eleven made a proposition to come to eight years in order to get a verdict. This fired the extreme man, and to give you some idea of the spirit of compromise he possessed he said he "would stay until hell burned coal ten feet deep before he would come any under ten." Seeing I was determined not to go to ten, the eleven went back to murder. The last effort that was made to get a verdict was by J. J. McKinney saying to me, "Helm, I will try and get them to come to ten years if you will come up." I then, in that spirit of compromise which all jurors should possess, told him I would rather go to six years rather than hang the jury.
Just here I wish to say one word as to Walton's consistency. He stated -- and I defy him to deny it -- that five years would satisfy him. I was one year in advance of him, and yet he denounces me as "disgraced in the sight of all honest men," &c. If I am disgraced, pray where does this defamer stand? The allusion to my domestic troubles is positively too soul-less, too base, too low down to deserve a passing notice at my hands. No, gentlemen, the only misgiving I had as to the conscientious discharge of my whole duty in the case, had my oath permitted any, was my almost unbounded admiration for Col. Napier. I heartily endorsed all the eloquent encomiums that were pronounced on him; for I was not asleep one-third of the time, as was the hero of the murder men. I almost idolized Col. Napier, and endorse the sentiment so beautifully and truthfully uttered that "he was a man--every inch of him a man;" having had a brother under him four years, being a particular friend of my father, agreeing with him politically, and fully appreciating his every manly trait. But it was impossible for me, as an honest man, to find Holmes guilty of murder, with Davidson's and Carson's testimony and the instructions of the Court before me. The seventh instruction reads as follows: "If the jury believe from the evidence that at the time defendant shot and killed deceased, he, the deceased, alone or with others, was trying to arrest the defendant for the commission of a misdemeanor in the town of Stanford, when the misdemeanor was not committed in the presence of the deceased, or those with him, and when deceased had no warrant for his arrest, and when the attempt at said arrest was not made in the presence or by the order of the Magistrate given at the time the misdemeanor was committed, and if they further believe from all the facts and circumstances proven that the time of said shooting and killing, it was the power of defendant to prevent said arrest, the law excuses him for the killing, and the jury must acquit him, provided they believe he used no means to prevent his arrest which was not necessary for the purpose."
Now, gentleman, I submit the case, with a few additional statements, without one fear as to your final decision. I have lived in the county about 32 years. I refer you to my neighbors as to my conduct through life and standing in the community. I appeal to your sense of justice to know if it has come to this, that a juror when is sworn to decide according to the law and testimony he must have this mental reservation; provided it does not contravene the opinion of some little upstart editor of some little country paper. Has it come to this, that such groundless attacks will be made on citizens who the Court forces to come to your county seat and enter the jury box, sworn to do their duty? If it is, then I, for one, glory in steming the tide of public opinion, and would suggest to the Judge he had best exempt all honest men from such duty; or change the oath and have it read 'we will not decide according to the law and testimony, but according to public opinion,' as was suggested by one of the jurors the other day. Are my motives to be impugned, my character impeached, my honor attacked because I stood firm to convictions of justice. What was the opinion of eleven men in my eyes, provided my conscience and judgment led me to different ones? I hope I am firm enough in judgment and convictions of right to stand immovable, though opposed by myriads. But, gentlemen, who is this being that sits in judgment on the motives of men? Who is Walton? I am proud and thankful he is not a Kentuckian. He is a comparative stranger in the county, whose former employment as a railroader, to say the least, would put him in a class whose reputation for honest is not enviable here. For us to use a part of his own dignified language, though differently and truthfully applied, "If there is one (class of rogues) deserving the supreme contempt of the whole of the good citizens of Lincoln county, it is the infamous railroaders." They have been a positive curse to every county through which this road passes from Cincinnati to Chattanooga. This must have been where Walton got that coarseness that crops out in every line of his scurrilous attack on me. God forbid that our county should be cursed with any more of his sort. JAS. K. HELM. [21]
---
[May 10, 1878] -
Trying a Little White-Wash.
We, the undersigned, knowing J. K. Helm personally, believe him incapable of being bribed, and regard him as a man worthy to be trusted in any case, having a high sense of honor, very conscientious, firm in his convictions of right, having a high regard for truth and justice.
Thos. J. Foster, Mason Jenning, Joe. A. Cohen, Jas. P. Bailey, Soc. Owens, J. W. Powell, J. C. Johnston, J. P. Riffe, Edward Alcorn, J. W. Weatherford, R. S. Tucker, F. M. Yowell, J. A. Boole, Wyatt Sandidge, L. M. Powell, J. M. Cook, Dr. Geo. Hunn, Levi Hubble.
Animated by a spirit of fairness that should characterize all journalists, we promised Mr. Marcus Helm, the father of the alleged writer of the above address to the public, to allow that individual to publish an article in the Interior Journal, defending his infamous action. This was on Monday last, and although the old gentleman intimated that the article would be pretty severe, we had no idea that it would be nearly entirely devoted to a personal fling at ourselves. After receiving and reading it on Tuesday, and seeing the miserable squirmings of the signer, we might have then refused to publish it at all, but give it to our readers to show the real character of the man. In the first place we were loth to publish the article that gave the offence, as it is certainly no pleasure for us to denounce any one, but the evidence of Helm's perfidy was so complete that we felt it our bounden duty to show up that, as well as all other crimes, for the condemnation of the public. Had Helm in his defense stuck entirely to the point at issue we would have published his article without comment and so far as we are concerned the matter could have dropped. But we shall take the occasion now to give additional facts, after reiterating that we stand by our article of last week, being confident, as nearly all honest men are, that it is true and deserved. In specifying a few of our charges, Helm, with great pomposity characterizes them as "false," "coarsely false," &c. Now we would remark that the unsupported evidence of a man who it is alleged disregarded his oath, is of no value in the eyes of the people or the law. "By conferring a favor on a friend and paying a debt of gratitude," we supposed no one was so obtuse as not to know to whom we referred. It was a near neighbor, a cousin to Holmes, and one who had been particularly kind to Helm and his family, and whose presence within the bar during the whole of the trial, was a constant reminder of the debt of gratitude he owed. As early as Sunday, and before but four or five Jurors had been obtained, a gentleman who knew of the state of affairs, remarked that "that would be a hung jury certain," and named the man who would hang it. In regard to trying to get off the jury, Helm no doubt began to consider his inability to carry out his designs and his heart grew faint beneath the pressure. We have the evidence of more than one of the jurors that Helm did say, when reasoned with, and told that Holmes would not be allowed bail that "If I were a betting man i would bet everything I have that he does give it."
The true (?) statement as Helm gives it, differs from that of the other members of the jury very materially. He stated that on the first ballot six were for murder and six for manslaughter; they state that Helm did not vote on that ballot but waited to feel the pulse of the others. That he was, however, for acquittal at first can not be successfully contradicted. It is also the opinion of the jury, that Helm would never have expressed himself for any term in the Penitentiary had he not known that the other members of the jury would never come down to his low figure. And they also think that he made this offer to show, as it afterwards would to the public, that he had evidenced a spirit of compromise "which all jurors should possess" as he magnanimously observes. We have never accused Helm of having received a bribe for his work, but there are those who firmly believe he was bribed, and the suspicious circumstance of his getting a couple of letters while on the jury (as one or more of the number will swear) goes to strengthen them in their belief. A number of the jury think he was bought and so expressed themselves to us. They assert that his manner all during the trial, while not in the Court room was that of a man who was struggling with a load on his conscience. He kept himself aloof from the other jurors, and usually "sat with his head hanging down." As to our consistency, that has nothing to do with the point at issue. We did tell Dr. Helm, who called on us in his brother's behalf and requested us that "we would not be too severe on Jim," that we would have preferred, as we did not thirst for the blood of Holmes, a five years verdict to a hung jury, with all the vexation, trouble and expense of another trial. But what has that to do with the question? We were no juror, nor had we taken a sacred oath to try the case according to the law and testimony. Helm's allusion to the great love and idolatry that he possessed for Col. Napier, is all poppycock. He could see his dear friend murdered in cold blood and then excuse his murderer on the flimsiest technicality known to the law. This is entirely too gauzy, and the public whom he is trying to ameliorate, will see into it. Yes, sir, you may count always that we will impugn the motives of any man or juror, when we are firmly convinced as we are in this case that those motives were of the basest sort. "He glories in stemming the tide of public opinion" and yet shows in every line how he writhes under the contempt in which he is held by every honest man who is not biased by interested feelings in the case. The opinion of eleven honest men is nothing in the sight of a man who goes on a jury with a purpose, we admit, and Helm has shown that he can oppose it, but we are sure he will ever hereafter wish that a millstone was tied about his neck and that he was cast into the great deep. His allusion to our Railroad career is beneath our notice, further than to observe how puerile are the efforts of a man when driven to the wall. We are sure, that in the wish expressed by him that there will be no more of our sort, Helm is in full consonance with every their and murderer in the county.
The recommendation of character published above amounts almost to nothing when we consider how hard it is for a man to refuse to sign his name to a paper when importuned to do so. True, Helm may have acquired the best of character, and then have lost it when the temptation came. Many are the instances of the kind. Henry Ward Beecher had had no stain on his fair name till his unfortunate crim con with Elizabeth, and previous to the discoveries of the forgeries of Henry S. Moss, all Louisville would have endorsed him as an honest man.With the statement to the public that our allegations are backed by a majority of the Holmes jury and by nearly all who heard or read the testimony, and disclaiming any desire to injure Mr. Helm more than he has injured himself, we dismiss from our columns a further discussion of him or his doings, confident that no words of ours can increase the great contempt in which he is already held. A parting suggestion to Mr. Helm, and we are done. A man who possesses such an amount of State pride as he claims, should no longer disgrace it by remaining within its borders, but should immediately take the advice of the late lamented Horace Greely, and "Go West" and we will add, the further West the better.
No one supposed they Did
Editor Interior Journal: --
The allusion to us in your last week's issue was entirely gratuitous. We do not endorse one sentiment in your abusive attack of J. K. Helm; but on the other hand endorse him in every sense. We ask you, as an act of justice to him, to insert this correction.
M. Helm.
Geo. G. Helm.
Here it is again. We don't suppose Dr. Helm will deny that he told us that he and his father greatly deplored Jim's action in the case, and that if he (Dr.) could have done so legally he would have gone to him while on the jury and plead with him not to hang it if there was nay way to keep from it! [22]
---
[July 19, 1878] -
CIRCUIT COURT. -- The Summer term of this Court will commence next Monday. There are 144 cases on the docket, 34 of which are for felonies, including 3 murder cases. Sam Holmes' case is the first on the docket; but we learn that it is not likely that he will be tried at this term, as his counsel will try either for a continuance or a change of venue. In any event, Holmes will be brought here and kept under a strong guard until it is disposed of. [23]---
[August 2, 1878] -
A change in venue in the Sam Holmes case was granted to Pulaski county, affidavits having been filed against Boyle and Garrard. His trial is set for the 8th day of the September term. [23.5]---
[September 27, 1878] -
[PULASKI] CIRCUIT COURT
Is in session. The trial of Holmes for the murder of Sheriff Napier, begun on Tuesday morning. The grand jury found 50 indictments. [24]
---
[September 27, 1878] -
SAM HOLMES ON TRIAL. -- The case of Sam Holmes for the murder of Sheriff Thos. W. Napier, in September, 1869, was called in Somerset, on Tuesday last, but owing to the absence of witnesses for the defense, it was postponed till Wednesday morning, at which time both sides announced their readiness, and the examination of jurors commenced. Seven men, who had not heard of the case or had formed no opinion, were found in the regular panel, and the remaining five were obtained from the bystanders, forty-six examinations in all being made, the Commonwealth exhausting her challenges on the 10th, and the defense on the 11th juror. Following are the names of the jurors: wesley Molden, Elias Vaught, Wm. M. Davis, W. S. Anderson, Harry Sloan, Andrew Vaughn, John A. Woods, James H. Hudson, John L. Hicks, Isaac Cowan, T. Q. Mills and G. P. Harrison. All were obtained before noon, and immediately after dinner Judge Denny stated the case for the Commonwealth and the examination of witnesses began, and up to the time we left the same evening, four of them had testified, in the same order that the did during the trial here [Stanford]. The jury appears to be of the average backwoods intelligence, and as usual, it is said, there are one or two who do not think murder a matter of much consequence. At night Holmes is kept in one of the jury rooms over which there is a guard of eight men, and during the day four men only are kept to see that he does not escape or be rescued, and these four, if they had any arms, did not show them. As during his trial here, Holmes maintains a confident appearance, and a casual observer would never take him for a man charged with so terrible a deed as the one for which he is being tried. There are but few of his friends present, and there exists, apparently, no more excitement than an ordinary petty larceny case would produce. His counsel are composed of men of superior legal ability, and are Col. T. P. Hill, Col. W. G. Welch, Judge M. C. Saufley, Col. G. W. Dunlap, Col. W. McKee Fox, Col. T. Z. Morrow and H. C. Kuffman, Esq. The Commonwealth would be in safe hands with no one but her faithful attorney, but in addition to him are the indefatigable W. H. Miller, Fontaine Fox Bobbitt and W. H. Waddle. It is likely that the trial will consume the balance of the week. It is to be sincerely hoped that this expensive case will be finally disposed of at this trial, and that too, in a way that may best serve the ends of justice and law. [25]---
[September 26, 1878] -
SOMERSET, KY.
Beginning of the Trial of Sam Holmes -- A Jury Obtained -- Congressional Race -- Suicide of W. P. Talbot.
(Special Dispatch to the Courier Journal.)
Somerset, Ky., Sept. 25. -- The case of the Commonwealth vs. Sam Holmes, for the murder of Sheriff Napier, of Lincoln count, was called this morning and a jury selected without difficulty. Before noon seven witnesses for the prosecution had been introduced, detailing about the same evidence given in the Lincoln Court, though counsel for the Commonwealth claim that they will greatly strengthen their case by the evidence of additional witnesses yet to be introduced. The number of lawyers engaged reaches fifteen, five for the prosecution and ten for the defendant. Curd and Waddle are for the prosecution, and Fox and Stone and Marion and Newell for defense, of the Somerset bar, they being added to the counsel heretofore employed.
The jury consists of plain Pulaski-county farmers, who pay marked attention to the testimony with an evident desire to become fully advised. The case has lost much of its interest, though a pretty large audience listened to the testimony this afternoon. [26]
---
[September 26, 1878] -
SOMERSET.
Sam. Holmes on Trial for Murder.
Special to the Cincinnati Commercial.
SOMERSET, KY., September 25. -- The case of the Commonwealth against Samuel Holmes, Jr., for the killing of Tom Napier on the 18th of September, 1869, was called this morning. The defendant pleaded "not guilty," and after two hours' hard work, a jury of twelve men were impaneled. After swearing the witnesses the Court took a recess for dinner. After recess, Hon. George Dennis, Jr., the prosecuting attorney, stated his case to the jury, when the following witnesses gave in their testimony for the Commonwealth:
John Bright, called: He is a Surveyor, and gave a diagram of the town of Stanford.
Ed. M. Davison, who lives in Stanford, saw the shooting September 18, 1869, saw Holmes in the Presbyterian Church lot, went up to hi in the lot, and then went up to the corner of the church; met Napier, and when within about six or seven feet of him, Holmes shot him in the stomach, and as he fell, shot him again in the back; Napier said, "O, Lord!" Ed. Pennelton was with me, I was shot in the right breast; the ball came out on the left side; after the shooting Holmes got on his horse and rode off.
Cross examined by Welsh -- Holmes was in town on Sunday before, and created some disturbance; Holmes rode by my house two or three times, holding his pistol in his lap; James Tucker was with him, have no friendly feelings for the man that shot me; Holmes was very drunk; shot me before he did Napier, did not say that Holmes promised if we would let him go he would come back the next morning and pay his fine.
J. W. Alcorn sworn: Napier was about fifty two years old when he was killed; took his dying declaration; Napier was shot as described by Davison; he lived an hour or so before he died; reduced the dying declaration to writing and read it over to him, when he said it was correct.
Sam Carson testified in substance the same as Mr. Davison. No material difference.
S. D. Myers--Am Marshal of the town; saw Holmes an hour before the shooting took the pistol from him, he gave it to him again in fifteen minutes. He seemed to be mad and said, "by God, he intended to kill John Myers and Tom Napier," did not see Napier until after the shooting.
Cross examined: Saw Holmes in the barroom; saw Geo Pope there. "What was Pope doing there?" He seemed to be watching Holmes. Did not think he was made. After he (Holmes) had threatened to kill Myers and Napier he promised to go home if I would give him his pistol, I then gave it to him. [27]
---
[October 4, 1878] -
THE SOMERSET FARCE. -- As predicted, the jury in the Holmes case failed to agree, and having assured Judge Owsley that they were locked beyond a show of compromise, they were discharged last Saturday evening, standing seven for hanging, and five for the penitentiary. Immediately after they were dismissed, Holmes' counsel moved for bail, the hope and consolation that prisoners always feel in a hung jury, but Judge Owsley failed to allow it, though took time to consider the matter. The fact that he remanded Holmes back to the Louisville jail, and the further fact that there is no law, and scarcely any precedent for granting bail to a man who, eighteen men have upon their oaths said, should suffer death, while the other six, even charging them with bias, have pronounced him guilty of manslaughter, go to show that Judge Owsley intends to maintain the firm step he took after the first trial, and allow no bail, this time, at least. That he will stand firm, is the wish of every law-loving citizen with whom we have conversed, and we have interviewed scores of them on the subject. [28]---
[March 21, 1879] -
SET FOR APRIL 1ST. -- The re-enactment of the Sam Holmes farce is advertised to come off at Somerset, the 8th day of the Spring Term of the Circuit Court. The usual large number of witnesses have been summoned from this [Lincoln] county. [29]---
[April 4, 1879] -
HOLMES' TRIAL AND SOMERSET NOTES. -- Under a guard of nine men, Samuel Holmes was taken from the Louisville jail to Somerset, last Monday, to go thro' the form of a third trial for the murder of Col. Napier, committed nearly ten years ago. A special venire of 50 jurors had been summoned, out of which, the panel was obtained, after most of them had been examined. The Commonwealth exhausted her challenges on the eleventh juror, the defense having two to spare when the last man was taken. The jury are as follows: George Bullock, W. R. Smith, J. J. Hall, M. W. Bryan, F. C. Mize, T. J. Francis, James Brinkley, John Keeney, J. P. Cundiff, G. E. Cundiff, G. A. Phelps, W. G. Nunnelly. The selection of the jury completed the owrk of Tuesday, the first day, and on Wednesday, after a strong statement of the case for the Commonwealth by Judge Denny, the examination of witnesses for the prosecution commenced. For reasons best known to the attorneys for the Commonwealth, neither Ed. Davison, Sam. M. Carson or Jim Daughtery, was introduced, and by 2 o'clock they rested their testimony in chief. This sudden termination took the defense considerably by surprise, and they retired to consult after which Col. W. G. Welch appeared and in his usual forcible manner, made the very best possible, of a very atrocious crime. The first witness for the defense, Mr. Billy Ball, was being examined when we left the Court room for home at 4 o'clk, Wednesday evening, and the probability then was, that the case would be given to the jury by noon to-day. The testimony for the prosecution was not materially different from that adduced at the trial here [Stanford], when eleven men were for a verdict of murder in the first degree. In appearance the jurors at the present trial are an improvement on those of the second trial, but from interviews as to their merits, made with a number of old citizens and others, who are judges of men, they do not compare favorably with their predecessors. The universal opinion is, that they will hang themselves (not the prisoner,) and judging from the character of two or three of the men, and the possibility that a little "salt" has been used, there will be at least that number for an acquittal. We however, hope for the better, and sincerely trust that some verdict may be obtained, even tho' it be a light one, comparatively, and thus put an end to this costly case. The prisoner shows considerably the effects of a seventeen month's confinement in the Louisville jail, and the debilitating results of a protracted spell of chills. He does not affect the bold and confident air that characterized him at his two former trials, though he expresses himself as sure of an acquittal. This, however, is out of the question, or else there is no need of law in this land. A hung jury and bail is the hope of his friends, but bail is not so sure then, as might be supposed. The Commonwealth is represented by its attorney, Judge Denny, W. H. Miller, and Curd & Waddle, and the defense by Col. W. G. Welch, Saufley, Fox & Stone, Hill and Morrow & Newell. [30]---
[April 11, 1879] -
THE FARCE. -- Denominated the Holmes trial, terminated on Friday, and the question was submitted to the jury. After deliberating upon the case until Monday evening, they mustered up courage enough to say that this much abused gent should serve his country for two years at Frankfort. The desperate means used by the defense to manufacture sympathy and pervert facts, had converted the unreflecting into sympathizers, whilst the more thoughtful foresaw from the efforts made, and the means employed, that justice would be robbed of her dues. The result is another demonstration that, in Kentucky, he who possesses plenty of money and powerful friends may shoot down with impunity, whomsoever he pleases; and lawyers and juries will ever be found ready to vindicate and clear him. The effort in this case has been no ordinary case. For nearly twelve months the leaven scattered by the galvanized hand has been fermenting among our people until it has affected the whole county. The jury was well selected for the purpose, and being surfeited with sophistry, with dignified ladies of Somerset sitting conspicuously in front to assist by their smiles and frowns the result, is not at all surprising to the intelligent observer. [31]---
[April 11, 1879] -
TWO YEARS IN THE PENITENTIARY. -- The third trial of Samuel Holmes for the murder of as good an officer and as brave a man as ever did honor to Lincoln county, ended at Somerset last Monday in a verdict of two years in the Penitentiary, the jury standing, at first, seven for acquittal and five for imprisonment. How such a verdict could have been reached, unless a portion of the jury, at least, were influenced by other motives than their oaths, is almost impossible for those who have heard or read the testimony to imagine. But wily lawyers, with good fees and a shrewd man, with the necessary amount of money to put where it will do the most good, can accomplish any thing with the average jury of the present day. The very nature of the questions asked and the answers required positively exclude the intelligent and fair-minded, from juries, and the result is, in nearly every case, that a jury of the most ignorant and unscrupulous class is obtained, including often men whom even the promise of $10 would cause to perjure their own souls. Another great advantage that the prisoner had over the Commonwealth, and one which the next legislature should look into and repeal, is the law allowing him to premptorily challenge twenty jurors, while the prosecution exhausts its power on the fifth, and after that, unless some specific charges can be made against a juror, is entirely at the mercy of the defense. A man who has broken its laws should be satisfied, at least with being placed on an equal footing with the Commonwealth, and it is hoped, for the better enforcement of those laws and the punishment of willful crime, that that there will be radical changes made in regard to juries and the manner of obtaining them. The verdict in the Holmes case is the result of these pernicious jury laws, and is a blot even upon the crime-besmeared named of Kentucky. It amounts to but little more than a license for murder, and if this kind of thing is allowed to continue, a premium will shortly be allowed to the fiend who brings in the greatest number of scalps of Sheriffs or other officers in the discharge of their duty, and the Pulaski jurors will exult, if they can, over the fact they were the prime movers towards such a revolution. [32] ---
[April 11, 1879] -
THE DIFFERENCE. -- Tom Cain was sent to the Penitentiary for ten years from this county, recently, for the alleged burning of a house of ill fame. Sam Holmes murders the Sheriff of Lincoln, who was attempting his arrest for a misdemeanor, and the jury is sorry to have to put him in the inconvenience of spending two years in the State prison. The one is a poor man, with no friends, the other has wealthy and influential friends who stood by him to the end. [32 ibid]---
[April 18, 1879] -
The Holmes Verdict.
Of the Holmes verdict the Somerset Reporter says: To our county must attach the stigma of virtually releasing this murderer upon society. To accomplish this the record of the past has been blurred over, a sickly sentimentalism has been fostered; the insidious whisperings and opinions begotten of jingling gold have been set in motion; witnesses have been suborned; and a line of defense set up, that for sophistry and absurdity would disgrace a set of ten-year-old school boys. We have observed closely and perceived the desperate means resorted to by the defense in this case, and the influences brought to bear in manufacturing public opinion and creating false sentiment, and feel that we should be recreant to our duty if such should escape rebuke.
In these times when peace officers and our best citizens are shot down for any imaginary offense, red-handed murderers stalk our every thoroughfare, and our State has become a scoff and by-word for crime, the only preventive, as we conceive, lies in public journalism. We do not hesitate to say that we have no sympathy for those men who have outraged society, and no respect for those cunningly devised plans whereby criminals shall be let loose to further prey upon an outraged Commonwealth. Only two years in the Penitentiary!! One year, we suppose, for each man shot! [33]
---
[May 22, 1879] -
Kentucky Justice.
Samuel Holmes' case shows what a travesty can be made of Kentucky law. That desperado rode into Stanford, Ky., some years ago, and killed the Sheriff, who interfered with his drunken carousals. Holmes at once left for parts unknown, but returned to Kentucky two years ago and was arrested. At his first trial eleven of the jury favored hanging and one five years in the penitentiary. At the second trial seven wanted to hang Holmes and five to give him a long term of imprisonment. Finally, after the State and county have spent $10,000 on the case, a third jury has deliberated seventy hours and given the murderer two years in the penitentiary. [34]
---
[July 18, 1879] -
The case of Ed. Davison vs. Samuel Holmes or $10,000 damages, because of wounds received by the hands of said Holmes at the time he killed Sheriff Napier, resulted in a verdict of $5,000. Holmes is in the Penitentiary, but the plaintiff's attorneys, Messrs. H. T. Harris, R. Blain and W. H. Miller, are confident that the amount can be made out of him. Hill & Alcorn and Welch & Saufley represented the defense. [35]---
[November 19, 1880] -
NEARLY OUT. -- Sam Holmes' two years in the Penitentiary, for the murder of Col. Napier, will expire in about a month, as according to the rules of the prison, two months is deducted from each year for good behavior. There are two cases pending against him yet, one for shooting with intent to kill Mr. Ed. Davidson, Town Marshal, at the time of the killing of Napier, and the other for grand larceny. The bail was originally $3,000 in these cases, but it was reduced last week to $1,500. [36]
---
[December 29, 1880] -
PARDON No. 402.
Granted for the purpose of restoring the rights of citizenship. [37]
---
[January 21, 1881] -
A Romance.
Lucien Young's noble action a few years ago, in saving several lives from a wrecked vessel, will be remembered. The action of the Kentucky Legislature in publicly recognizing his services, will also be recalled. A few weeks since he was in Frankfort, and whilst there visited the Penitentiary. Within the walls of the prison he met Sam Holmes, confined for two years for the murder of Col. Napier, Sheriff of Lincoln county. Holmes committed his crimes years ago, when a mere boy. He fled frmo the law and went beyond the seas. He was gone for a long while, and spent for his family over twenty thousand dollars. Wndering an unhappy outcast from home and friends, he resolved to return and take the chances of capture. He did return, was arrested, tried for his offense; and on account of his extreme youth when the deed was done, the jury only gave him two years int he state prison. He has now served at Frankfort some eighteen months of his sentence. All these facts are fresh in the minds of our readers. Young and Holmes were boys together at school, and fast friends. Young was greatly moved by Holmes' unfortunate condition, and at once determined to make an effort for his release. To this end he called on the Governor, and made an earnest appeal for a pardon. After urgent and protracted solicitation, Gov. Blackburn relented, and the pardon was made out and signed. With the document in his pocket, the brave lieutenant hastened back to the prison to tell the good news to his former school made and devoted friend. Entering the walls he was allowed again to communicate with the prisoner. Before notifying him, however, that he had come to make him a free man, Young quietly commenced a conversation with him; and after talking awhile upon other subjects, finally said: "Sam, if you were turned loose and fully pardoned, what would be the first thing you would do?" The convict very quickly responded, "I would go to Lancaster and kill that damned Judge Owsley and another damned scoundrel who was a witness against me." Young uttered not a word, but turned mournfully away, went outside the prison walls, took the pardon from his breast pocket and tore it into a thousand fragments. And to this hour Sam Holmes, in his striped suit in the Penitentiary, does not know [how] near he was to freedom. -[Richmond Register. [38]
---
[January 21, 1881] -
A CORRECTION. -- An article on our first page, from the Richmond Register, does great injustice to Mr. Sam Holmes, who was, it will be recollected, exiled to Frankfort for two years by a lot of ultra law and order loving Pulaskians on a trumped-up charge that he had killed Col. Napier, the best Sheriff that Lincoln ever had, simply because the latter had the presumption to offer to arrest him for a misdemeanor. Of course all this was wrong, as we took occasion to remark at the time. But let that pass. In the first place, Ensign Young and Samuel were never schoolmates; in the second, at the time Mr. Young is supposed to have gotten that pardon, Holmes was out of the Penitentiary and at his home in this county, having served his two years, less time allowed for good behavior. Then the story about his killing Judge Owsley is all the sheerest nonsense. No prisoner and especially Sam Holmes, has ever had any reasonable cause to want to kill him for any of his actions on the bench. The Judge lays down the law, as he sees it, but never fails to show a prisoner even more consideration than he is oftimes entitled. Holmes may want to kill a number of people, but we will guarantee that Judge Owsley is not one of them. We hate to spoil the Register's sensational story, but in justice to a young man who has served his State so well as to get four months allowed him because of that excellent service, we deem it our duty to correct it. [39]---
[March 25, 1881] -
The first case called was against Samuel Holmes for maliciously shooting Ed. Davidson, at the time he killed Colonel Napier. A change of venue was asked, and yesterday set for taking proof as to whether he could get justice in a trial in this [Lincoln] county. A number of witnesses were introduced by the Commonwealth, but none of them were sufficiently acquainted with public sentiment to swear that he could get a fair trial here, and the case was, by consent, sent to Casey county. So far as we are able to learn there is no feeling against Holmes here now. He has paid the penalty assessed by a jury for his greatest crime, and there is no further desire to punish him more than according to the proof might be necessary. His behavior since his release has been such as to create a sympathy in his behalf.
The second case against Holmes was continued by the Commonwealth. [39.5]
---
[October 28, 1881] -
The only case against Sam M. Holmes remaining on the docket of this Court [Lincoln County], was dismissed without prejudice. [40]
---
[December 18, 1883] -
To-day is set for the half-dozenth time, for the trial of Sam Holmes, at Liberty, for shooting with intent to kill, Marshal Ed. Davison, at the time he killed Sheriff Napier. The Judge ought either to require a trial now, or file the case away without leave to reinstate. It is a very old and a very costly case. [41]---
[June 10, 1884] -
The trial of Saml. M. Holmes will be called at Liberty tomorrow for the dozenth time for shooting with intent to kill town marshal, Ed. Davison, at the time Holmes killed Sheriff Napier, sixteen years ago. The case has cost the State thousands of dollars and it is hoped that the Commonwealth's Attorney will require a trial this time or strike the case from the docket. [42]---
[June 13, 1884] -
Subsequently Mr. Davison obtained a verdict for $5,000 damages against him, but as he was without means, that was the end of it. The result of this trial convinced Holmes' attorneys that this was not a good place to try the criminal suit against him, so a change of venue was obtained to Casey county. The case has been hanging fire for some time down there but Tuesday was called for trial and strange to say commenced. Several of the witnesses had died since the institution of the suit, but there were a sufficient number to prove the details of the shooting of Mr. Davison nearly fifteen years ago. The prosecution was represented by Messrs. R. C. Warren, J. S. VanWinkle and Col. Adams, each of whom made speeches, and the defense by Welch & Saufley, Hill & Alcorn and Geo. Stone. Col. Welch stated the case and examined the witnesses and Hill, Saufley and Stone spoke. The case was given to the jury Wednesday afternoon and failing to agree at 2 P.M. yesterday were discharged standing seven for acquittal and five for a fine of $100 each. A compromise was afterwards effected by the payment of $150 fine and Sam Holmes, for the first time since boyhood, walked forth a free man and we hope he will so conduct himself always to remain so. [43]
---
[March 30, 1886] -
Some of the witnesses testified in the suit against Holmes' administrator that Mr. Sam Holmes placed $5,000 in Mr. Fort Holmes hands for the benefit of Sam Holmes, Jr., at the time he gave him the $2,000 and Attorney Miller thinks he sees a chance to make the judgment of $5,0000 which were adjudged against the latter in favor of Ed. Davison for wounds and maims received at his hands. [44]---
[October 9, 1888] -
After a long illness of consumption, superinduced by a pistol shot in the lung while in the discharge of his official duty a number of years ago, Mr. E. M. Davison departed this life at an early hour Friday morning, aged 64. He was a native of Virginia, but moved here in early youth and married Miss Vaughn, sister of George Vaughn, and she with seven children survive him. Mr. Davison was a of a rather peculiar temperament, but he was a man of considerable force of character, and was strictly upright and honorable in all his dealings. He had been an invalid for years, in fact ever since his wound, which at the time laid him up for over three years. Several months ago he professed religion and was baptized and received into the Christian church. The funeral occurred at his late residence Saturday afternoon, Rev. John Bell Gibson officiating, and the remains interred in Buffalo Cemetery in the presence of many friends. [45]------------------
[1] Excerpt from "Brutal Murder." Cincinnati Daily Gazette, Cincinnati, OH. September 21, 1869. Page 3. Genealogybank.com.
[2] Excerpt from "Kentucky." Daily Arkansas Gazette, Little Rock, AR. September 21, 1869. Page 1. Newspapers.com.
[3] 1870 Census Mortality Schedule, Lincoln County, Pg 6.
[4] Excerpt from Column 4. Warrenton Banner, Warrenton, MO. October 19, 1869. Page 1. Newspapers.com.
[5] Excerpt from "Home Jottings." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. March 5, 1875. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1875-03-05/ed-1/seq-3/ col 2
[6] Excerpt from "Home Jottings." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. October 22, 1875. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1875-10-22/ed-1/seq-3/
[8] Excerpts from "Local News." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. December 21, 1877. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1877-12-21/ed-1/seq-3/
[9.5] "A Missing Marshal." The Courier Journal, Louisville, KY. January 10, 1878. Page 4. Newspapers.com.
[14] Excerpt from "Local News." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. April 12, 1878. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-04-12/ed-1/seq-3/
[15] Excerpt from "Local News." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. April 19, 1878. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-04-19/ed-1/seq-3/
[16] Excerpt from "Circuit Court." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. April 19, 1878. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-04-19/ed-1/seq-3/
[21] "Helm's Flimsy Defense." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. May 10, 1878. Page 5. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-05-10/ed-1/seq-5/
[22] "Trying a Little White-Wash." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. May 10, 1878. Page 5. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-05-10/ed-1/seq-5/
[23] Excerpt from "Local News." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. July 19, 1878. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-07-19/ed-1/seq-3/
[23.5] Excerpt from "Local News." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. August 2, 1878. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-08-02/ed-1/seq-3/
[26] Excerpt from "Somerset, KY." The Courier Journal, Louisville, KY. September 26, 1878. Page 1. Newspapers.com.
[33] "The Holmes Verdict." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. April 18, 1879. Page 1. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1879-04-18/ed-1/seq-1/
[41] Excerpt from "Local Matters." Semi-Weekly Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. December 18, 1883. Page 7. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85052020/1883-12-18/ed-1/seq-7/
[45] Excerpt from "Death's Doings." Semi-Weekly Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. October 9, 1888. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85052020/1888-10-09/ed-1/seq-3/
[17] Excerpt from "Circuit Court." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. April 26, 1878. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-04-26/ed-1/seq-3/
[18] Excerpts from "Circuit Court." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. May 3, 1878. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-05-03/ed-1/seq-3/
[19] Excerpt from "Local News." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. May 3, 1878. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-05-03/ed-1/seq-3/
[20] Excerpt from Column 1. The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. May 10, 1878. Page 4. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-05-10/ed-1/seq-4/
[19] Excerpt from "Local News." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. May 3, 1878. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-05-03/ed-1/seq-3/
[20] Excerpt from Column 1. The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. May 10, 1878. Page 4. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-05-10/ed-1/seq-4/
[21] "Helm's Flimsy Defense." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. May 10, 1878. Page 5. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-05-10/ed-1/seq-5/
[22] "Trying a Little White-Wash." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. May 10, 1878. Page 5. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-05-10/ed-1/seq-5/
[23] Excerpt from "Local News." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. July 19, 1878. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-07-19/ed-1/seq-3/
[23.5] Excerpt from "Local News." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. August 2, 1878. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-08-02/ed-1/seq-3/
[24] Excerpt from "Pulaski County News." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. September 27, 1878. Page 2. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-09-27/ed-1/seq-2/
[25] Excerpt from "Local News." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. September 27, 1878. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-09-27/ed-1/seq-3/
[26] Excerpt from "Somerset, KY." The Courier Journal, Louisville, KY. September 26, 1878. Page 1. Newspapers.com.
[27] "Somerset." Cincinnati Commercial Tribune, Cincinnati, OH. September 26, 1878. Page 7. Genealogybank.com.
[28] Excerpt from "Local News." The Interior Journal Stanford, KY. October 4, 1878. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1878-10-04/ed-1/seq-3/
[29] Excerpt from "Local Matters." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. March 21, 1879. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1879-03-21/ed-1/seq-3/
[29] Excerpt from "Local Matters." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. March 21, 1879. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1879-03-21/ed-1/seq-3/
[30] Excerpt from "Local Matters." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. April 4, 1879. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1879-04-04/ed-1/seq-3/
[31] Excerpt from "Pulaski County." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. April 11, 1879. Page 2. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1879-04-11/ed-1/seq-2/
[32] Excerpts from Supplement. The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. April 11, 1879. Page 5. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1879-04-11/ed-1/seq-5/
[32] Excerpts from Supplement. The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. April 11, 1879. Page 5. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1879-04-11/ed-1/seq-5/
[33] "The Holmes Verdict." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. April 18, 1879. Page 1. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1879-04-18/ed-1/seq-1/
[34] "Kentucky Justice." Kalamazoo Gazette, Kalamazoo, MI. May 22, 1879. Page 3. Genealogybank.com.
[35] Excerpt from "Local Matters." The Interior Journal Stanford, KY. July 18, 1879. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1879-07-18/ed-1/seq-3/
[36] Excerpt from "Local Matters." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. November 19, 1880. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1880-11-19/ed-1/seq-3/
[37] Excerpt from "Petitions for Pardons." List of pardons granted by Governor Luke P. Blackburn, from September 3, 1879 to March 23, 1881. Kentucky Legislative Documents, Volumes 2 and 3. Pages 14 and 527. Googlebooks.
[37] Excerpt from "Petitions for Pardons." List of pardons granted by Governor Luke P. Blackburn, from September 3, 1879 to March 23, 1881. Kentucky Legislative Documents, Volumes 2 and 3. Pages 14 and 527. Googlebooks.
[38] "A Romance." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. January 21, 1881. Page 1. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1881-01-21/ed-1/seq-1/
[39] Excerpt from "Local Matters." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. January 21, 1881. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1881-01-21/ed-1/seq-3/
[39.5] Excerpt from "Circuit Court." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. March 25, 1881. Page 5. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1881-03-25/ed-1/seq-5/
[40] Excerpt from "Local Matters." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. October 28, 1881. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1881-10-28/ed-1/seq-3/
[39.5] Excerpt from "Circuit Court." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. March 25, 1881. Page 5. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1881-03-25/ed-1/seq-5/
[40] Excerpt from "Local Matters." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. October 28, 1881. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1881-10-28/ed-1/seq-3/
[41] Excerpt from "Local Matters." Semi-Weekly Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. December 18, 1883. Page 7. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85052020/1883-12-18/ed-1/seq-7/
[42] Excerpt from "Local Matters." Semi-Weekly Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. June 10, 1884. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85052020/1884-06-10/ed-1/seq-3/
[43] Excerpt from "Local Matters." Semi-Weekly Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. June 13, 1884. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85052020/1884-06-13/ed-1/seq-3/
[44] Excerpt from Column 1. Semi-Weekly Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. March 30, 1886. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85052020/1886-03-30/ed-1/seq-3/
[44] Excerpt from Column 1. Semi-Weekly Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. March 30, 1886. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85052020/1886-03-30/ed-1/seq-3/
Also mentioned in:
"Rather Mixed." Semi-Weekly Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. May 15, 1883. Page 1. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85052020/1883-05-15/ed-1/seq-1/
Excerpt from "Warren Harris." The Climax, Richmond, KY. March 11, 1896. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86069161/1896-03-11/ed-1/seq-3/
"Rather Mixed." Semi-Weekly Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. May 15, 1883. Page 1. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85052020/1883-05-15/ed-1/seq-1/
Excerpt from "Warren Harris." The Climax, Richmond, KY. March 11, 1896. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86069161/1896-03-11/ed-1/seq-3/
No comments:
Post a Comment