Mercer County Crimes
In The News
| A Dreadful Murder
On
last Sabbath an awful tragedy took place six or seven miles south of
Sandy Lake in the Jackson Center neighborhood, this county. By it Henry
Fisher, aged about 50 years, lost his life at the hands, it is
supposed, of one of his own sons. It appears from all accounts that the
family is quite quarrelsome among themselves. On Sabbath about 11 a.m.,
the father was lying sleeping on a bed when some one shot him through
an open window, in the back of the head, the ball passing forward
and downward to the chin, causing death about an hour after. Dr.
Bagnell and Wilson of Millbrook, held a post-mortem examination of the
body Sabbath afternoon. A coroner’s jury was empaneled the same
evening, which at midnight adjourned till the next day, and then after
a short session took a recess till tomorrow, Saturday, when it is
expected their verdict will be rendered. The funeral on Monday was
largely attended by people of the neighborhood who were thoroughly
aroused by the atrocious act. After the funeral Mrs. Fisher, wife of
the deceased, and a son aged about fifteen were arrested and sent to
Mercer jail, strong suspicions resting on them as the authors of the
murder. – Sandy Lake News.
(Source: The Record-Argus, Greenville, PA., Sat, Aug 18, 1877, pg. 5) | SEWELL MURDER TRIAL
Hugh Sewell Goes Free for the Murder of Ray Fry
-----
DONE IN SELF-DEFENSE.
MERCER,
April 28—At the opening of court, Wednesday morning, W. H. Fry was
recalled by the Commonwealth. In reply to questions asked by counsel,
Mr. Fry said several bruises were upon Ray’s [Ray Fry's] face and head
after the killing. With this the Commonwealth rested and the case for
the defense was opened by Mr. Pettit, who outlined that defense would
be that the affair was concocted by [Frank] Deets and [Martin]
Tunison to get [Hugh] Sewell and [Ray] Fry at Tunison’s house that
evening to see a fight between them; that all four took a hand in the
fight, Deets cutting Sewell’s throat; that Sewell is incapable of
learning and has been the brunt of all jokes from childhood, but always
peaceable; that witnesses of prosecution testified differently at other
hearings than at this trial.
W. T. Stewart, of THE EVENING
RECORD, Greenville, was first called by the defense in order that he
might get to Greenville to take the train with the N. O. P., of which
he is a member. Stewart testified that Mart Tunison said at the hearing
that Fry was on top in the scuffle. Stewart was now excused and wished
'godspeed" by the court.
Wayne Burns, of West Salem,
testified that he works some for W. H. Fry, and the day before this
occurrence he was working in the woods with Ray Fry and on the day of
this occurrence he and Ray were working together in a field, when Deets
came. Ray told Deets that he would not stand under the story which
Sewell had told about Adda [Deets], and he was going to chastise him
for saying it, and wanted Deets to see Sewell. Deets said Hugh [Sewell]
would be at Tunison’s that night.
John Logan, who had
testified for the prosecution, was called by the defense and sad that
immediately after this fight Mart Tunison came to his house, telling
him that Hugh Sewell had stabbed Ray Fry, and then cut his own throat
and both were dead. Logan asked what they fought about and Mart
[Tunison] said that Deets brought Fry there to settle the remark made
about Adda Deets by Sewell. Tunison said some time after wards that he
wished he had locked up his house that night and had come to Logan’s,
and then this thing would not, have happened, and again told him the
way to settle thus thing now was for Mr. Fry to arrest both Sewell and
Deets.
On Christmas night Logan said, Tunison was at his
house when Hugh [Sewell] came and knocked, Tunison pulled a revolver
out and threatened to shoot through the door at Sewell, Logan cautioned
Sewell about Tunison about having this revolver and his threat to shoot
him. Sewell and Mart [Tunison] went home from here together.
Frank
Deets was recalled to testify what he told Dr. Cossitt when he called
him on the night of the quarrel in order to contradict this by
testimony of Dr. Cossitt.
Dr. Cossitt being put on the stand
now said when Deets came to his office he said he did not know
how Fry happened to have been cut. As the doctor wished to go home he
was now examined as to the extent of Sewell’s injuries. He said Sewell
had two cuts on the front of his neck very close together and about
three inches in length. That when he saw Sewell the latter was
conscious and complaining of his chest. The doctor was examined very
thoroughly concerning Sewell’s condition after the fight, whether there
were any bruises on his chest or back; also as Sewell complained of
kidney trouble, if there were any external appearances of causes which
might have started this trouble, Dr. Brown, in answer to questions,
said that Mart Tunison testified at the coroner's inquest that Fry had
Sewell down in the fight. Drs. Brown and Cossitt were now excused from
further attendance.
Prof. W. A. Smith, of Bellevue, who had
taught at the Porter school when Sewell attended said that Sewell had
no studies but he tried to teach him to read a little, spell some and
something in numbers. It was objected by the prosecution that it was
incompetent for the defense to prove obliquity by showing stupidity in
school. The objection was overruled and testimony admitted to show
whether or not a person with the capacity of Sewell would be led to
think his life was in danger in such circumstances as are in this case
and then protect himself.
Prof. Smith said Sewell’s
efforts in learning were good but the only words he knew or seemed
capable of being taught to recognize were such as, “is,” “are,” etc.,
and could not read a sentence if more than three words. Hugh [Sewell]
was in the number class with boys of six years; he could not
concentrate his mind on anything but was anything but quarrelsome.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Court convened at 2 p. m., when the defendant, Hugh Sewell, was put on the Stand.
Sewell
said his occupation was a section hand. On the day before the murder he
had been working at Fry’s and in the evening he and Ray went to
Logan’s, a neighbor, and spent the evening. They went home together.
There was no trouble of any kind between them, and they were the best
of friends. On the next day Sewell worked until 6 o’clock, went home,
ate his supper and soon after went up to Martin Tunison’s. He sat there
talking to Tunison for some time, when Deets and Fry came in. Fry
walked up to the defendant and struck him in the face, making his nose
bleed. Deets also struck him; and he remembers of Mart Tunison kicking
him. Witness said he did not remember much more except that he tried to
get out at the north door, but found it barred by Deets, who held it
shut. He remembers of going home and falling into the doorway, but not
much more.
He said he had lost his knife some time before
this and did not have a knife at all at the time of the murder. Sewell
testified further that when Fry wrestled with him Fry would always
throw him and was generally stronger. Sewell said he knew of Tunison
carrying a revolver.
In the fight at Tunison’s house the
defendant said Tunison and Deets joined in and fought just as much as
he and Fry. He was badly scared, thinking they would kill him
(Sewell.)
In cross examination the defendant was asked
as to the subject matter of the conversation between him and Tunison
but could get no answer except that they talked about the Cuban war,
which was all he could remember, before Deets and Fry came in. He
repeated his former statement of Fry’s coming and striking him. He did
not strike anyone. Fry, Deets and Tunison were all on him and he was
trying to get away. He did not know whether or not he was down on the
floor.
In answer to the question, “Did you not say when Ray
Fry dropped dead, ‘I will die with him.’ ?“ He said, “No sir I did
not.”
In answer to the questions as to his admissions, to
other persons, of killing Fry, Sewell would invariably answer, “I do
not remember;” or “It was so long ago,” or “I do not know.”
Dr.
R. M. Hope, the jail physician of Mercer county, was called. The doctor
discussed the wound on Sewell’s throat after he was brought to jail, as
Hope had attended him every day for several weeks.
A
hypothetical question was asked the witness: “Doctor, suppose this man
was engaged in a fight in a room within closed doors and with a man
whom he knew to be his physical superior, could he determine in the
excitement of the moment the legal responsibilities of the acts he
might commit?”
This was objected to by the prosecution,
because Dr. Hope was not experienced in such cases; because if he was
experienced in mental diseases he could not determine what act the
defendant might do eight years ago at school, and for the further
reason that in deciding a question of this kind the Dr. Hope would be
usurping the province of the jury in presuming to decide a question of
fact, The objection was sustained and the question overruled. Dr. Hope
now testified that he had charge of the insane of this county for one
year and a half and had the experience in mental diseases of the
regular physician. In reply to questions about Sewell he said that
Sewell made remarks showing lack of common sense, and when complaining
of ailments, if told that they would be all right the next day, Sewell
would be satisfied. Sewell always acted like a child and his mind could
not be kept on any subject. He seemed never to realize the gravity of
his act, and would say that he might as well be home, as he could get a
job.
The doctor was asked what the operation of the mind of
the defendant would likely be in his opinion formed from the knowledge
he has of the defendant professionally and also from the defendant’s
testimony on the stand, which he heard in full.
This question
was objected to by the prosecution, but was admitted with a slight
change of form and the reply of witness was, that he thought Sewell
would act on the spur of the moment and be so frightened that reason
would not enter into his mind at all; this he explained, that if Sewell
were asked now if it were wrong to kill a friend he would say, yes, no
doubt, but as he is simple-minded and has so little control over what
he has that he, in those circumstances, or under great excitement,
would lose all reason whatever.
In cross-examination,
conducted by Mr. Richmond, the doctor said his opinion was formed from
his attendance bf Sewell, who was mentally weak, not diseased, not
insane, but simple-minded. The doctor thinks his weakness is from birth.
R.
W. Logan, a resident of the Sewell neighborhood; testified that the
evening before this occurrence Sewell and Fry, were both at his house.
They were apparently friendly towards each other and left together.
Rod.
Foley, a section man, who has worked with Sewell, testified that he saw
Sewell’s knife and traded another with him for it, but could not
recognize a knife shown to him as absolutely the one, so was excused.
‘Squire
Loutzenhiser, Greenville, the justice of the peace before whom the
hearing was held, testified that Martin Tunison said at the hearing
that Sewell was under Fry in the fight.
Susie Sewell,
the defendant’s sister, was called and said she was at home that
evening and saw Martin Tunison the same evening on the railroad track
and heard him talking to her mother and heard her mother say, “All
right I’ll tell Hugh."
Mrs. Jane Sewell, the mother of Hugh,
was now put on the stand. She testified that she has eleven children.
On the evening of the murder, she saw Mart Tunison on the railroad
track about six o’clock. Tunison asked her to tell Hugh to come to his
house that night; that she told him at the supper table and in a few
minutes Hugh left. In about half an hour he came back with his nose
bleeding and his throat cut.
On Mrs. Sewell’s being asked by
the prosecution if she was not on bad terms with the Frys, she broke
out in tears and was excused from the stand.
Jacob
Loutzenhizer was called and he testified that he and C.C. Ford talked
together about the murder and Ford said when he was at Sewell’s after
the affair Hugh did not say anything; this was to contradict what Ford
testified to on the stand.
John Loutzenhiser testified to the same thing.
William Porter said Sewell’s reputation in the neighborhood for peace and good order was good.
James
Loutzenhiser, T. F. Bean, John Canon, John Collins, Love Cannon, Joseph
Nelson, C. H. Melvin, William Wheaton, J. H. Loutzenhiser, W. J.
Gehring, James A. Melvin, J. T Loutzenhiser, James Porter, Henry
Stoyer, Alfred Loutzenhiser were all called to testify to the good
reputation of the defendant for peace and good order in his
neighborhood. All of these men had either known or worked with
Sewell.
At the opening of the morning session, Julia
Sewell, a sister of the defendant, was put on the stand. The witness
testified that Tunison came to their home some time before this
trouble, and had two butcher knives with him to cut up a hog for them.
She further testified as to the size of the pocket knife of Hugh
[Sewell], that it was one with a blade 2 1/2 inches in length.
Cole
Sewell, the father, was now called and also said Tunison was at his
house to cut up some meat for them, and that Tunison had two butcher
knives with him, and that he had also seen them at Tunison’s house.
Mrs.
Sewell was recalled by the defense and testified the same concerning
Tunison’s two butcher knives. This witness also testified that Tunison
frequently came to her home exhibiting his revolver many times.
Several
knives of Martin Tunison, one being one of the butcher knives testified
to by these witnesses, were offered in evidence, also a plot of the
neighborhood was explained to the jury by Mr. Gillespie and offered in
evidence.
Hugh Sewell was asked to be put on the stand
again, as the prosecution wished to ask him a few, questions to show
that he was able to run an engine and do other skilled labor, for the
purpose of showing him mentally capable of doing this crime; but he
seemed decidedly ignorant on all questions.
The defense now rested and the rebuttal of the prosecution was commenced.
Charles
Loutzenhiser was the first witness called in rebuttal. It was explained
to the jury by the court that no substantiate facts could now be proved
by the Commonwealth, but this witness and others called in rebuttal
could only testify so as to effect the credibility of defendant’s
witnesses. The witness was asked if the defendant did not tell him
about Fry having a knife and about knives lying around the room some
place, to which he replied, in the negative.
John
Loutzenhiser was also asked about these same things but said that
Sewell said he had killed Ray Fry, with Martin Tunison’s butcher knife.
In cross-examination the witness said that at this time Hugh Sewell
looked weak and exhausted.
C. C. Ford wanted to take the
stand and make a correction in his testimony saving that he did
recollect that he said to Jacob and John Loutzenhiser that when he went
to Sewell's after the fight Hugh did not say anything to him.
Charles Melvin was called to testify as to Sewell doing work which took some skill but knew nothing.
‘Squire
Loutzenhiser was called to testify as to paying Sewell bounty for mink
hides and that he did this business the same as others.
Mrs.
Margaret A. Bortz said Sewell was frequently at her house playing pedro
with the boys and spending the evening, and that to her he seemed to
play the same as the others and was able to cheat at any rate.
L. A. Bortz also saw him play pedro with the boys and Hugh would bid and play his own hand.
W.
H. Fry was called to effect the credibility of the defendant as a
witness saying he had seen him doing a duty as a “track walker.” The
witness further said that Sewell had told him he “walked track.”
Constable
Leech, of Greenville, said that while Sewell was in his custody he told
him that he bad killed Ray Fry with Tunison’s butcher knife. This was
objected to by the defense but admitted as a rebuttal. Here the case of
the Commonwealth was completed.
‘Squire Loutzenhiser now
testified to several mink skin reports to which he had signed Sewell’s
name and Sewell had made his mark. This was done by Mr. Gillespie to go
to show Sewell’s mentality. The witness said he also assisted the
defendant to sign his name to these reports.
Before
making the arguments to the jury the counsel for the defense claimed
that the Commonwealth should make their argument in chief, then the
counsel for the defense make his argument, after which the Commonwealth
could only reply to new matter introduced by the defense. The
Commonwealth maintained that they should only state their legal points
first, then came the argu¬ment for the defendant, after which the
Commonwealth dosed with its argument. The court ruled that the practice
here was for the Commonwealth to open with their legal arguments, then
the defense, then closing with the argument of the Commonwealth.
At
the afternoon session twenty or more legal points were submitted by the
prosecution to be ruled upon by the court. These were thoroughly
discussed by the attorneys, after which the argument of the defense to
the jury was made by Mr. Pettit. Mr. Pettit very thoroughly and
logically discoursed to the jury on the facts of the case, occupy¬ing
nearly two hours. Many persons had assembled in the court room to hear
the conclusion of this case. Mr. A. B. Richmond will plead the cause of
the Commonwealth in the morning.
MERCER, April 30—The
jury in the Sewell murder case brought in their verdict this morning,
and at 8:35 it was read in court.
The jury finds that the
wound which caused Ray Fry’s death was inflicted by Hugh Sewell, but
that he inflicted it when he thought his life was in peril.
The verdict allows Sewell to go free, without any imprisonment or fine, and he leaves for Greenville today.
At
the opening of court yesterday Mr. Gillespie addressed the jury. As Mr.
Pettit Thursday afternoon had addressed the jury presenting and
comparing the testimony so very thorough¬ly Mr. Gillespie argued more
on favorable points for the jury to consider in regard to the testimony
such as Sewell’s mentality, his responsibility, the circumstance in
relation to the defendant and how one of his light would probably act
under such circumstances. Mr. Gillespie occupied about two hours making
a most learned and eloquent plea which was listened to with rapt
attention by a court room full of people.
The argument
for the Commonwealth was presented by Mr. Richmond, who occupied the
remainder of the morning session and nearly an hour and a half of the
afternoon session. Mr. Richmond made a very impassionate plea for the
conviction. He quoted largely from the case of the Commonwealth vs.
Dunn, a case which was tried in Washington county, before Judge Agnew,
a member of the supreme bench, and a landmark in criminal law.
The
court’s charge was an eminently learned and fair one. All but one of
the defendant’s twenty-two legal points submitted to the court to be
passed upon were decided affirmatively. The jury was much enlightened
on the law, the distinction between murder of the first and second
degree and voluntary manslaughter. They were also instructed that in
the opinion of the court the evidence would not warrant a conviction of
murder of the first degree but that despite this opinion of the court
they might find such a verdict if they thought such a one was
warranted. They were instructed not to swerve from their duty on
account of the consequences of any verdict which they might find.
The testimony was reviewed and also the defenses set up by the
prisoner which were, first: That he did not inflict the fatal wound,
and second: That if the jury found from the testimony that he did, that
it was done in self-defense. They were instructed in regard to these
defenses, what would entitle the defense to an acquittal and the
Commonwealth to a Conviction.
In concluding the Court said,
‘Starting with the presumption of innocence, gentlemen of the jury, the
questions for you to decide are, first: Is the defendant guilty?
second, Did he commit the deed maliciously but with the intention to
take life? third, Is he guilty of voluntary manslaughter ?” Giving them
a final reminder that with the result of the verdict they had nothing
to do, they were sent to the jury room at 5 p. m The verdict is awaited
with much interest and anxiety. At the present writing the jury is
still out.
(Source: Excerpts from the Advance Argus, Greenville, Mercer County, PA, May 5, 1898, pages 1 and 6) | Lottie Royal, a Fredonia school girl, was severely whipped by
her teacher one day last week. The child's father made complaint
to the directors and the teacher had a hearing before the board on
Monday, which resulted in his dismissal. The school is closed for the
present. - Dispatch.
(Source: Excerpt from The Record Argus, Greenville, Mercer County, PA, Feb 5, 1876, pg 5) |
|
