THE TRIAL OF
- - -
--> --~~~~" -----
E=LISTOERY OF
- The Assassination of Dr. P. H. Talbott
- -(((AND) –
--- s
- - --~
- - N
N
-
Photographed by Briggs.
Albert P. and Charles E. Talbott,
For THE MURDER.
---
Printed by the Republican Steam Job and Book Office.
JMA ſº Y"/"ILLE, JMO.
---
HIS TWO SUNS,
--~~~E~~~.









THE TALBOTTS
||| || |\||
DR. P. H. TAIBOTT,
AND
THE TRIAL OF HIS TWO SONS
ALBERT P AND CHARLES E TALBOTT,
FOR THE MURDER.
Printed by the
REPUBLICAN STEAM JOB AND Book OFFICE,
MARYVILLE, MO.
- --
--
-
-

TO THE READER.
No trial ever held in Northwest Missouri ever
created such intense excitement as the trial of Albert
P. and Charles E. Talbott, for the murder of their
father, Dr. P. H. Talbott. So great has been the desire
to get the full proceedings of the trial that the Mary-
ville Repub/ican concluded to publish a complete history
of the crime and trial, taken from the notes of its short-
hand reporter. The publishers have aimed at facts, in-
stead of sensation. To those who want a faithful and
correct history of the trial, this book is inscribed.

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
A September night in all its beauty; a full moon
struggling through masses of rifted clouds; a farm
house nestled in among the trees, such is the scene to
which we transport our readers. A silent form creeps
stealthily up to a window from which streams the light
of the evening lamp. There is a flash, a stunning report,
a shivering of glass, a shriek from within, and the husband
and father, pierced by the assassin's bullet, falls bleeding
and dying in the midst of his family. -
Home is the most sacred of places, and should be
the most secure; no wonder, then, that when the news
came that Dr. Perry H. Talbot, a prominent citizen of
Nodaway county, Missouri, had been shot down on his
own hearth-stone, the entire community, in which he
lived, was thrown in a state of terrible excitement. Who
could have done the bloody deed? What was its object?
That our readers may more fully understand what
follows, a short sketch of the murdered man, and his
habits of life, will not be amiss.
Dr. Perry H. Talbott was born in Fairfield county,
Ohio, on the 5th of February, 1827. Here he grew to
manhood, receiving a good education. In the year 1849
he graduated from the Sterling medical college of Col-
umbus, Ohio, with honor to himself and class. Early in
the next year, he started to seek his fortune in the far
distant west. In Northwest Missouri, he found a home
and friends. In the year 1852, he joined the throng of
gold seekers, then crowding to California. The year
1853 again found him back in Missourl. Soon after his
return he met Miss Belle McFarland, of Page county,
4.
Iowa, was smitten by her many charms, and in April,
1854, the two were united in marriage. From all
accounts Dr. Talbott was a typical borderer. He was
fond of cards, and tradition still speaks of his skill in
that direction. As a skillful physician, his reputation
spread far and wide. When the country was new and
thinly settled, his professional visits extended for miles in
every direction. Dr. Talbott and his old gray mule are
historical figures in the annals of Nodaway county.
He accumulated property rapidly, and became quite
prominent in local politics. He represented the county
in the legislature in the years 1856 and 1857, and made a
good record as a legislator. During the war he espoused
the side of the Union, and was surgeon of the Twenty-
fifth Missouri Volunteers.
After the war he once more entered the political
arena, and became an aspirant for congressional honors.
He was a candidate before different conventions, but
failed of a nomination. In 1872 he made the race for
congress as an Independent Democrat on the O'Connor
ticket. In 1876, he became prominently identified with
the Greenback Labor movement, and devoted his entire
energies to the success of that party, and was recognized
throughout the State as one of the most prominent and
enthusiastic lecturers. He took an active and leading
part in all the State and National conventions of his
party, his speeches, especially the one before the Toledo
convention, obtaining a wide notoriety.
He was a man of much more than ordinary ability, and
had an indomitable will. His egotism was wonderful,
and his ambition was fully as great as his egotism. He
seemed to think that upon his shoulders rested the hope
of the country. He, no doubt, classed himself with the
ablest statesmen of the age. This over-weening esti-
mate of himself, often made him appear ridiculous in the
eyes of his friends. -
In appearance, he was tall and of rather commanding
presence. His hair and beard were as dark as the
raven's wing, and his eyes were deep-set, restless and of
a cold bluish gray. At times they had the uneasy ex-
pression of a person slightly deranged.





5
As a friend and neighbor, Dr. Talbott always stood
high among those who knew him. As a husband and
father, he seemed to have no affection whatever. His
home was the abode of discord and the demon strife
seemed to reign supreme. He took no pleasure in beau-
tifying or adorning his home and was miserly in all that
pertained to it. He took no pride in his children, and to
all appearance cared nothing for their moral or temporal
welfare. They grew up neglected, and when young were
like untamed Indians. It was no unusual sight to see
one of his little daughters dash across the prairie on her
pony, bareback and astride, or standing erect and riding
like a veteran circus performer.
The house was an arsenal of small arms, and both girls
and boys were familiar with their use. It was cheerless
and comfortless, and looked more like the abode of
extreme poverty, than that of a man in comfortable
C11ºcumstances.
CHAPTER II.
THE ASSASSINATION.
Dr. Talbott, at the time of his death, was the editor of
the Greenback Standard, a paper published at Maryville,
Mo. His home was seven miles southeast of the city,
but the greater portion of his time was spent in town.
His assassination occurred on the evening of September
18, 1880. The following, taken from the Maryville.
A'epublican, gives full particulars of the awful crime:
All remember the terrible excitement which pervaded
all classes when, some few years since, a man by the
name of Tansy was discovered traveling through the
6
country with the gory corpses of five mangled, murdered
victims in his wagon. The populace arose in their fury,
and swift vengeance was meted out to Tansy. Since that
time Nodaway County has not been thrilled with such
horror as when the news came last Sabbath that Dr. P.
H. Talbott had been foully assassinated in the midst of
his family. The Doctor attended the Fair Saturday and
returned home about six o'clock, when he found a call
awaiting him to visit a sick child at Mr. Leighty's, who
resides some three miles south of him. He returned
about nine o'clock, put up his horse, and went into the
house. His wife and his son Albert were in the room,
the rest of the family having retired. He handed Albert
a copyright of a speech which he is having printed. Mrs.
Talbott was lying on the bed with her head toward the
foot. Albert was sitting by the table on the north side
of the room, his arm on the window-sill. The Doctor
had taken off his coat and was sitting on the bed when
the fatal shot was fired. The testimony of Mrs. Talbott
and Albert will give full particulars of the shooting, with
their version of the affair. -
WEST.
ic :
: B. : :
: W
A :
si,
É i:
% : " i: -
: T :
D ; :
: - W’
: D
EAST.
The above is a diagram representing the room in which Dr.
Talbott was shot. It is a room about sixteen feet square, fronting to
-


7 -
the west, and which was used by Dr. Talbott and his wife as a sleep-
ing-room, and by the family as a sitting-room.
A_Is the bed with the head againt the wall.
D–Door.
W_Windows.
T_A table where the Doctor was accustomed to write, and on
which a lamp was burning.
S_Is where his son Albert was sitting with his right arm resting on
*the window, through which the fatal shot was fired.
B–Is the position of Dr. Talbott—in a sitting posture on the side
of the bed. - -
C–Is where the bullet struck the wall after passing through Dr.
Talbott’s body.
E–In this corner were two loaded shotguns, one of which was
seized by Albert when he ran out to discover the assassin.
The door on the south side leads into a hall, which runs through
the center of the house.
Mrs. Talbott was lying down, with her head at the foot of the bed.
The Doctor was struck in the right breast, the ball
passing clear through him, drawing blood on the calf of
the leg of his wife, and striking in the plastering. The
ball is a large, conical one, weighing an ounce and a half,
being full large enough to be shot out of a shotgun.
He had his hand up to his breast when the ball struck
him and his thumb and middle finger was shot off. His
wound was indeed, a fearful one. To most men it would
have meant almost instant death, but the iron will of the
Doctor sustained him until two o'clock the following after-
noon, when he felt his end approaching. His family were
called around him, and he took each by the hand and
bade one and all a sad farewell. At two and a half
o'clock P. M. his eyes closed in death, and all was over.
Hearing of the tragedy early Sunday morning, we
drove out to the Doctor's residence, reaching it about
eleven o'clock A. M. We found him in a dingy room,
the diagram of which has just been given. It was a
most uninviting looking place. The floor was bare, the
bed poor, the windows covered with tread-bare curtains,
and everything about the room bore the looks of poverty
and decay. He was very weak from loss of blood, but
his mind seemed perfectly clear. He was the same Dr.
Talbott as in health. His iron will showed itself in every
action, his ruling passion in every word. The cold, cruel
hand of Death could not divert his mind from that which

8
-
had been its goal for years. Reaching forth his hand as
as calmly as if he were going on a journey for a day, he
exclaimed: “I am glad to see you. Speak well of me
when I am gone; I would do as much for you.” “Oh
God!” he groaned, “this is terrible. Shot down like a
dog in my own house Abraham Lincoln was assassi.
nated because he dared to free a race, I, because I dared
to speak against the money power of the land.”
“Doctor,” we asked, “do you have any idea who did this
this terrible crime 2'' He shook his head sadly, and said:
“No, I have none. I have no enemies that I know of who
would do such a deed. I sometimes think my opposition
to national banks has so aroused and alarmed the bankers
that they have sent a secret agent here to assassinate
me. Just think," he added with a glow of pride. “I
was ready to publish a book which would have revolu-
tionized the whole system of finance. Last week I was
in correspondence with a candidate, [Chambers—ED.]
for the Vice Presidency of the United States, and now,
here I am shot down in the midst of my family by some
cursed assassin. My life's work cut short, O, 'tis hard
'Tis hard " and he groaned in anguish of spirit and
turned away his head. -
This was the only time we saw him express any
emotion. He bore his sufferings without complaint. As
far as we know, not a word of the future escaped him.
When Sheriff Toel found the bullet, and it was shown
him, he quietly remarked: “That means death.” But
he struggled manfully against it to the end, and only
yielded to the grim monster at the last moment.
After his death a Coroner's jury was summoned and
the following testimony of Mrs. Talbott and Albert threw
all the light on the homicide which is known at present:
TESTIMONY OF MRS. TALBOTT.
My name is Belle Talbott, I am wife of deceased; am forty-seven
years of age. On the night of the homicide, the deceased, myself, and
my oldest son, Albert Perry Talbott, were in the room, where the Doctor
was shot. In the room immediately above us on the second floor,
Jennie and Angie Talbott, aged respectively eleven and thirteen years.
-
9
and John Talbott and Cicero Talbot, aged ten and eight years, were all
sleeping. In room over the kitchen on second floor, Charles Edward
Talbott, aged sixteen years, and William Wallace Talbott, aged fourteen
years, and Henry Wyatt, a work hand, were sleeping. That is all that
were about the house. Henry Wyatt, Cicero, and John had been at
home all day. The rest of the family had been at the Fair. I got home
about dark from the Fair. All the family were at home when I got there.
The Doctor had just got there. He had eaten his supper and came
out to the gate and met me. He told me he was going to Whit
Leighty's to see a sick child. I had come home on the train.
The Doctor had come home with the children in the buggy. I
got off the train at Arkoe, and walked up part of the way, when
my son William met me with the buggy. When I met the Doctor,
as before stated, it was beginning to get a little dark. It was about half-
past eight when he came home again. When he came home, he went
into the north room below, and asked Bud, (Albert), to take his mule
to the pasture, which Bud at once did. From the front gate to the
pasture is about 300 yards. Bud returned in about fifteen minutes,
and came into the room where the Doctor and I were. The Doctor
had gone to the drawer and was reading the copyright for a book he
had written, and was talking about it while Bud was gone. He had
put it up before Bud came back; but when Bud came in, the Doctor
took it out again and gave it to Bud. Bud sat down by northwest
window to read it. The Doctor then walked to the south part of the
room and sat down on the north side of the bed in front of me. I, at
that time, was lying on the bed with my clothes on, my feet to the head
of the bed. The Doctor was talking about this writing of his. He was
in his shirt sleeves, and was facing the northwest window, the window
where Bud was sitting. I saw him place his right hand up to his breast,
and I think he was moving his shirt when I heard the loud report of a
gun. I saw no flash. I had my face west with the side toward the
window. The Doctor leaned and started forward, and cried: “My
God, Belle, I’m shot. Some assassin has been sent here to shoot me.”
I jumped from the bed and caught hold of him. He was about half
way from where he sat when he was shot and the northeast corner of
the room when I caught him. He still had his hand up where he was
wounded and was in a bent condition. Bud at that time ran around in
front of the Doctor, and ran to get the shotgun which was in the south-
east corner of the house. The Doctor had not, up to that time, spoken
to Bud; but as Bud ran for the gun the Doctor said, “take my revolver,
too.” After this, as I swung the Doctor around to get him onto the
bed, he said: “Get me on the bed as quick as you can.” Bud assisted
me with the Doctor back to the bed, and then took the shot gun and
went out. Bud went south into the hall. I heard two shots out of
doors south of the house after Bud went out. Bud was out but a short
time until he came in. I saw no one out of doors at any time. It was
perfectly light, or good moonlight, the night of the homicide. One could
see all objects around them when out that night. No one of the family,
but Bud, saw any one. I don’t know that I can think of any one at
outs with the Doctor. Don't know of his having any difficulty with any
one lately. Had not heard him speak of any difficulty of any kind. On


IO
the night of the homicide, as soon as Bud came in and sat down the
gun, I sent him after the neighbors, and sent Wyatt after the Doctor.
There are two shot guns and four revolvers about the house that belong
to the family. That is all the firearms that I know of.
TESTIMONY OF ALBERT TALBOTT.
My age is twenty-one years. I was at home the night of the
homicide. Had been at the Fair that day, and got home about half-
past eight o'clock. All of the family were at home when I got home,
except the Doctor, (my father.) I learned he was down to see Leighty’s
child. I remained at home after I got home. The Doctor came home
about fifteen minutes before nine. The boys were all asleep up-stairs.
I and Ma were in the north room below. The Doctor came into the
room, walked across it, and pulled off his coat, and hung it up on east
side of the room. He did not speak to me about putting up his mule,
but I staid up for that purpose. I went out, put away the mule and
come back carrying a saddle, at which time pa was standing on the
walk just in front of the house. He walked back into the hall, and, I
think, went into the parlor, for he was standing in the parlor door as I
came in at the west door with the saddle. There was no light in the
parlor at that time. I put the saddle down at the east end of the hall,
and then went into the north room, and sat down between the table and
northwest window. The Doctor soon came into the room after I had
been there. Ma was lying on the bed in the north room when I went
into it, after laying down the saddle. I don’t know what the Doctor
was doing in parlor door. After he came into the north room, he walked
up to the drawer and took out a day-book and gave me an envelope,
and said that it contained a copyright for a book he had written. He
then went back to the bed, and sat down and was talking to ma. I was
reading the letter. After I had read it, the Doctor got up and pulled
off his coat, vest, and hat, and hung them upon the bureau at the west
end of the room. He then sat down on the side of the bed and pulled
off his shoes. I was at that moment putting the copyright in the
envelope when I heard a gun crack. The gun was shot off at the right
side of me. My right elbow was resting on the window. I did not see
the flash, but I saw and smelt the smoke. It came into the room. I
heard the glass fly. The Doctor raised up and started toward me, say-
ing: “I’m shot.” He took hold of my shoulder. I took hold of him,
and he wheeled over towards the southeast corner of the room to where
the guns were, and caught hold of a gun which fell down as he pulled
at it. I saw he was going to fall, and threw out my knee and caught
him. While in this position I reached and caught the gun.
I raised pa up and let loose of him. The last I saw of
him just then, he was staggering towards the bed. I think ma
had hold of him. I went to open the south door, but failed the first
time. Made another grab and opened it, and went out into the hall. I
heard some one jump onto the walk in front of the house. I ran out at
the west door and looked south, and saw a man running south through

II.
the yard. I ran southwest some eighteen or twenty feet, and fired at the
man who was running off. I did not see any gun, if the man had one.
I only fired one shot. I am sure of that. There was but one load in
the gun, a load of goose shot. I was standing southwest of the house,
and shot directly south of me. I made examination next day for the
tracks of the man, but found none. I think the man was of medium
size, wore dark clothes and had on a black hat. Until he got out of
sight, he was running at full speed in a southeast direction. The orchard
is sodded with timothy meadow. The land south of the orchard fence is
sown in rye, and was broken up about three or four weeks ago. The land
east of the orchard is wheat stubble. A few minutes after the shooting
George Wyatt and I went down through the orchard to see if I had hit
him, but could find no trace. That was all the search that night. Some
five or ten minutes after the shooting I went to Arkoe, which was in the
same direction the man had ran. I waked up Mr. Turner and told him
what had happened. I knew at that time he was shot through and
through, for ma had shown me where the ball had grazed her leg. I
also went to Mr. Wilson and told him about it. I did not tell them
about the man's running through the orchard. I simply told him pa was
shot. I never thought of arousing the people to search for the man. I
did not think it was necessary. I thought the man I shot at was the
man who shot father. Inever thought at any time during the night about
having search instituted for the man.
In accordance with the above testimony, the jury
returned a verdict that Dr. Talbott had been assassinated
by some unknown person. -
But this verdict satisfied no one. From the very
first suspicion rested on the family.
While Dr. Talbott lay dying, men walked about with
knitted brows and talked in guarded whispers.
The ball which had passed through the murdered
man plainly showed it was of rough manufacture,
nad that the rifles on it had been marked with a
knife. - -
The actions of the family were also very strange.
There had been no effort made to arouse the neighbors
or to pursue the assassin. Even while the Doctor lay
dying, the family seemed almost unconcerned. It seemed
to us that a dying animal in the barn-yard should have
created more sympathy than was shown this murdered
husband and father. The whole family appeared devoid
of human sympathy or family affection.
No wonder suspicion was aroused No wonder
men conversed with bated breath and regarded the family
with looks of horror | No wonder dark threats were

I 2
heard of stringing Albert up to a limb to extort a con-
fession
The Sheriff of the county, Henry Toel, and the
Prosecuting Attorney, the Hon. W. W. Ramsey, were
indefatigable in their exertions to discover a clew as to
who did the deed; but the inquest had to close without
any definite result.
But the case was not allowed to slumber. Promi-
nent citizens lent their aid and means in ferreting out
the mystery of the murder. The Sheriff rested not, but
at once set secret forces at work.
In the meantime strange rumors began to arise
from the Talbottmansion. The house, the family claimed,
had been attacked by armed men; an entrance had been
forced through the door; a battle had been fought;
revolvers and shotguns had been emptied at short range;
but a bullet-hole through Albert's coat was the only
result shown. After this strange affair, shooting was of
almost nightly occurrence around the house. The family
claimed that some one was hungering and thirsting for
their blood; and reported to the Sheriff, who offered
protection, but it was refused. All these things caused
suspicion to point the finger still more strongly at them.
At this juncture, a detective from Kansas, by the
name of Jonas V. Brighton, appeared on the scene. He
reported to E. M. Trueblood, Marshal of the city of
Maryville, and to the Hon. A. P. Morehouse. Brighton
took the name of Hudson, and, like Jacob, passed his
wife off as his sister. Through the aid of a few promi-
nent citizens of the neighborhood, Brighton became
acquainted with the Talbott boys. Their acquaintance
rapidly ripened into intimacy, and he soon had the entire
confidence of the boys. To help the matter along, Albert
took a great liking for the sister.
Brighton at last revealed to them that his real pro-
ſession was that of a robber, and broached the subject of
a partnership. To this the boys readily assented, and
the following contract was drawn up and signed :
Monday, October 25, 1886–We this day of the Lord eighteene
hundred and eighty, go in contract together, Albert P. Talbott, Charles
E. Talbott, Wilfred Mitchell, Frank B. Hudson, for the purpose of bank

|
I 3
robbing, train robbin, and staig robbin and safe and each one shall be
sworn into the same to stay together until death in every attempt to
obtain buty, and in case any of one betrays us of our men deth is his
portion at any time the first train are bank is robed any one in the
hond can resine if he chooses and if he does resine he must keep al
secrets to himself or he shall be killed and their must be a equal division
of the bouty and before any train is robed or anything is dun there is
one traitor in the band that must be killed before we can proceed fother.
(Signed) Jennie Hudson
2nd Wilfred Mitchell
1st Albert P. Talbott
2nd C E Talbott
1st Frank B Hudson.
The boys soon confided to Brighton the whole story
of how they had murdered their father, and wanted him
to put Wyatt out of the way, which he agreed to do.
- In the meantime, the Sheriff had obtained through
Wilfred Mitchell and Whit. Leighty, evidence enough,
independent of Brighton and his wife, to warrant an
arrest. A warrant was sworn out by Brighton before
Stephen Morehouse, Justice of the Peace, and placed in
the hands of the Sheriff. This officer, assisted by Wm.
Toel, Hosea Torrance and Nicholas Jones, made the
arrest of the two boys, Mrs. Talbott and the hired man
Henry Wyatt. The parties offered no opposition, al-
though from Albert there were taken two revolvers and
a bowie knife, and from Charles a revolver.
The prisoners were brought to Maryville, and a pre-
liminary examination held, which resulted in Albert,
Charles and Henry Wyatt being bound over to answer
a charge of murder in the first degree, while Mrs. Talbott
was held in a bond of $1,000 as being accessory.
The Circuit Court of Nodaway county convened on
Monday, Nov. – The Grand Jury returned a true
bill against Albert, Charles and Henry Wyatt, but ac-
quitted Mrs. Talbott. A special term of court was
ordered to convene on Jan. 13th, 1881, for the trial of the
boys and Henry Wyatt. The prisoners were then con-
veyed to the Andrew county jail for safe keeping.
Here, on the evening of Nov. 6th, they made a
desperate attempt to kill or disable the Sheriff, W. Starr,
and thus effect their escape. A terrible blow was aimed
at the Sheriff as he entered the cell, but fortunately the

I4
end of the club struck the door casing, and jumping back
he saved himself.
The 13th day of January arrived and court convened.
The first motion filed by the defense caused a buzz of
surprise to run through the court room. It was that
Judge Henry S. Kelly should retire from the bench and
appoint a special judge for the occasion. Judge Kelly
immediately granted the motion and appointed Judge
John C. Howell of the 28th judicial district special judge
for the occasion, and adjourned court until the following
Monday.
On the day appointed, at two o'clock P. M., court
again convened with Judge Howell on the bench.
Prosecuting Attorney W. W. Ramsey, announced the
State ready for trial. At 3:30 the defendants entered the
court room accompanied by their mother, and through
their attorney, Hon. Lafe Dawson, announced themselves
ready for trial. Here Albert arose and handed the
judge a communication. It was to the effect that Lafe
Dawson, T. J. Johnston and M. G. Moran only, were
authorized to appear as their attorneys. The Sheriff was
then ordered to summon one hundred men from which
to choose a jury, and court adjourned until Wednesday
In OOn.
CHAPTER III.
THE TRIAL.
We will pass rapidly over the preliminary work of
the trial, as it possesses little of general interest to the
reader. Owing to the unsafe condition of the Court
House, the trial was adjourned to Union Hall, a room
capable of holding seven or eight hundred people. But

: IS
little trouble was experienced in getting a jury, as most
of the one hundred summoned for that purpose were
from the most remote parts of the county, and knew but
little of the case.
It was an eager, excited crowd that thronged the
hall on the afternoon of January 22d. The great trial
was about to begin in earnest. Judge Howell sat on the
bench, ready to enforce the majesty of the law. His
Honor is a fine, benevolent looking man, and has already.
created a very favorable impression by his quiet and dig-
nified manner. A few words concerning him will be of
interest: -
John C. Howell was born in Morgan county, Illinois,
in 1833, and is, therefore, forty-seven years of age. When
he was three years old his parents removed to Clinton
county, and Judge Howell has ever since been a citizen
of this State. His parents subsequently moved to Gen-
try county. Mr. Howell entered Bethany college, W.
Va., and graduated from the law department of that
institution in 1856. He commenced the practice of his
profession at Bethany, Harrison county, in 1865, and has
ever since been a resident of that place. He soon took
a position among the leading attorneys of his district, and
in November, 1880, was elected Circuit Judge. He is
very popular wherever known, and has the reputation of
being a man of incorruptible morals.
Order is called and the vast audience sinks into
silence. The jury is commanded to stand up and receive
their solemn charge. On these twelve men hang the fate
of two fellow beings. They are the central figures in
the great trial. They are greater than judge or council.
From them will come the verdict: “Guilty,” or “Not
Guilty.” The following are the names, occupations, and
ages of the twelve:
Geo. Barks is a farmer. He is forty-six years of age; was born
in Indiana, and has resided in Missouri for seven years.
Chas. Boyd is another farmer. He was born in Illinois; has been
in Missouri four years, and is twenty-four years of age.
Ira P. Dillon is a carpenter by trade; is twenty-five years of age,
and has been in Missouri only fifteen months, having come here from
Kansas.

16.
Chas. P. Shroyer is a farmer. He is thirty-seven years of age;
has been in Missouri seven years, and was born in Illinois.
Sam Comegys is forty-seven years of age; has resided in Missouri
seven years; is a farmer by profession; was born in Ohio. -
Samuel Cooksey is a farmer; is thirty-seven years of age; has been
in Missouri five years; came here from Iowa. -
Thomas Graves is a farmer; is forty-nine years of age; came here
from Illinois and has been here only six months.
Oscar M. Crain is thirty-three years of age; has resided here
twelve years; came from Illinois. - -
Chas. Austin is a farmer; is forty years of age; has resided in
Missouri for two years; formerly came from Illinois. -
J. C. Archer is a farmer ; is thirty-two years of age; has resided in
Missouri four years; came from West Virginia. -
John E. Porch is a farmer; is fifty-four years of age; has resided
in Missouri for three years; came here from Iowa.
Alexander Gray is a farmer and merchant; is forty-five years of
age; has resided in Missouri twenty-three years; was born in Indiana.
From the above it will be seen that not a single member of the
jury was born in Missouri; the oldest resident of the State being Alex.
Gray, who has resided here twenty-three years, and the newest comer
being Thomas Graves, who has been a Missourian only six months.
The patriarch of the jury is John E. Porch, who is fifty-four, and
the youngest man on the jury is Charles Boyd, aged twenty-four years.
The center of attraction for all eyes were the two
young men about to be placed on trial for the most
dreadful of all crimes, fratricide. The accused were
seated in front and to the right of the judge. Near
them sat their mother, aunt, and two sisters. Albert, the
eldest, was neatly dressed, had his hair parted in the mid-
dle, and presented quite a gentlemanly appearance. He
is rather thick-set; has a fair complexion, eyes blue or
ray. He is by no means a bad looking young man.
Charles is but a youth, being only sixteen years of age,
but has the appearance of being at least three years older
than that. He is taller and more slenderly built than his
brother. His face is long, has rather high cheekbones,
nose slightly Roman, and a determined look. He sits
with his eyes cast down, and seems perfectly indifferent
to every thing passing around him.
During the statement of the case the boys mani-
fested more interest than they had ever shown before.
Mrs. Talbott sat and listened quietly, while the aunt, Mrs.

I7
West, showed more emotion than any of the rest. After
Mr. Ramsey had finished his statement, the Hon. Scott
K. Snively was called as the first witness for the State.
TESTIMONY OF MIR. S. K. SNIVELY.
I live six miles south of Maryville. Have been acquainted with
Dr. Talbott about 16 years. Was acquainted with his family. There
was Dr. P. H., Mrs. Belle, Miss Oliva, Iontha, Thomas Albert and
Charles Edward, the defendants, Miss Jennie, and a boy called Tump.
Was acquainted with the premises. The house has a story and a half
building fronting west upon the road. The front door leads into the
hall and up stairs, and to the south into the parlor, and north into
another room. There is also a back door in the east end of the hall
leading into the back yard. The “L” of the house is east of the north
room. On the east side of the north room there is a chimney corner,
and on the north and west sides there are in each two windows. There
is a space between the two north windows of about four feet, and about
the same between the two west windows. The house is located upon
level ground. On the north of the house there is a grove, and a row of
maple trees on the west and east, with an orchard on the east. The
trees in the orchard are planted at the ordinary distance apart. On the
east is a field, on the north feed lots, and north of this is a corn field.
East is a stubble field. The Dr.’s residence is about 7-8 of a mile west
of the One-Hundred-and-Two river. The farm extends south about 1-4
of a mile; the territory west is a cultivated field in corn; northwest is
brush and timber; about 1 1-4 miles south is cultivated land for about a
half of a mile; the ground south and west of the house was partly
plowed, except near the orchard there were tall weeds, and a row of
willow trees; In front of the house across the road is a row of stock
sheds; there is but one road running from north to south past the
house; in going from the house to Arkoe, one would angle across the
field and go south one-fourth of a mile, and east three-fourths
of a mile. I was in Maryville during the fair last fall; was
in Northcutt saloon when I heard of the homicide; went to
the livery stable and got my team and went down to Doc's place; we
got there at about 12 o'clock; it was moonlight in the fore part of the
night, but rained before we got there; It was cloudy when we started to
go; I saw the Doctor in his bed in the northwest room; he was covered
with blood; We examined the window light through which we were told
that the Doctor was shot; the lower corner window pane was broken :
a portion of the glass was left in the sash, in a zigzag manner, aver-
aging about four inches in length; I examined the curtains; they were
down, they were a common kind, and had been in use a long time. I
examined the exterior of the house and thought that I would have had
to tip toe to shoot in the range there indicated. I found the bullet in
the wall opposite; I talked with Albert, who said he was sitting by the
window, resting his arm on the sill, reading a letter, when he heard an
explosion, and supposed the lamp had exploded; he saw his father
2

18 -
jump, and say, Belle I am shot; that he jumped and grabbed his father,
and then caught a gun and ran out of the back door, around the corner
of the house; and saw a man running, and that he shot at him, but
does not know whether he hit him or not; he said all the other members
of the family were in bed; that when he came back into the house his
father was lying in the bed. I afterwards had a conversation with him,
in which I asked if his mother would permit us to examine the well to
see if there was a gun there; he said she would. I afterwards examined
the premises north of the house and found a blank cartridge lying
there; something like the one presented ; saw fire arms in the
house the next morning; one was a No. 12 shot gun, the other
a breech loading shot gun. Ed. Rapalje was with me when I
examined the premises, he went with us from town to the
Doctor's farm; noticed that the curtain hung down over the broken
pane, and there was a hole about three inches lower than the hole in
the glass; there were no holes in the curtain over the glass. The next
day when we got there, the hole had changed and become larger and
larger; when I first saw it, it was almost square. I remained with the
Dr. till midnight when we went to the telegraph office and came back to
the house; I afterwards formed the acquaintance of one Brighton at
Mrs. Talbott’s residence about days afterward while I was ap-
praising property; I was in this same room taking a list of notes when
some one came and told me there was a man who wanted to see me;
I went out and found him in the kitchen ; I afterwards saw him in the
neighborhood; he moved into one of my vacant tenant houses; while
in defendant's presence he said he heard I had a house to rent; and come
over to see if I would rent it; I said if he would work I would rent it
to him, and he said he was starved out of Kansas and had to work. I
afterwards formed the acquaintance of Mrs. Brighton; I afterwards saw
Brighton in town; I came in to haul his trunks out to the house; I
found no fresh shot marks on the trees south of the house; I made the
examination where Albert said he had fired the shot and found no marks;
when I came back the broken window pane was all gone.
[The cross-examination elicited no other material facts.]
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM SMITH.
I live 7 miles south of Maryville; have lived here 7 years; was
acquainted with the defendants; have known them 7 years; have lived
where I now live 3 years; I lived first house north one-fourth of a mile
of Dr.’s place on the same side of the road; I lived there two-and-a-
half years; The family did not get along very well together.
[State, if you know what difficulties occurred there? Qbjected to
by Mr. Dawson for the defendants. Objection overruled by the court.]
- Last spring, myself and family were coming home, and as we
come opposite the house I heard a fuss and stopped, and I heard what
I took to be Mrs. T., the two boys, and the Doctor, used expressions
like this: “I will knock your damned brains out: “I’ll cut your
damned heart out;” “I’ll shoot your damned brains out;" I could dis-

19
tinguish their persons, but not their voices; this continued for several
moments when I drove off and left them in a regular family quarrel; I
heard they had difficulties several times prior to that time from their
place to where Ilive one-fourth of a mile; I have heard it on an average
of once in two weeks; I was at the first house this side of where I reside
on the night of the homicide; I did not go down till the next evening,
pretty early; I found the Doctor on his bed; there were other parties
there I observed a broken window of the northwest room ; it was the
northeast pane of the lower part of the window; I don't remember
whether there was any glass in the lower part of the pane or not; all
the glass was out the next night; I was upon the Coroner's jury at the
inquest. - -
[Mr. Ramsay here presents Albert's testimony before the Coro-
ner's jury, and the witness recognized his signature and testimony.]
I, with others, made an examination of the room in which the
Doctor was said to be shot; we took its dimensions; the room was
about fifteen feet wide; we also examined the bedstead; it stood in the
southwest corner of the room ; I saw a bullet hole in the south wall in
the same room; it was about three feet from the floor and not much
above the edge of the bedstead; the pane of glass was somewhat
higher than where the bullet struck; I also examined the wounds in the
Doctor's body and found one on the left breast near the nipple and
was longer up and down than any other way; I also saw one smaller
hole in his back; the one in the breast was the highest up; it was
about three inches higher when the body was erect; one thumb was
also gone—it was a fresh wound, but I do not recollect on which hand
it was ; I saw the corpse placed erect in the bed, and it was about three
feet and a half from the floor to the wound in the breast; the win-
dow was a little higher than the wound in the breast, and the wound in
the back was still lower; the degree of descent was greater from the
body to the wall than from the window to the body; I saw signs of
blood only in the bed; I examined the location on the outside of the
window and found the height to be about one foot higher on the outside
than on the inside of the window; the nearest way from the window to
the front walk would be via the northwest corner of the house; I
examined the trees around the house, but found no fresh shot marks;
saw a bullet that was said to be taken out of the wall.
[Mr. Smith withstood a severe cross-fire, but no new facts were
brought out...]
TESTIMONY OF A. P. MOREHOUSE.
Was acquainted with Dr. Talbott, and somewhat acquainted with
his family; I was at the fair the day and at Dr. Talbott’s the evening
of the homicide. My impression is that from two-thirds to one-half of
the upper part of the window-pane was taken out; I noticed the curtain;
it was common window-curtain stuff, probably calico—at least some
kind of calico; there was one hole through it from three-fourths to one inch
long and about three inches in length. In looking through the window

2O
where the glass was broken, I could not see through the curtain from
the fact that the hole in the curtain was the lowest; I stood close to the
window and several distances from it in various directions; in looking
through the curtain I could only tell whether a body in the room was a
woman or a man; the piece that was torn out of the curtain I think was
hanging down. My impression is that there was broken glass on the
east side of the window. I left the place between eight and nine
o'clock next morning.
TESTIMONY OF w G, TURNER.
Was acquainted with the doctor; am acquainted with his family;
I lived about three-fourths of a mile from his house; was at home the
night of the 18th of September, and at Dr. Talbott’s on the early morn-
ing of the 19th ; I heard of the shooting at first about 11 o'clock, but
not positively till the morning of the 19th. I afterwards said that Albert
first told me; he came in front of the house and halloed for some wine,
brandy or spirits. I asked what he wanted with it, and he said “Pap is
shot”; I asked how he got shot and he said “through the window,”
and I said I had no spirits, and he went off; I afterwards learned it
was Albert; I thought it was some other young man at the time; have
been intimately acquainted with the family for some time; I went to the
doctor's residence about three hours before day; I found the doctor in
bed; I examined the window and found some glass on the outside and
a portion in the inside; there was about half of the lower part of the
glass in; went with Mr. Snively to the depot, and when we came back
during the day there was no glass at all in the window; I talked with
Bud about it, and he claimed to have seen a man, and I asked him
where he was, and he said he was standing near a dead tree south of
the sidewalk close to the west front door. He said the man was south-
east of the house. Bud said he shot with the double barrel shotgun,
and that it was loaded with duck, goose or buck shot, I have forgotten
which. I examined the trees pretty close for shots, and we could not
find any. We looked for tracks and could not find any, only of those
who had examined prior to us. The ground east of the house had been
sown to rye; it would not have been possible for any one to have passed
over the ground we examined without making tracks that we could see.
I examined the curtain. The hole looked like an old slit with a chunk
torn out; I was not present when the doctor died.
[Cross examined by T. J. Johnston for the defense.]
I got back with Snively about three hours after daylight. I exam-
ined the glass a short time after I got back. The hole in the glass would
be about breast high to me so that I could just about take good aim.
Bud said he thought the man he saw was trying to get the house be-
tween them when he shot. The public road is on the west of the house,
and the whole length of the orchard. Bud said the man was running in
a southeast direction. I think that if a man had run through the orchard
we could have seen his tracks. -
[Here quite an exciting and amusing argument ensued between
the witness and the attorney, about the possibility of seeing tracks on
green sward.]

2I
There were quite a number of people at the doctor's house when
Snively and I returned. The glass on the inside had been swept up into
the fire-place. The curtain was of a greenish cast; it was an old one
and had been worn considerably. The doctor was laying on a low cot-
tage bedstead, which was without rollers. -
º
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE RIDDLE.
I lived about one-fourth mile from Dr. Talbott’s place; I came
there from Kansas on the evening of the 28th of July, was acquainted
with the Docter, and also slightly acquainted with the boys; the evening
of the homicide was cloudy in early evening, and then cleared off and
was moonlight; wife and I had finished supper and was sitting in the
door, when we heard two shots fired towards the south; one was a dull,
heavy report, and the other one clear, as if fired in the opening; they
were about a minute apart; wife and I were not facing the road; at that
time it was clear, so that I could have seen a man fifty or sixty yards off;
we did not hear of the homicide until next morning, when their little boy
came down to get wife to go and assist in getting breakfast; I saw the
Doctor and spoke to him; I saw a broken window pane in the west
window on the north side of the house; I also saw where a bullet had
been in the wall; it was in the southwest corner of the room; I saw that
it had not gone into the studding; I went into the hall, and when I got
out one of the boys had sawed off some laths, and I felt around and
found the ball which you have. This was between 9 and ſo o'clock A.
M. I got acquainted with the sheriff that day. I showed the ball to a
number of men then and to the doctor.
[Cross examined by Lafe Dawson.]
I got home from the fair just at dark; I heard the shots fired at
about 8:30 or 9 o'clock in the evening; I did not see any one pass
by my place on that evening that I remember.
TESTIMONY OF ED. C. RAPALJE.
I was living in Maryville at the time of the homicide; was
acquainted with the doctor and slightly acquainted with his family; was
opposite Costlow’s livery stable when I heard of it, which was about to
o'clock at night; went with Frank Holmes to the doctor's house; got
there about 12 o'clock; examined the window and found the glass all
around the edge of the pane; it was broken nearer the top and there
was about half of the glass broken out; think the hole was about as
high as my shoulder; examined the curtain; it was a worn cloth curtain.
In looking through the hole in the glass the curtain was solid. There
was a hole below and to the right of the hole; the curtains were rolled
and pinned up afterwards; there were particles of broken glass on the
outside and on the inside; the greater portion was on the outside; that
which I saw on the inside was on the sill; saw S. K. Snively; went out

-
22 -
with him and looked for tracks and shot marks. Bud said he shot at a
man. Mr. Snively called my attention to a blank cartridge which I went
back and looked at. -
[Examining the one presented.]
This is like the one we found; I gave it to you I believe; do not
know whether the Sheriff or Dr. Campbell was present; only examined
the wound on his hand; staid till about two o'clock, and was not there
when the doctor died; we stuck a stick in the ground where we found
the cartridge; do not remember what kind of a night it was in the fore
part, but it rained while we were going down.
[Cross examined by Lafe Dawson.]
We had been there about an hour before we began to examine
the premises.
After the examination of this witness, courtadjourned
over until Monday. All day Sunday, nothing was thought
of or talked of but the Great Trial. So far the prosecu-
tion had only sent skirmishers to the front, so to speak.
What was in reserve 2
Judge Howell opened court promptly at 8 o'clock
Monday morning, and early as was the hour, the hall was
filled with an eager audience. Henry Toel, the Sheriff
of Nodaway county, was the first witness called to the
stand.
TESTIMONY OF HENRY TOEL.
I was acting as sheriff of Nodaway county last September, and
was acquainted with Dr. P. H. Talbott. He was living on his farm,
seven miles south of Maryville, and was occupied in running a news-
paper here in town, and practicing medicine; was only slightly acquaint-
ed with Chas. E. and Albert P. at the time of the homicide; was on my
way home when I heard of it, when I got a team and went down there,
where I found several persons assembled; saw the Dr. lying on a bed;
examined the window through which he was said to be shot; the glass
was all knocked out of the east lower corner of the window pane, ex-
cept about three inches on the lower part of the pane; I then went out
doors and the curtain was down so that I could not see through the hole
in the glass and in the curtain; the hole in the curtain was below and to
one side of that in the glass. If any substance should go through the
hole in the glass and in the curtain on a direct line it would go into the
floor; there was a light in the room, but I could not recognize who was
sitting on the bed, but could see that some person was sitting there;
went back from the window at different distances, and could still see the
form but could not distinguish who were inside. I examined for powder
burns the next morning, but found none; found glass on the outside
and inside of the room. The larger part was on the ground; also found

23
a ball hole on the south side of the room in the wall; examined the
ground on the outside of the room, and took a sight through the hole
in the window to the hole in the wall, and at about six feet from the
house there stood a peach tree about six feet high, and it was in a
straight line from the hole in the wall and the hole in the window; did
not measure the distance; to get out of range of the tree and in range
with the holes spoken of would be hardly possible; I came home at
day-break, and then went back; went into the room and ran my knife
through the hole into the siding, then went on the outside and took a
saw and commenced to saw, and Mr. Riddle sawed clear down, so that
we finally found the ball.
[Witness identifies the ball presented by Mr. Ramsey];
The ball has been in my possession ever since. There were two double
barreled shot-guns standing in the house then.
[He here identified the gun handed him by Mr. Ramsey.]
I did not bring the gun from there, but my deputy did, and I
think it is the same; I am told that it is usually loaded with a cartridge;
the gun was standing in the southeast part of the room near the fire-
place; I had a talk with Bud, and he said he had caught his father and
laid him on the bed, and took the gun and rushed out into the yard and
saw a man run who was going in a southeast direction, he said the gun
was loaded with goose shot; the next morning several of us went close
around the premises and made no discoveries at all; when going out in
the evening it rained a little; am acquainted with W. S. Leighty and
Milford Mitchell; was acquainted with Mitchell before the arrest, and
knew he was staying about Talbott's at the time of the arrest for
about three or four weeks; made the arrest of Bud, and my deputy
took charge of Ed. ; it was in the morning before breakfast and after
daybreak; they were in the wood; his brother was in the yard, and
asked him to call Bud out; took a navy revolver away from him.
[Here several witnesses were sworn and placed under the rule
of the Court.]
Also took a revolver and a dirk knife; the revolver was a five
shooter “bull-dog,” of 38 calibre; they were all loaded; the blade of
the knife was about six inches long; the navy was about a six shooter;
(I think, but am not certain); Edward had weapons upon him; I
have had charge of the weapons ever since; the defendants have been
in my custody and the custody of the Sheriff of Andrew county ever
Slnce. -
[Ramsay here asked what conversation the witness had had with
the defendants about the shooting, subsequent to the homicide, which
was objected to by Mr. Johnston for the defense. After hearing the
argument of court, the court ruled that the evidence was admissable.]
I have been investigating as to who was the probable assassin of
Dr. Talbott; had a conversation with Bud one Wednesday morning, in
which he told me there had been parties there shooting at them ; he
said there were two parties there, and that the shooting commenced
below, and they came upstairs and he shot at them; the next time there
were three men; had come into his room upstairs, and that they shot at

24
him and he fired at them until they jumped out of the window; that
Henry Wyatt stationed himself under the stairway, and when the shoot-
ing began upstairs they were also shooting down stairs; he said no one
had spoken a word; he shot with revolvers; no one was injured, but he
said the first time one bullet went through his coat; I heard no other
shooting about the premises from the boys; have not been at the build-
ing since that time. -
[The cross-examination elicited nothing new, except that Bud
told him that he thought he recognized one of the parties who made
the attack on the house after the homicide, and that it was Jo. Mercer.]
W. G. TURNER RECALLED.
Heard of some shooting at the residence of Dr. Talbott, after the
homicide:
[Objected to by the defense; objection over-ruled by the court.
Went to the house about ten days after the grand rally at shoot-
ing; Bud was in the yard; asked him what the hell was up to-day and
he threw open his coat and showed me two spots that might have been
shot marks; asked him where his mother was; he said upstairs: went
in and upstairs; Bud come up directly; he said the shooting was down
and upstairs; they showed me bullet marks, in the house and through
the upper panel of the outside door, which appeared to have been shot
from the inside; also saw one shot through the porch that looked as if
it had been shot from the window of the room in which Mrs. Talbott
then was ; the hole was possibly half of or an inch in diameter; they
said Wyatt shot with a revolver; there are two rooms upstairs, with
a hall between them ; in the hall above the front door there were marks
which presented the appearance of having been shot from the outside;
they entered the plastering from the outside, judging from the appearance;
they were larger than the one in the door; there were three or four of
them; they also showed one hole in the room hear Mrs. Talbott’s bed,
that had the appearance of being shot from the inside; they let on to
me as if the men got in at the windows; there are two of them about 12
feet from the ground, and when they got in commenced firing in every
direction; do not remem- ber whether they said there were three, or
four men; think they said the shooting was done between 9 and Io.
o'clock at night; Bud said he had shot the men—in fact he had shot
himself out of ammunition.
[Objections by Moran, not recognized by the court on account of
not being properly made.] -
They did not claim to identify any of the parties; they seemed to
think their object was to kill the whole family; I saw no way that any
one could get into the room without a ladder; they spoke of being up.
two nights, and that they saw men in the yard.
TESTIMONY OF EMILY J. SMITH.
I am the wife of William Smith; am acquainted with the Talbott
family; we resided about a quarter of a mile north of the Doctor's at

25
the time of the homicide; we now live about two miles from their place;
know there was right smart of a noise in the house as if some one was
in trouble; it was last spring, when we were going home from Bridge-
water; it was after dark a little while; myself and husband were in the
wagon; I saw a light in the room and several persons, but could not
tell how many there were; the noise sounded as if they were quarreling,
and the language used was very rough; could not swear whether the
defendants were there or not; my husband stopped the wagon after we
had passed the house a little to hear what was going on; we could see
them moving around pretty pert, as if something was wrong.
[This testimony objected to by Mr. Moran, as not identifying
the parties. Objection sustained. Witness dismissed without further
examination.]
TESTIMONY OF W. SMITH, No. 2.
I live one-and-one-half miles east of Arkoe, Mo.; was acquainted
with Dr. Talbott and am acquainted with his sons. Last December
one year ago– -
[Objection by Mr. Moran, on account of remoteness; after con-
siderable cross-fire from the attorneys, the objection was overruled.]
About the 14th day of December, 1879, I went to Dr. Talbott's
after him to go to my house; he and I was sitting by the fire, when Ed.
came in and Doc. said: “Don’t you know better than that how to feed
cattle " a part being where he fed, and the balance one-half mile away.
Ed. said: “God damn your old soul, I don’t want any of your jaw,”
when Doc. got up and knocked him down. Doc. said that if he could
not do better than that he could leave; he had better give him ten
dollars to leave with than to have him setting an example for the small
children. Ed, said: “God damn your old soul, give me the ten dollars
and I will leave, you damn son of a bitch.” Afterwards a hired man
said to me: “ Ed. and old Doc. had a fight.” I said I was there, when
Ed spoke up and said: “If I had a revolver I would have shot him.”
CROSS-EXAMINATION, BY LAFE DAWSON, FOR THE DEFENSE.
I have not spoken to the prosecution before about this fuss;
never saw them have but the one fuss.
TESTIMONY OF S. W. BRIGGS.
I have been in the hardware business about to years, and have
handled firearms; would call this a breech-loading shot-gun; would call
it a ſo bore shot-gun; such shells as the one shown are designed to be
shot in such guns; a ball that would go out of the muzzle of this gun
wóuld have to be a little smaller than the shell; the shells are charged
in about the same manner as a muzzle loading gun is charged.
This testimony was given to show that the ball which
had killed the Doctor could have been fired from the
shell picked up by Mr. Rapalje.
26 -
TESTIMONY OF JOHN P. GRIFFITH.
I live at Bridgewater; have lived there two years; have lived in
the county twenty years; have known the Doctor twenty years; I was
acquainted with defendant Albert one year ago 20th of last September.
[Objected to as too remote; objection overruled, and defend-
ants excepted.] -
I went to Doctor’s to get some seed wheat; he said to Ed.
“Why did not you report to me when you had sown this wheat, and
where it went.” Ed, said he would when he got ready. Doc. said I
didn't want any of your sauce this morning, or I will slap you over.”
Ed. said: “You’ damn son of a bitch, I’m not afraid of you,” and
stuck his hand in his hip pocket. The Doctor looked off and said he
did not want him to be afraid of him; but he wanted him to report
about the wheat that was gone, and Ed, said that he would report, but
that he was not afraid of any damn son of a bitch; I did not know
when Bud was there. -
CROSS ExAMINATION.
The boys have been living at home since that time some of the
time; Ed. was about 17 years old; I have known of no difficulty since
that time; the boy finally pulled out a book to show him where he had
sown the wheat. - - -
TESTIMONY OF SHERMAN SHINNABARGER
My father's name is W. B. Shinnabarger; I am 14 years of age;
have been raised nine miles south of Maryville; have been acquainted
with the doctor, and am acquainted with the defendants, but only slightly
so with Ed. ; I was at the doctor's house about one week before the fair;
went after the doctor; live southwest of there four or five miles; it was
in the afternoon when I was there; saw both of the defendants there;
they were on the walk in front of the house; while there they sent their
younger brother into the house and got that gun; I noticed it because
I had never seen one like it before; saw them shoot a bullet out of the
gun; they shot it at a tree about twenty feet away from them. Bud
shot the gun but did not hit the tree; it hit a rock and then fell to the
ground; they then got the bullet and pounded it back into shape; it was
round one way and longer the other, and tapered toward a point. The
bullet was about the size of this one presented; the bullet was smaller
than the cartridge into which they loaded it; they put some powder in,
then some paper, then the ball, then paper on that, when they put it into
a cartridge. After loading it they put it away in the ammunition box.
Am acquainted with Brighton, but only got acquainted with him a few
days ago; told the teacher and Mr. Toel about seeing this; believe I
also spoke it at home to my father and mother; think it was Wednesday
or Thursday before the fair that this occurred.
[Cross examined by T. J. Johnston for the defense.]
The boys were on the porch when I went there. They
were first loading shells with goose shot. I only saw them
-







27
load a few of them; do not know the name of the boy, he
whom they sent in after the gun; believe it was a maple tree eight
inches through that they fired at; only suppose the bullet struck a rock
because it was battered flat. The bail missed the tree entirely; did not
see the ball before they loaded it into the shell the first time; he also
put a cap on the tube of the shell when they loaded it; after this they
went into the house, and took the gun in with them; had not known
Brighton before the preliminary trial; would not say that this is the ball
that I saw the boys shooting there in the yard, but it is something like it.
Perhaps there was no circumstantial evidence given
during the trial that created a deeper impression than
that of this boy. It showed conclusively that the Talbott
boys had bullets made for the shotgun. This evidence
also went largely to substantiate the story of Wyatt.
-
TESTIMONY OF WHIT LEIGHTY.
*I live one and one half mile south and east of the farm of Dr.
Talbott. Am a man of family; I have lived in that neighborhood for
the past nine years; I saw the doctor on the night of September 18th,
1886. He came to see my sick child; it was near 8 o’clock P. M. when
he came; he stayed about one half hour. He was riding a mule. It
was a very nice moonlight night. I next saw the doctor at his funeral.
I first heard of the shooting on the morning of the 19th of September. I
was well acquainted with the doctor in his life-time; met him frequently;
met the boys frequently. We were always very good friends. I have
had conversations with the defendants about the shooting that was
going on at their house subsequent to the homicide. They told me
that parties were coming about their place at night, shooting.”
[Here counsel for state asked the witness the following question.
“State what conversation, if any you have had with the defendants, or
either of them, since their arrest, concerning the homicide of Doctor
Talbott?”—Defendant's counsel objected to witness answering this
question, and requested the court to send the jury from the court room
while the witness was examined before the court as to such matter.
Whereupon the court ordered the jury to retire, and, in the absence
of the jury the witness was examined touching the subject matter
of interrogatory and stated as follows:]
“I saw the two defendants in the jail, either during, or shortly after
the preliminary trial in this cause. The defendants were in different
cells. Wyatt was also in jail, in a different cell. Mr. Ruhl and some
one else was in the hall of the jail. I don't think the others were close
enough to hear the conversation between Ed and myself—Ed was
talking about what Wyatt had said to the Sheriff. He said Wyatt was
the one who did the shooting, and, that he laid the gun on the walk,
and that Albert went out and got it and fired it off; that he, (Ed), was
upstairs at the time; that after Wyatt ran around and put the gun on
28
*
the walk; that he, (Wyatt), went around and into the kitchen; that the
gun was loaded in both barrels with bullets.”
[Defendant's counsel cross examined this witness upon the con-
versation before the court: witness stated,
“I went into the jail in the afternoon, at or about the time of the
close of the preliminary examination. It was after the witness Brighton
had made his statement on the stand. Montgomery let me into the
jail; I went and got permission of Montgomery; I had no object in
going into the jail in particular; I do not remember which one of us
started the conversation; I do not remember of telling Ed. that Brighton
had told the whole matter; I did not tell him what Sheriff Toel had
sworn to; I was in town during the preliminary trial; I had heard a part
of Brighton's evidence at that trial; I had heard of Sheriff Toel's testify-
ing at such trial; I have been engaged with Mr. Stotts in looking up the
case; I did not talk to Brighton before the trial; I had talked with
Mitchell; I knew that Mitchell at the time had agreed to work in the
cause for a reward; I leased the farm of Mrs. Talbott; I told Mrs. Tal-
bott that I was intending to find out who committed the murder. I
knew that Wyatt had made a confession to Sheriff Toel, and that the
Sheriff had testified to it; I did not tell him it was better for him to
make a confession; we talked about the confession of Wyatt; I did not
commence the conversation by telling Ed. of Wyatt's confession.”
[At the close of this cross-examination, defendant’s counsel re-
newed their objection to such evidence going to the jury. The court
overruled the objection, and defendants excepted, whereupon the
court ordered the return of the jury into court and the witness pro-
ceeded to testify, in the presence of the jury, on direct and cross-ex-
amination substantially as hereinbefore set forth.]
The trial was now at its height of interest. The
next witness to be called was Brighton, the detective.
The hall was a packed mass of humanity. There was
hardly breathing or standing room. How would Brighton
stand the test ? Would he be impeached 2 These were
the questions on every one's lips.
TESTIMONY OF JONAS V. BRIGHTON.
I was not acquainted with Dr. Talbott, but am acquainted with the
defendants; met them at their house on or about the 20th of October;
met Mr. Snively and Mr. Mitchell there; saw Bud in the kitchen of the
house and east at the well; asked him if Mr. Snively was there, and if
he had any houses to rent, and he said he had; had conversations with
them afterward near the well, Albert said his father died about three
weeks before that; asked what was the matter; and he said he had been
shot through the window; knew before I went there that he had been
shot; talked with them about two hours; went to Snively’s house and
afterwards saw Albert here in Maryville on the following Saturday; met


29
him about 11 o'clock,also saw Mitchell here; went with my wife to Snively's
that night; I went by the name of Frank Hudson and my wife as Hud-
son; I moved into a house belonging to Snively. On the next Monday
following I saw Ed at his house and had a conversation with him; he
met me at the door and said he was glad to see me; that his brother
was in town and we are about to be killed; that if I would not give him
away he would tell me all about it. He said, “By God, there has got
to be a man got out of the way.” I asked what he mennt. Ed said that
he was liable to get them into trouble. I asked how was that, that I
could not give them away. He said because he knows all about our killing
our father, that if I would kill him he would give me fifty dollars. Albert
came to my house afterwards and said he came to talk the matter over
with me, that Ed and I were talking about. I asked him what he was
so anxious to have that man killed for, and he said, “because he knows
all about our killing our father; that if I would kill him he would see
that I was paid for it; that (by God) he could kill him himself,but that he
had done so much that he would be arrested at once; that they were
watching him now; that the man had been to town and probably had
told it already. I said I could kill him for the boys. He requested that
I go down and bring Ed and his mule up to my house. Ed came
to my house and we again talked the matter over. There was an instru-
ment drawn up by Albert, and signed by himself, myself and Ed, who
added the name of his uncle, Mr.Mitchell. -
[Witness here identified an article of writing.]
CROSS-EXAMINED
by Lafe Dawson. I came here from Riley county, Kansas; had not
met Mitchell until I saw him the first day on the Talbott farm; went
down there and introduced myself as Hudson to see what I could find
out; had heard of the homicide about three weeks before I came up here.
The city marshal of Manhattan, Kansas, told me of it. I testified
under oath at the preliminary hearing of this case, and my evidence
reduced to writing, read over to me and I signed it. The matters of
which I testified were more fresh in my memory than they are now.
[Mr. Dawson essays to read from that testimony to the witness,
which is objected to by the counsel for the State. After hearing the
argument of the counsel on both sides,the court ruled the evidence admis-
able, as a whole, on such º as may throw light upon the case or as
to what was said at the time the evidence was written. The ruling
as given was here excepted to by the counsel for the defense. Mr.
Dawson here presents a letter and asks if that is in the hand writing of
the witness, who said it was his hand writing.]
I heard of the Doctor's death about the same day that I wrote
this letter. The marshal told me the name of the Doctor. My wife
had been here about eight weeks before I came here; I came without
any solicitation from any one; came after my wife, and for the purpose
of investigating this case if it should pay me anything; have heard of
a reward being offered, but have not seen it in the papers; stopped with
John Baker, at Elmo, and also at Mrs. VanCuren’s, here in town; know
Frank Anderson and Ed. Gurney; don't remember that I said to them.

3O
that if they were indicted I would be fixed; that the Talbott family -
would pay me $10,000 to leave the county: don’t know whether I made
that statement to Anderson or not, as he was perpetually asking me
questions, and was much concerned about me. I told the boys my
name was Hudson, because I did not want them to know I was a de-
tective, for I thought the guilt lay right there. I represented my wife
as my sister; knew my statements were false, but considered I had a
right to ; have been a detective about a year; was appointed by Capt.
Chas. Green. He gave me a written statement.
[The counsel for the defense here asked to see the statement, or
commission, which was handed him by the witness.]
Green was a commissioned detective and resided at Milford,
Kansas, when I received this commission; went from there to Junction
City, and first saw my wife; she came to Milford with me, where we
were married; she had a former husband.
[Question as to whether that husband was living and undivorced,
was objected to by Mr. Ramsay, for the State. Objection was sustained
by the Court. Defendants' counsel excepts.]
I was appointed last March; was farming in Kansas eight or nine
years. Before that I was in the penitentiary for larceny four years.
The admission of the witness that he had been in
the Kansas penitentiary for four years, no doubt had a
damaging effect on his testimony, and the audience were
somewhat disappointed, as it was thought by the public
that almost the entire case rested on Brighton. But the
next testimony, that of Mitchell, proved much more
important than that of Brighton.
TESTIMONY OF WILFORD MITCHELL,
“I was acquainted with Doctor Talbott in his lifetime; had
known him and his family for fourteen years; I was a brother-in-law to
the Doctor; we married sisters; I have lived in this county six years;
I have four children living; two of my children live in this county; I
was at John McFarland's, in Kansas, when I heard of the murder of
Dr. Talbott; I came back to Nodaway county on the 5th day of Octo-
ber; I stopped at Arkoe and went to Mrs. Talbott's ; I saw the
defendants that night; saw all of the family; I spoke to the family
about the death of the Doctor; they said they did not suspicion any
one; they told me about some parties having been around the house
shooting; they told me I would get my head shot off if I did not look
out; I said I guessed not; this was in the presence of the defendants;
they said three men had climbed into the window above; I do not
recollect that they said how many shots were fired. I remained at the
defendants' house most of the time after that until the arrest. Wyatt
was there most of the time. On or about the 23d day of October I had

31
a conversation with defendants. We were at the barn feeding. Bud
said to Ed : “Shall I tell him º Ed said: “I don't care.” They
took me out to ourselves and told me that Wyatt shot the Doctor; that
he was in the room, and went out, and took up the gun, and took out
the charge, and put it in the empty barrel, and shot it off. Ed did not
say anything at this time; both of the defendants were together at that
time. We had another talk that evening at the wood-pile, in which Bud
said he wanted to kill Wyatt; Ed said he wanted to kill him. I said:
* I want that job.” Ed said that Wyatt had said he allowed to kill me.
Bud carried two revolvers; Ed carried two. Bud told me about a
quarrel he had with the Doctor in the corn-field; that the Doctor drew
a revolver on him; he said that he went to the house and got his
revolver, and that when he went back to the field his father was making
tracks toward town. I saw Brighton the day they were there appraising
property; I next saw him in Maryville; Bud was there with him. I do
not know how Brighton went to town that day. There was shooting
going on from the house several nights after I was there; I examined
the shots in the walls of the house; there was one shot that had been
fired from up-stairs; another shot looked like it had been shot from the
hall; the bullet hole down-stairs through the door looked like it had
been fired from the inside; the shot in the room up-stairs was in the
northwest corner of the room ; there was a bullet hole in the floor; it
looked as if it had been shot from above. Olive Turner is a daughter
of Dr. Talbott. She said in the presence of the defendants that her
revolver had gone off and shot through the floor. I don’t think any-
thing was said as to where Ed was when the Doctor was killed.
On cross-examination by defendants' counsel witness
stated: -
I have resided in this county five or six years. I lived here until
last spring. I went to Kansas last March. I resided in the north part
of this county, northwest of Hopkins. I was back home after I left
in the spring; came back in June. I was at the wedding of Olive
Turner. I can not tell whether the wedding was in July or August. I
went back to Kansas on the 2d day of August; was there on the 18th
day of September. I sent a postal order to Woldridge at Hopkins,
from Kansas. I have been to Hopkins since my return. I’m not posi-
tive whether I went to Hopkins about the time of the preliminary trial,
but think likely I did. I asked Woldridge if he received the order. I
did not say that that cleared me of the murder. I asked him if that
was enough which I had sent him. He said it was. I did not call his
attention to the date of the order, that he might be a witness that I was
not engaged in killing Doctor Talbott. I did not send a postal order to
Hopkins bank about the time I sent the one to Woldridge. I might
have sent one to Donlin Bros., but I’m not certain about it. I took
with me to Kansas about twenty dollars. I drew fifty-four dollars pen-
sion money while I was there. I have not had any regular business for
the last four years. I have been in Ohio, Illinois and for a time at Den-
ver, Colorado. My home was near Hopkins in this county. I was at
the wedding of Olive Turner. I do not think that Wyatt was there; if

32
he was I did not see him. I had a conversation with the defendants,
Bud and Ed, that day. It was about two weeks after I heard of the
homicide before I came back to this county. I did not come up in par-
ticular to look up the murder. I did not know that there was any re-
ward, at that time. The reward may have been one reason why I un-
dertook to look up the murder. I did not know that there was any
reward offered. At the time of preliminary trial I swore that I expected
to get seven hundred dollars as my share, but I did not mean to do so.
I got bothered, and it was in my testimony. I do not think that
Brighton and I had any conversation during the preliminary trial about
the reward. I had a conversation with Mr. Brighton before the trial in
which Brighton said if we secured a conviction we would divide the
reward. I said on preliminary trial that I ought to have seven hundred
dollars. One inducement was the reward. I would have done the
same without the reward. I came back on business and to see my
children. I went to Talbott’s and got into the confidence of the boys.
I stated on preliminary trial that my getting seven hundred dollars de-
pended on the conviction of the boys. The time Bud told me about
the killing of their father was on Saturday; it was about twenty-five
yards from the stable. They told me who killed the doctor, and said if
I told it, off would come the top of my head. I do not say they told
me of loading the gun at the same time they spoke of the killing. Bud
said the ball weighed one and one half ounges. Bud said he wanted to
kill Wyatt. Ed said he wanted to kill him. Then I said I wanted to
kill him. Wyatt did not come that night. We did not kill him. I do
not remember whether they told me about the bullet at the woodpile or
whether it was near the stable. I think that was the only time he spoke
about the killing.
[Here defendant's counsel showed to the witness an old fly-leaf -
which had been torn from a Bible, on which was written in ink of
many years standing, the following:
“WILLFORD MITCHELL,
His Book.
Born 1841,
Aged 22. Wounded
at the Hattle of
Murfreesborough
on the last day of
December, 1862.”
The witness examined the same, and said:]
“It looks like my hand writing; part of it is my hand writing;
the signature at the top is my hand writing; it is my opinion that it is
my hand writing.”
[Here defendant's showed to witness two other written instru-
ments. One was an unfinished promissory note, without signature—
the other was a letter written with lead pencil, and an envelope with
indorsement in pencil writing—defendant's counsel submitted to the
witness but two lines with signature to this letter. (For letter and en-
velope, see evidence of witness, Belle Talbott and William Seward,
33
hereinafter set forth.) witness examined the envelope, and the two
lines and signature to the letter, and said:]
They look a little like my hand writing, but I don't believe it is
—you have a man that can write so much like me that it is hard to tell
the difference. -
[The witness asked defendant's counsel to let him examine the
letter in full. Defendant's counsel refused to submit more than the
signature and the two lines submitted. Witness stated:]
I will not admit the writing to be genuine. I don't think it is
mune. -
The examination of Mitchell had occupied hours.
The cross-examination he underwent was severe, but his
testimony, as a whole, remained unshaken. During all
the time he was on the stand, the audience listened with
breathless attention. His evidence was terribly conclu-
sive. Mitchell must be overthrown, he must be im-
peached or all was lost. The defense saw the hercu-
lean task before them. The case seemed desperate.
What could they do? But one hope remained, and that
a faint one, of proving Mitchell himself one of the con-
spirators. It was now late in the evening, and Court
adjourned until Tuesday morning. The people went
away in ſeverish excitement. Mitchell, unlike Brighton,
had never been guilty of any overt act, yet he must be
believed a deliberate perjurer, or the boys were guilty.
The clouds were gathering about them, the sky was
growing black, but they seemed to heed it not.
Hundreds were waiting at the hall door next morn-
ing before it was unlocked, so anxious were they to see
the Great Trial. It was now the one absorbing theme.
The merchants forsook their counters, the farmers their
stock, the women their household duties—all wanted to
see and hear. The first witness called in the morning was
Dr. S. M. Dunn. -
TESTIMONY OF DR DUNN.
d * describing the wound received by Dr. Talbot, the witness
Salol : -
We staid with him till near morning, and then laid down to take a
little rest; then got up and staid with him till near noon, when we came

3
34
home; went back at about four o'clock in the evening; he was dead; it
was the gunshot wonnd that killed him. -
[Cross examined by T. J. Johnston.]
He had his mental faculties fully and retained them all the time;
he appeared conscious that he was going to die; gave him stimulants to
rally him; he manifested a hope that he would live; and often asked,
“how goes the battle; am I rallying any ”
[Mr. Johnston asked if the Doctor told the witness where the shot
came from. Objected to by Ramsey. Objection withdrawn and ques.
tion repeated.]
I believe he did; saw where the shot went into the wall; it was
across the bed a few inches above its edge; we opened his chest and
traced the line of the ball; think it was turned down, by striking the
sternum; Drs. Campbell and T. J. Dunn assisted me; the ball hole in
front was clearly cut and the edges of the skin injected, while where it
came out the skin was everted and the edges torn; we also found pieces
of the bone in the cavity of the chest, which would have been impossible
had the ball entered from the other way; was there when he made his
will. -
[Question as to his state of mind at that time; objected to by
Ramsay. Ruling reserved];
He was rational and comprehended all about him ; he expressed
himself in a manner that would indicate that he realized he was going
to die; he seemed convinced that if he did not rally by night, he would
die; and made every preparation that a man would who was sure he
would die; from the time he saw the ball he seemed certain that he
would die; he took it between his thumb and finger and said, “that
means death;” he was a man of remarkable hope, and clung to it with
wonderful tenacity.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES A. FORREST, J.R.
-
I live five miles south, and one mile east of Maryville about three-
fourths of a mile across the country, and a mile by the road; about
three or four weeks prior to the Doctor's death, I was on my way to
Arkoe; Mr. McFarland was with me, and stopped to talk with his sister
and Bud ; Doc. got up and went up into the kitchen and asked why in
the hell he was not up, it was a pretty how do you do to lay around
that way in the morning; Ed. said if he did not go down stairs he
would shoot his head off; I recognized the voice of both of them :
have known Doctor about 23 years; I said let us go, don’t want to hear
the jawing; Bud and Mrs. Talbott said don't be in a hurry, stay till
after prayer meeting, for Doc. will have prayer meeting and probably a
Sermon.
[Cross examination by Lafe Dawson for the defense.]
Bud seemed to be jesting; Mrs. Talbott is McFarland's sister;
saw Doc. come into the hall, but did not see him go up stairs; could














35
hear him distinctly; heard him swearing as he went up; it was not
over four weeks before Dr. was killed, and my memory serves me that
it was about three weeks; his usual way of talking was very loud.
TESTIMONY OF MRS. VIRGINIA BRIGHTON.
I am the wife of J. V. Brighton; I reside in Maryville, Mo.;
have been here about four months; am acquainted with the defendants;
resided in the neighborhood; do not remember the time we went there;
we rented a house of Mr. Snively south of his residence on the road;
we came there on Sunday evening, and I saw the Talbott boys on
Monday; they come Monday, and then went away; it was nearly dinner
time; Bud came back in the evening about three o'clock; I was in
the closet; my husband said; hellow old fellow, have come
back have you; my husband sat on a bucket and said; you have
come to talk about that matter have you; Bud said yes; Mr. Brighton
said Ed had offered me $50 to kill Wyatt, and Bud said if you will
do it I will see that it is paid, if you don't give us away; Frank
said what will I give you away about, Bud said about us killing our
father, Frank then said let us go out somewhere, as he may be here and
hear us; had another conversation with him, some things he talked
about was necessary to tell, and he also talked about killing Wyatt; I
said I would not think it as hard to kill Wyatt as his father; he said it
was not hard to kill anybody when you got used to it; asked him if he
had a good father? he said no, he had the damndest, meanest father he
ever saw: Ed afterwards came back with my husband, when they drew
up a writing, and signed it; Ed said he would give Frank $50 to kill
Wyatt, and my husband said he would help him all he could. Bud said
he would kill him himself, but he had done so much around there that
he would be found out, the first arrangement was to kill him up in the
field with a club, and let on the team had run away, then they thought
best to kill him in the woods and burn him up; this talk was up stairs
in our house; we fired the light and my husband went out to see if any
one could see the light, and when he came back Bud got pen, ink, and
paper and placed himself in a position to write; Bud had two revolvers.
and a dirk knife, and Ed had a revolver and a razor; they were arrested
the next morning. -
Cross examination by M. G. Moran for the defense. *
I lived here formerly, and moved to Jewell county, Kansas; I
married in Riley county, Kansas; lived in Jewell county two years;
was married to Mr. Brighton last June.
[Question as to whether witness was married before she married
Brighton. Objected to by the state and promptly sustained by the
court, Question as to whether she had not a living husband at the time
she married Brighton. Objected to by Mr. Edwards for the State.
Question left to the witness as to whether she will answer the question
or not. Witness refuses to answer the question]. -
I met Mr. Brighton at Junction City. I was acquainted with
Agnes Lodge ; boarded with her awhile ; I had friends in Junction
36
City; I was hired to go there by Capt. Chas. Grier; he did not intro-
duce me as his wife; I was married as Virginia Louise Hudson. Grier
often went under the name of Ross. -
[Question as to what Ross hired her to go there for ; objected to...]
There was a man killed there at Lodge's and Ross thought they
knew something about it; I remained at Lodge's about five weeks.
[Question as to conversation with Brighton in presence of Agnes
Lodge, at Junction City, Daviess county, Kansas, May 16, concerning
her former husband; objected to and promptly sustained ; defendants
except. Question as to whether they talked about the expediency of
her getting married without a divorce, and Brighton said it was imma-
terial; overruled ; defendant's excepted.]
I first saw defendants on Monday and I think it was in October;
they did not come into the house and sit down when they first came
during the absence of my husband; I do not know how long I remained
in the closet, I had no time-piece; went down there to work up this case;
I did not know whether we would get any reward or not.
[Question as to what reputation the boarding house sustained was
objected to by Mr. Edwards on the ground that a house can sustain no
particular reputation. Objection sustained. Question as to whether she
was not arrested and committed before a justice of the peace at Lamar
Station for public indecency. Objected to by Mr. Edwards on the
grounds that the record is the only proper authority of that fact; objec-
tion withdrawn by Mr. Ramsay.
I went under the name of Virginia Hudson; I am not the Louisa
Hudson that was arrested and convicted of public indecency in this
county; I went to Kansas because I wanted to go, and because my
brother lived there; have met Mr. Mitchell at Mr. Grundy’s where I
boarded ; have not heard what witnesses swore to here in court room.
There was now enacted one of the most dramatic
and exciting scenes occurring during the trial. Totally
unexpected to the audience or the defense, Henry Wyatt
was ushered into the court room, and asked of the judge
that he might be permitted to testify in the case. Mr.
Ramsey asked of the court that Wyatt be instructed as
to his rights and privileges. The cheeks of the defend-
ants, for once, grew deadly pale. The audience became
terribly excited.
Mr. Frank Wolf, attorney for Wyatt, arose and said
the action of his client was unexpected to him, and asked
of the court the privilege of speaking to him. This the
defense strenuously objected to, and demanded that Wy-
att be held as any other witness, and that Mr. Wolf be
not permitted to speak to him. Mr. Johnston, of the de-
fense, said he had no objection to Mr. Wolf having a


















37
private consultation with his client, if Wyatt be not ad-
vised as to what he should testify to. After some further
argument, Mr. Wolf was allowed a consultation with
Wyatt, but Mr. Dawson objecting very decidedly to his
being instructed by the court until after he had been
offered and sworn as a witness.
TESTIMONY OF HENRY WYATT.
I desire to testify about all I know about the murder of Dr. P. H.
Talbott, Am 22 years of age; got acquainted with Dr. Talbott June
16th, 1880; am acquainted with the defendants; I lived there till about
a week before we were arrested; the two Talbotts had planned to kill
the doctor six weeks before he was killed; I was known to it. They
were going to take him out of bed when asleep, and take him out and
hang him. They commenced to talk about it three weeks after I com-
menced to work for them. They said they had laid plans before I com-
menced to work for them. They were going to take him down to the
stable and kill him with a club. They were at one time to go along the
road on the other side of Chas. Carr's and shoot him. They were to
lay some paper in the road and scare the mules, and when they stopped
to slip up behind him and shoot him. He was gone one night and said
the mules shied around the paper and went on so fast they could not
catch him. Doctor was killed by their gun. They run three balls into
a stick of wood. Ed hid the balls in a post in the shed west of the
house. He put them into an auger hole near the top. Their two little
brothers went out and found two of the balls, and Ed took them away
from them. He give them to Bud, who trimmed them out and put rifles
on them.
[Witness examines one present, and says:]
They were like this one. This was about six or seven days before
the homicide. They put two of the bullets into two cartridges. They put
one that had no rifles into the gun and shot at a grindstone and it went
into the ground and struck a root; they got it out and put it back into
shape. Doctor was in his room when shot, I was up stairs in bed. Ed
had the gun and did the killing. He slipped the gun up stairs that
night. Doctor went to see a sick child and Ed went up stairs; when
Doctor came back Bud went and put the mule up, and Ed went down
stairs. They told me not to give them away. About a minute after
Ed went down and Bud got into the house, I heard the shot; do not
know what Ed was doing while Bud was putting out the mule; do not
think they spoke of what they intended to do that evening before the
shooting. They said Ed shot him and ran around and laid the gun
on the walk and ran into the kitchen around the back way. Bud said
the old man jumped and grabbed the gun; that he caught him and put
him on the bed and took the gun away from him and ran out and took
the other gun up and took the cartridge out of the left barrel and put it
- 38
into the right barrel and fired it off, and then threw the cartridge in the
garden so no one could see that two shots had been fired out of it. I
learned from them that the curtains were up. Bud staid in the room to
call for help and run and fire the gun off as if he had seen a man. I
don’t think any one knew of their intention to kill the Doctor, I don’t
think Mrs. Talbott knew anything about it. I have told all I know
about the homicide.
CROSS EXAMINATION.
Resided at Doc Mozingo's all last winter; was at Sam Mozingo's
three weeks before going to Talbott’s; do not know the time I left Doc
Mozingo's, but it was after winter had broken; went to Dr. Talbott’s on
the 16th of June; know the date because I set it down; went to plow-
ing corn for Talbott the first work that I did; the boys and I worked
together nearly all the time; did not attend the fair last fall; the boys
attended nearly every day; after the Doctor was shot I went down into
the kitchen, and Ed and I went into the Doctor's room where he lay
groaning; Bud had gone out and taken the old gun with him; never
noticed the window broken; Talbott told me to go after the Dr.; was gone
from Talbott's about an hour and a half; went in a hurry: remained there
after the Doctor was buried about a week; Mitchell come there before I
left: neversaw Brighton there; I saw Mitchell at Talbott's the next day after
Olivia was married; had no conversation with him; he inquired of me
whether I knew who killed Talbott, and I told him that I did not know;
did as a matter of fact know all about it at the time; did not tell him
Bud shot the Doctor, and that Ed. and I stood back to see it well done;
told him Ed, shot the Doctor; don't recollect telling him where the gun
was kept; it was left in Doctor's room until that evening, when it was
taken up stairs by Ed.; don't recollect that I ever told any person about
the assassination; think my memory is all right; have been in the
Savannah jail; my lawyer has been down to see me; Whit Leighty has
been down, but not to see me, he talked to the boys, but not to me;
they slept in one cell and I in another; in the day we were all together;
never told Leighty about who killed the Doctor; have never had any
conversation with Brighton; knew at the time I was going for the
Doctor who shot him; was there all the time but said nothing about it;
kept it all to myself; knew all the time what they were looking for; told
Mitchell about the affair because he asked me about it; was there when
they were all looking for traces, but I felt under no obligations to tell
them because they would not keep it to themselves; Mitchell said he
would not give it away; was afraid the boys would kill me if I told it,
and I did not want my life taken; did some of the shooting down there,
and always supposed I was shooting at some one ; was put in the closet
to guard; had two revolvers, one was my own and the other was
Olivia's ; I shot three times; never told Mitchell that I killed Wm.
Saunders with a bag of sand; remember the circumstance of the killing
of Mr. Saunders, but was not at the inquest; was sick at Mozingo's;
his wife, Mollie York, and some neighbors took care of me; there was
no man sat up with me; never told him I had killed my own father in
Illinois; Ed. and Bud moulded the bullets, and I knew what it was for,
but never told the Doctor or warned him of the danger; was afraid to


* 39
tell the Doctor, for the boys said they would kill me; saw the boys load
the gun, and knew what they loaded it for; they put the cartridge in
the gun when the Doctor was away to see a patient; the bullets were
moulded about six weeks before the Doctor was killed; knew of it all
the time; I worked for him all that time and he paid me wages; was
just as good a man as I ever worked for.
RE-DIRECT.
I don’t remember talking to any one about the affair at the time
of the preliminary examination; believe I did tell the sheriff, Toel, who
killed the Doctor; did not recollect of that; told him all about how it
was done and who did it.
CROSS ExAMINATION
CONTINUED.
was awake when Ed went out with the gun, but made no
effort to stop him; did not tell Mitchell that Ed kneeled down on his
knees and shot the Doctor.
| Here witness, laboring under the terrible excitement to which
he was subjected, fell into an epileptic fit, and was taken from the court
room.]
TESTIMONY OF W. S. STARR.
I was Sheriff of Andrew County prior to January 1, 1881; got
acquainted with the Talbott boys about October 30, 1880, and have had
the custody of the defendants most of the time since; reside in the same
building the jallis in; it always takes two to effect an entrance into the
jail; one to lock the outer door and the other to go in. There is a
female and male departments in the jail; was at Rochester, Mo., on the
day of the election. The prisoners were in the jail that day. I got back
that evening about dusk, when I went to go into the jall. There was an
iron door between the two departments; was a little later than usual
when I went to lock the prisoners in the jail; took the hired girl to help
close the outer door; it was quite dark when they commenced striking
at me with clubs. They hit the beam or ceiling above my head; do not
know who struck the second blow; called to them to halt and the girl to
close the door; drew my revolver and jumped back and closed the door,
when they jumped against the door, but I had got the bolt into its place;
found the clubs that were used on that occasion; those are two of the
clubs (taking them), the other was larger but made out of the same ma-
terial.
[Cross examination by T. J. Johnston for the defense.]
These clubs were made out of the top of the bench
they had to sit upon. From the best information I can get,
one Davis organized the plot to get out. He is a shrewd ingenious
fellow, and has made several good wooden keys. Sharp was taken out

46
just before the boys were put in there. In other respects the boys were
very quiet. -
- HENRY WYATT
recalled by the defense. Doc Mozingo vizited me twice at the jail; had
a talk about it, and he said for me to swear to the truth; told him I did
not know anything about it; have met John Broyles in the Savannah
jail about three weeks ago; he was there about half an hour; he had a
book and pencil and took down my statement; told him what I had told
the sheriff was a lie; did not tell him Doc Mozingo had offered me fifty
dollars to turn State's evidence, and throw it on the Talbott boys. I
said Doc said he would give me $10 to throw it on the Talbott boys. Mrs.
West had got me to make this statement to him; told him the Talbott
boys had nothing to do with it.
RE-DIRECT.
-
Mrs. West came in and saw me and then sent Broyles in to see me.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID S. STOTTS,
I reside in Savannah, Mo.; am acquainted with the defendants;
helped the sheriff examine defendants, and found on the person of Ed
Talbott a key and chunk of lead (he here produced them in court; he
produces the cell key and the key to the inside jail door. Also pro-
duces a cartridge loaded.) -
[Cross examined by T. J. Johnston.]
We found the wooden keys on one Davis; think he made
them with a knife; do not know where they got the knife or those
keys and the lead; there is no place in jail where they could get them;
think Davis is the one who is causing all the trouble.
THE DEFENSE.
With the evidence of Mr. Stotts, the State rested.
The audience drew a long sigh of relief. Everyone
felt that the State had made a strong case, and that it
looked very dark for the accused.
Mr. Dawson, on behalf of the defense, asked an
hour of the Court for the purpose of consultation, which
was readily granted. At the end of that time, Mr. Daw-
son signified the readiness of the defense to proceed. It
was near four o'clock when Mr. Dawson arose to open

4 I
the case. He informed the Court and jury he had no
statement to make except to deny the allegations and
proof of the State. “The first thing," said he, “that the
defense desires to do is to impeach the characters of that
delectable couple, Mr. and Mrs. Brighton.” And this
the defense proceeded to do with the following array of
depositions and testimony:
MR. BLACK,
of Junction City, Kan., stated in substance that the reputation of J. V.
Brighton for truth and veracity was very bad, and that the reputation of
Brighton and Jennie Hudson (his reputed wife) for morality and virtue
was very bad, and that he had heard them frequently spoken of as
unworthy of belief and a thief.
WM. COSGROVE'S
deposition stated that the reputation of both Brighton and his wife was
very bad for truth, veracity, morality and chastity, and that Brighton was
playing detective, and that he had no other occupation. The deposi-
tion of
FRANK PATTERSON,
Probate Judge of Daviess county, Kansas, stated that he was not per-
sonally acquainted with either of them, and that the general reputation
of Brighton for truth and veracity was bad.
HORACE BUMP,
of Junction City, Kansas, testified that he was acquainted with Brighton
and Jennie Hudson last spring, when they were not married; that he
had never heard much said about Jennie, but that the reputation of
Brighton for truth, veracity, morality and chastity was bad.
DR. W. R. BARD, -
of Milford, Kansas, stated that he was acquainted with Jonas V. Brigh-
ton eight years ago, and that he was engaged in horse-racing, and had
been four years in the State Penitentiary; that his reputation for truth.
veracity, morality, virtue and integrity was bad.
E. C. BARTELL
stated that he was acquainted with Brighton, and that his acquaintance
with his reputation was limited, but so far as he had heard it discussed

42
it was not good; that the first wife of Brighton and his wife were
sisters. -
ARCHIBALD STITWORTH,
a farmer of Milford, Kansas, stated that he was acquainted with the
reputation of Brighton for truth and veracity, and that it was bad so far
as he had heard. Deposition of
WM. H. KENNETH
was to the effect that he had been acquainted with Brighton thirteen
years, and that his occupation was a farmer and detective; that his rep-
utation for morality and chastity was bad, but could not say as to his
reputation for truth and veracity.
squire D. Hopkins
had known Brighton about seven years as a common laborer; that he
said he had learned the wagon maker's trade in the penitentiary of
Kansas, and that his reputation for truth, veracity, morality, chastity and
integrity was bad.
WM. C. GREEN
testified that he was acquainted with Brighton and Jennie Hudson; had
known them since April, 1880; Brightan was a detective; that his rep-
utation for truth and veracity was bad, and that the reputation of Brigh-
ton and Jennie Hudson for virtue and chastity was very bad; that
Jennie had no occupation that he knew of
WM. MILLER
was acquainted with Brighton and Jennie by reputation only, and knew
Brighton's reputation to be bad as to morality and chastity, but could
not say as to Jennie.
The defense now introduced several witnesses to
prove the same thing.
JOHN ANDERSON.
I reside in Lincoln township; have resided there 36 years; am
acquainted with Mrs. Brighton; have known her ever since she came
into the world; she lived in Lincoln township until two years ago; am
not acquainted with her reputation for morality and chastity.
THOMAS TUDDER.
I reside at Elmo; have resided in that neighborhood about 28 years;
am acquainted with Mrs. Brighton; have not known her for three years

43 -
last past; never heard anything against her; am acquainted with her
reputation for morality and chastity; it was not good.
[Cross examined by Ramsey.]
Have not heard any thing about her till lately; since she
came back from Kansas.
E. M. BAILEY.
I reside in Lincoln township; have lived there fourteen years;
have known Mrs. Brighton since she was a child; knew her till two
years ago; her reputation at that time was not very good.
CHARLES LAMAR.
I reside in Lincoln township; have resided there for thirty years;
have never been personally acquainted with Mrs. Brighton. I know her
reputation for morality and chastity; it is not good. .
ARDINA J. LIVINGOOD.
I reside in Lincoln township; have lived there over twenty years;
I have known Mrs. Brighton since a child till two years ago; I know
her reputation for morality and chastity and it is not good.
JONES BAILY.
- I lived in the northwest part of the county; have known Mrs.
Brighton both here and in Kansas; am acquainted with her reputation
for morality and chastity in both places; it is bad.
GEO. W. HUDSON.
Testified that he resided in the northwest part of the county thirty-
six years and was acquainted with Mrs. Brighton by reputation. Do not
know what you mean by chastity; it is out of my reach; have heard
people talk about her a little. Her reputation is not very good, from
what the people say about her. “Can I go home Mr. Dawson?”
TESTIMONY OF FRANK ANDERSON.
Frank Anderson was the first witness called for the
defense.
My name is Benjamin F. Anderson; have resided in Maryville
one year; boarded at Mrs. VanCuren’s last fall, when I formed the
acquaintance of Brighton and wife; remember the circumstance of the
preliminary examination of the defendants, and at about that time
Brighton came into my room, and stated in a conversation with me that
44
the Talbott estate was worth $100,ooo, and that if he could procure the
indictment of the boys, they would pay him $10,000 to leave the
country, and that would clear the boys. Mr. Ed. Gurney was present.
We talked about several other things, but principally about the detective
business. The way this conversation came up, I said I at one time
roomed with a United States detective, and had learned that it was not
any paying business. -
TESTIMONY OF EDw ARD GURNEy.
I reside in Maryville; have lived here nine months; boarded at
Mrs. VanCuren's last fall, with Frank Anderson and J. V. Brighton;
remember the circumstances of the arrest of the Talbott boys; heard
a conversation between Anderson and Brighton; heard him say some-
thing to the effect that if he could get the Talbott boys indicted he
would be fixed; that the family would give him $10,000 to get him to
leave the State.
TESTIMONY OF B. WOOLRIDGE.
I reside in Hopkins; am acquainted with Wilford Mitchell.
He sent me a post-office order from some pointin Kansas about the time of
Dr. Talbott’s death. He called at my store after he returned from Kansas.
when he was in my store he reminded me of having sent me an order
about that time; he stated that he was waiting here and asked if I re-
membered of receiving it and spoke of it as if he wanted to remind me
of the fact that he was away and could not have knowledge of the
Doctor’s death.
[Cross examination by Ramsay.]
He had lived in my neighborhood for a long time and had
traded with me for over a year; the conversation with me was after the
preliminary trial; Mitchell lived about five miles from Hopkins and was
in town frequently; had been away from Hopkins four or six months and
has resided right in that neighborhood ever since that time.
TESTIMONY OF will AM TALBOTT,
a brother of the defendants; I am called Thump; am fourteen years
old; am a brother to the defendants; remember the circumstances of
my father being shot; don’t know what time of the night it was: went
to bed in the east part of the house on the second floor; Henry Wyatt
and Ed. went to bed about the same time; Henry Wyatt came there
about the 16th of June; I slept with Henry Wyatt; Ed. and Bud slept
together in the same room; Ed. went to bed in his bed that night, and
Henry Wyatt laid down on a lounge with his clothes on ; had been in
bed about two hours when my mother called me; there was no light in







45 - -
the room; it was moonlight; Ed. was in bed at the time, but Henry
Wyatt had gone out; went down stairs and saw pap lying on the bed;
Wyatt was there in the room when I went down. -
[Cross examination by Mr. Ramsay.]
Have told about all I know about my father being shot;
have been there at home since my father was shot; did not see any men
get into the house when the shooting was going on; Albert shot the shot-
gun off into the south partition in the south room; remember Olivia's
pistol going off into the floor; did not see any one, I was in bed; there
was some shooting before that and afterwards; Bud shot out of
the window; he said he shot at a light there was in the yard;
I saw it once; it looked like some one looking around the house with
a lantern; he shot quite a number of times; it was going on while
my uncle Mitchell was there; have seen Bud carry one revolver at
a time; he had a navy revolver and a pocket revolver and a dirk knife;
Ed had one small revolver; I sat the day down in my book when Wyatt
came there; I kept Wyatt's time; Albert run the farm most of the time,
my father was away from home running a paper; had been to the fair
the day my father was killed; Cicero, mother and Jennie came together;
father went down to the fair ground with us; he also went home with
us; mother went down on the 6 o'clock train; father went to see
Leighty's sick child, after he got home; don't know where Bud was
when my father was shot, nor Wyatt, nor Ed was when my father was
shot, because I was asleep. We go from the bed room down the stair-
way in the kitchen. I don’t remember whether Bud went to bed or not;
did not hear the shots that night; went down just as soon as I could.
Ed went down into the room first. During the summer my father was
at home only about one day out of a week. The boys were at home
running the farm ; my father never had any difficulty with the boys at
all; they used rough language a little once in a while ; never heard any
threats, nor did I ever see my father knock the boys down, or anything
of the kind; have not talked about this case with any one or told them
what I knew about it.
- RE-DIRECT.
I was in the room, when my father died; he died about 2 o'clock;
all the members of the family were there. He was conscious all the
time; he called us all up and shook hands with us and bid us good bye:
he shook hands with Bud and Ed.
TESTIMONY OF FRED D, SNYDER.
I am Judge of Probate; have in my office the last will and testa.
ment of the late P. H. Talbott.
[Here Mr. Dawson requested the witness to bring it into court;
Judge Snyder takes the stand, and Mr. Dawson requests him to read
the will; Mr. Ramsay for the state objects, on the ground of irrelevancy;
the attorneys contended that the will was admissible on the ground of

46
its containing a fact which will rebut the presumption, as raised by the
evidence of the state, that unfriendly relations existed between the
boys and their father. The court after listening patiently to the argu-
ment of the counsel on both sides of the case, ruled that the will was
admissible as testimony, but not as sufficient evidence that the Doctor
was in eactremis, Mr. Dawson then proceeded to read the will.]
LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF PERRy H. TALBOTT.
I, Perry H. Talbott, of lawful age, sound in mind, but believing
that my time on earth is short, do make this and publish this my last
will and testament; first, it is my will that my home farm and personal
property be held by my beloved wife during her natural life time for a
home for herself and my children; second, it is my will that my wife
receive the rents on my business house in Maryville for the support of
my family; that should my wife die before my youngest child becomes
of age, it is my will that the property before mentioned shall not be sold
until my youngest child becomes of age, when it is my will that said
property be sold and divided between my children equally; fourth, it is
my will that all my other property of whatsoever kind be sold by my
executrix hereafter named, including the town lots I own in Arkoe, and
the money used by her as she may think best in the education of my
children; I hereby appoint my beloved wife Belle Talbott executrix of
this my last will and testament, and she is hereby authorized to sell and
dispose of any of my property except as above stated, and give and ex-
ecute deeds therefor to the purchasers or purchaser; I owe no debts,
and it is my will that no security be required of her as my executrix;
copyright of book I am about ready to publish to be retained by my
family.
Signed this 18th day of September, 1880.
his
Attest: - - PERRY. H. & TALBOTT.
A. P. MOREHOUSE. mark.
S. M. DUNN.
TESTIMONY OF MRS. BELLE TALBOTT.
I am the mother of the defendants, and widow of Doctor Talbott;
he was assassinated on the night of the 18th of September, at about 9
o'clock that night; we had been to the fair that day; met him at the
Green/ack Szandard office, and went to the fair after dinner; Doctor
left me about 4:30, and told me to come home on the train; Doctor
and the children got home first; walked part of the way from Arkoe,
and the Doctor met me; as I put my hand on the latch of the gate, he
said, I am going down to Whit Leighty’s to see a sick child; he went
down on his mule; when he came back he came into the house, and
Bud put the mule in the stable; he asked me whether I got any mail,
and I said not, but Cora got some ; he opened the package and said it
was a copyright of his book, and asked him to read it to me; he closed














47
it and laid it on the bureau, when Bud came in, and he told Bud to read
it, and Bud opened it and commenced to read it; Doctor sat down on
the bed, and I laid down with my clothes on ; he stood by the bureau
a few moments before he sat down on the bed; Bud had just finished
reading the copyright, and had turned to lay it on the bureau, when I
heard the gun crack; it hit the Doctor and struck me on the leg; I
said, Doctor, did you hear that and he never moved, but looked at
Bud: I repeated, Doctor, did you hear that? when he jumped forward
and said, “My God, Belle, I am shot;” he then swung around to the
right and got a gun when Bud jumped and caught him, and put him on
the bed; there were two guns there; one was out of repair, and a
breachloading shot gun.
[Witness here identifies the gun exhibited in court, as the one
that was standing in corner.] -
Doctor was bleeding profusely; Bud grabbed him around the
breast; he left marks on the wall, on the southeast corner of the wall,
when he grabbed the gun; I opened the door next to the kitchen, and
called Eddie and Henry Wyatt to come down, and went back to the
doctor; they did not come, so I called louder; and Henry Wyatt came
down about a minute before Ed; Henry had all his clothes on but his
boots; he pulled his boots on after I told him to go for the doctor; Ed
had his coat in his hand as he came down; one cannot hear very good
from my room to the room over the kitchen; when the gun was fired I
heard the glass jingle, and when doctor jumped forward the glass fell off
of his lap on the floor; Ed told Bud to take the gun and go out, and
see what God damned scoundrel shot him; Bud went out immediately,
and was gone only a minute. Olivia was married on the 11th of July;
Milford Mitchell and Wyatt were there, and talked together that day, in
the forenoon; the next day Mitchell came to town; do not remember
where he went from here; he came back on the 5th of October, and
staid till the morning of the arrest, except three days he was gone to
Iowa. - -
[Cross examination by Mr. Ramsay.]
Leighty's child died that night. It was moonlight after
dark, but one could not see very far; I don't remember whether
the doctor walked out before Bud got back from the stable or not; I
was lying diagonally across the bed, with my head to the north-
west. corner; Bud was sitting near the window; I don’t know
whether his elbow was on the window sill or not; I was talking with the
Dr. and Bud: Dr.'s right hand was up against his breast as if he was
going to move his shirt bosom, and one foot on the floor and the other
thrown over his knee; I was scared, but my memory was clear as to all
that transpired there; I only heard Bud fire one shot; I had heard no
one come down that night from the stairs before the Dr. was shot; I
don’t know that I might have heard it; Wyatt was in his sock feet; I
don’t remember that Wyatt had his boots in his hands; I know Aaron
Hoshor.
[Question as to a conversation at witness' house at day of burial
of her child, 27th of June, 1880; objected to and objection overruled.]
48
* I don't remember talking with any one the day of the burial of
my child; I don’t remember even having any conversation with Mr. Jas.
A. Foust, Jr., such as he detailed; it did not amount to anything any
way, and was all false. - -
RE-DIRECT.
There never was any such row at our house as that recited by Jim
Forrest; Ed had staid at town all night and laid abed late in the even-
ing; Dr. told him he ought to get home early and get up in the morning
and scolded him; the boys and he were on good terms; Dr. was a
quick tempered man and spoke loud and quick; Henry Wyatt came to
work for the Dr. in June; he wore this coat (presented by the counsel);
I first saw this coat after his arrest; it was brought from a shed near
the feed lots; there was a letter found in the pocket of the coat when
it was found.
[Objection by Mr. Ramsay to her stating to whom it was
addressed and from whom it was; objection sustained.]
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION.
I never examined the cloth, lining, buttons or pockets of the
coat; I know it simply from its external appearances; I remember that
he said that he left it in the shed one day and the mules had eaten
it up; I don't know what kind of a coat he wore after the homicide; a
third man by the name of Dixon who found the coat; I don't know
whether Mrs. West was at my house at the time the coat was found or
not ; she is my sister-in-law; I know Jack Broyles; he has
been at our house, but I don’t know whether it was before or after
the coat was found; I saw Mrs. West have the letter in her hands;
she was in my room at the time the letter was found; I don’t remember
the date; she said some one had found the letter; no one ever said
it was a very important letter; Mrs. West did not say it was important;
I do not know whether the letter was written with pencil or pen.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM SEWARD.
I reside in Marshall county, Illinois; have been out here three
weeks; have been stopping most of the time down at Mrs. Talbott's :
Mrs. Talbott is my aunt by marriage; am a cousin to the defendants;
have been sent by Mrs. Talbott to make search; was sent to the corn,
shed to get an old coat; -
[Here witness recognized the coat mentioned by Belle Talbott.]
I did not examine the pocket of the coat at that time; found the
letter in the old coat pocket two days after I had taken it to the house
from the corn-pen; when I took the coat up to the house from the
shed, I threw it down in the kitchen; there was a lot of old clothes
-






49
carried out of the kitchen into the smoke-house; I next saw the coat in
the smoke-house; found the letter in the pocket of the coat at that
time. - -
[Here defendants' counsel showed to witness the letter and
envelope alluded to by Belle Talbott, in her testimony, and shown to
the witness Wilford Mitchell, and the witness recgnized them as being
the letter and envelope he had found in the old coat -
cRoss-ExAMINATION.
My age is twenty years; came here three weeks ago and have
made Talbott's my headquarters since. After I was there awhile they
sent me out to make search ; they first sent me down to the shed to get
an old coat; I happened to be milking and Mrs. Talbott was down
there; she told me to bring the old coat up to the house; one Dixon
found the coat in the corn; Mrs. Talbott saw the coat at the time she
was at the shed; she said it might be of some use; when I took it to
the house I threw it down in the kitchen among old clothes; when I
was hunting around I was hunting for anything that might be of use as
evidence; Mrs. Talbott and Mrs. West sent me out to search around;
they said that the detective had told them to search around; it might.
have been Broyls; I saw Broyls there several times; it might have been
a week before that; I saw Broyls there at Mrs. Talbott’s before I was
sent out to search; I first searched around the house for anything that
might turn up; I did not have any idea what I was searching for; I
thought I might find a revolver; this search was around the house; I
next went to the smoke-house and found the old coat again, and looked
in its pockets; Johnny Talbott was with me; we found the letter in the
pocket; it was written with pencil; I stopped searching then ; I had
been searching thirty minutes when I found the letter; quit searching
then and have not searched any since. I gave the letter to Mrs. West.
I was excited some when I found the letter; I do not know whether
Mrs. Talbott was in when I gave the letter to Mrs. West, or not; Mrs.
West was a little excited. Z%is is not a ſarce that Z” festifying ſo.
Mrs. West read the letter to Mrs. Talbott; all of us seemed to be
excited ; Mrs. Talbott was somewhat excited. This scene occurred
about two weeks ago. The letter has been in Detective Broyl's hands
since. I do not know when Broyl came and got the letter. We told
him that I had found it in an old coat in the smoke-house. That was
the last of my searches. I’m not acquainted with Mitchell nor Wyatt.
I came out here on a ramble. I did not come to make this county my
home. This is the first time that I was ever this far west.
The cross examination of this witness was the farce
in the stern tragedy which was being enacted. His face
was a continual grin, and he performed as if he was
taking part in some huge joke. The attorneys for the
defense fairly boiled during the cross examination; and
when it was over, Dawson conducted the young gentle-
4.
5o
man behind the scenes, and if he ever gets on the wit-
ness stand again, no doubt he will remember the lesson
administered.
TESTIMONY OF J. J. DIXON. -
-
I reside in Maryville; was working on the Talbott farm on Decem-
ber 13, 1880; was husking corn; my son was visiting me; found an old
coat in the corn in the south shed; we had husked out a part of the
shed when we found an old coat; it was buried up with the corn; don’t
know how it got there.
[The attorney presents the coat, which the witness says: It
looks very much like it, if it is not the one.
CRoss-ExAMINED BY RAMSAY.
I was born and raised in Ohio went to Kansas; moved
back here last fall; never saw Mrs. West till I came here; my family
are here in town; got here the 19th of November; first went there to
rent Mrs. Talbott’s farm ; never saw Mrs. Talbott till went there to husk
corn; my two sons helped me husk corn; was sheriff in Ohio; never
represented myself as a detective nor acted as one; when I found the
coat I threw it up on the boards; thought no more of it; there was
nothing whatever said about it when I found it; it hung there several
days after I found it; that is all the work I ever did for Mrs. Talbott;
worked for Mrs. West when I helped to move the Greenback Standard;
have done nothing in the way of working up the testimony in this case;
never told a man by the name of F. M. Morgan in this town, since the
beginning of this trial, that I was to get $50 for my assistance in work-
ing up the evidence in this trial nor for my services in this case; told
him I got $50, but not for that: said that I thought there was a man
here by the name of Broyles who was getting the money for working up
this case; believe I said Broyles was getting $2 per day and his ex-
penses; never talked about the matter in Morgan's house; all the talk
ever had with him about it was on the street.
RE-DIRECT.
The $50 spoken of is in no way connected with this case; Mrs. West is
a sister of Dr. Talbott; got the $50 for husking corn, and not for work
in this case. -
Before resting the defense, defendants' counsel
offered to read in evidence the ſeſſer and envelope men-
tioned by the witnesses, Belle Talbott and William
Seward. The letter and address upon the envelope were













5 I
written with pencil and were in exact words and figures
following:
Lett
Careful and hide
or burn this
Pottawotmie County Kans
friend Wytatt I write, this to you to ask you if you are going to carry
out the plan we agreed on at the wedding at Dr talbott's house We
must be very careful and keep the family from nowing any thing of
the afair we are all right and if the worst comes we will throw the
blame on the talbott boys and no one will suspect us. and after the old
man is out of the way I will come up and stop thare and we will get
the Reward if thare is any offered and thare will be one of course be
carefull to hide the old gun in the river and burn this
- Willford Michell”
er-
“Aug. the 20 1880 | Whyatt be
-
On the reverse side of which was written the
following:
“this from the hand your friend
Willford Michell”
Also: “be shure and make the too balls the same size”
Also the following which had been partially erased but still
legible when held before an opaque back-ground:
“Make rifles on them like as if they had been shot from a rifle
Willford Michell”
The envelope containing no post mark was addressed as follows -
“Mr. Henry Wyhatt
Arkoe
Nodaway
Co. Mo.”
The State objected to the reading of this letter and
envelope in evidence on the grounds that the hand
writing was not admitted, nor proven to be that of the
witness Wilford Mitcheſ. The court asked of the counsel
in the cause whether the signature of the witness Mitchell
appeared upon any paper connected with the cause. The
State thereupon submitted to the court the genuine sig-
nature of said witness, which had been by him subscribed
to his written evidence at the preliminary hearing of the
cause on trial, to which said evidence the name of said
witness was spelled---W-i-l-f-o-r-d M-i-t-c-h-e-Il-upon
examination of which with said letter, the court stated
that without further proof of the hand writing of said
52
letter, the objection of the State would be sustained.
The defendants excepted to the ruling of the court, and
rested the defense.
The state then called the following witnesses in re-
buttal:
TESTIMONY OF F. M. MORGAN.
- I am acquainted with J. J. Dixon; I live in Maryville; Mr. Dixon
has talked at my residence and I at his; we are speaking every day;
he has not been at my house for ten days; I talked with him upon the
Street.
[Mr. Edwards here asked as to his conversation with reference to
Dixon's employment as detective.] -
[Objected to by the defense on the ground of irrevelent and
º grounds having been laid. The court sustained the objec-
1Oll.
The talk was about this import. Objected to as the question was
improperly asked. Sustained. When the question was properly put,
the witness testified that he stated that there was too much money
involved; men were working for money and don't you forget it; I am
not working for nothing, I have got $50 out of it already and I shall
have the rent of the farm.
TESTIMONY OF ANNA HOSHOR.
I am acquainted with Mrs. Belle Talbott; her child was buried
the 27th of June. -
[Question as to a conversation with Belle Talbott at that time,
objected to. Overruled.] -
She said she and the Doctor had had a difficulty one morning
when they were going to town and if Bud had had his revolver he would
have let him had it then, but to never mind he had one now and was
ready for him; I asked if he would shoot the Doctor and she said he
would ; I told Mr. Ramsay about it at the preliminary trial and before
the grand jury.
[Defendant objects to the testimony of this witness on the
grounds that neither of the defendants were present when the conver-
sation was held.] -
With this testimony the State rested the case for
good. The defence had no rebutting evidence to offer.
The trial, as far as the testimony was concerned, was









53 -
over; but it still remained for the lawyers to tell a long-
suffering jury what this evidence really meant.
Court adjourned until the next morning, to give the
attorneys time to prepare their instructions to the jury.
When Court convened at the appointed time, the follow-
ing instructions were given to the jury on the part of the
State :
1. Under the law, as declared in the instructions of the Court,
and the evidence as offered on the trial under the instructions of the
Gourt, it is the duty of the jury to find the defendants not guilty, or
guilty of murder in either the first or in the second degree, as they may
believe the fact to be. And the jury may find both of the defendants
guilty of murder in either of said degrees, or they may find one guilty
and acquit the other, accordingly as they may believe the facts to be
from the evidence in the case.
2. If the jury believe, from all the evidence in this case, beyond
a reasonable doubt, that at the time mentioned in the indictment in
this county, the defendants, Charles E. Talbott and Albert P. Talbott,
willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, and of their malice afore-
thought, killed Perry H. Talbott by shooting him with a shotgun, or
any kind of firearms, they will find the defendants guilty of murder in
the first degree, and so state in their verdict.
3. “Willfully, as used in the foregoing instruction, means in-
tentionally—that is, not accidentally. Therefore: if defendants in-
tended to kill, such killing was willful. JDeliberately means done in
a cool state of the blood—that is, not in a heated state of the blood
caused by lawful provocation. If, therefore, in such state the defend-
ants formed a design to kill, and did kill, the act was deliberately
done. Premeditatedly, as used in the second instruction, means
thought of beforehand for any length of time, however short. Malice,
as used in said instruction, signifies a condition of the mind void of
social duty and fatally bent on mischief or an unlawful intention to
kill or do some great bodily harm to another without just cause or
excuse. Aforethought means thought of beforehand for any length of
time, however short.” - -
4. “If the jury believe from all the evidence, that on or about
the 18th day of September, 1880, in this county, the defendants, with
intent to kill willfully, premeditatedly, and of malice aforethought,
but without deliberation, as these terms have been defined, shot and
killed Perry H. Talbott, the jury will find defendants guilty of murder
in the second degree, and so state in their verdict, and assess their
punishment separately, at imprisonment in the penitentiary for any
pcriod not less than ten years.” -
5. “If the jury believe from the evidence, that the defendants
Albert P. Talbott and Charles E. Talbott, made any statements after
54
the commission of the homicide, and in relation thereto, the jury must
consider all that each one said together, and what one of them said
can not be used against the other, unless assented to or acquiesced in
by the other; and while each of said defendants is entitled to what he
said for himself, if true, the State is entitled to anything he said
against himself in any conversation proved by the State. What each
defendant said against himself the law presumes to be true, because
against himself; what, however, he says for himself, the jury are not
bound to believe, because said in a conversation proved by the State;
but they may believe or disbelieve it accordingly as it is shown to be
true or false by the evidence in the case.
6. He who willfully, that is intentionally, uses upon another, at
some vital part, a deadly weapon, as a loaded gun or fire-arm, must, in
the absence of qualifying facts, be presumed to know that the effect is
likely to be death, and knowing this, must be presumed to intend the
death which is the probable and ordinary consequence of such an act;
and if such deadly weapon is used without just cause or provocation,
he must be presumed to do it wickedly or from a bad heart. If, there-
fore, the jury believe that the defendants took the life of Perry H.
Talbott by shooting him in a vital part with a shotgun or other fire-
arm, loaded with gunpower and a leaden bullet, with a manifest design
to use such weapon upon him, and with sufficient time to deliberate
and fully form the conscious purpose to kill, and without sufficient
reason or cause or extenuation, then such killing is murder in the first
degree; and while it devolves on the State to prove the willfulness,
deliberation, premeditation and malice aforethought, all of which are
necessary to constitute murder in the first degree; yet these need not
to be proved by direct evidence, but may be deduced from all the facts
and circumstances attending the killing; and if the jury can satisfac-
torily and reasonably infer their existence from all the evidence, they
will be warranted in finding the defendant guilty of murder in the
first degree.”
7. “Although it is charged in the indictment in this case, that
Charles E. Talbott fired the fatal shot, and that Henry Wyatt and
Albert P. Talbott were present, aiding, abetting, helping, comforting,
maintaining and assisting the said Charles E. Talbott to kill and mur-
der Perry H. Talbott, yet it is not necessary for the State, in order to
establish the guilt of either of the defendants now on trial, to prove
that either of them actually held and discharged the gun which killed
the said Perry H. Talbott; but if the jury believe that said Henry
Wyatt, or either of the defendants on trial, fired the fatal shot, and
that the other defendant was present, aiding, abetting, helping, com-
forting, maintaining and assisting the said Wyatt or the other defend-
ant in such killing, then such defendant is guilty of murder equally
with said Wyatt or the other defendant, who the jury may believe
actually fired the shot.”
8. “It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to the law
arising in this case, and it is the duty of the jury to respect the in-


55
struction of the court as the law of the case, and to find the defendants
guilty or not guilty, according to the law as delivered by the court,
and the evidence as they received it from the witnesses under the
directions of the court. The jury have no right to permit their feel-
ings of sympathy to interfere with their duty, whatever that may be
under the law and evidence, nor on the other hand to allow any con-
sideration of public policy or over anxiety to enforce the law to in-
fluence them in the fair consideration and decision of the case, other-
wise than strictly in accordance with the evidence in the cause.”
9. “If the jury believe from all the evidence in the case, be-
yond a reasonable doubt, that either of the defendants is guilty of
murder in the first or second degrees, as these degrees have been de
fined by the instructions, but have a doubt as to the degree of which
such defendant is guilty, the jury will give him the benefit of such
doubt and find him guilty of murder in the second degree.” -
10. “Before the jury can convict the defendants of murder,
either in the first or the second degree in this case, they must believe,
from all of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are
guilty, but such a doubt, to authorize an acquittal, must be a real sub-
stantial doubt, and not a mere possibility of innocence.”
The following are the instructions of the court to the
jury on the behalf of the defense: .
1. Unless the jury believe from the evidence, beyond a reasona-
ble doubt that at the time mentioned in the indictment the defendants,
Albert P. and Charles E. Talbott, willfully, deliberately, premedita-
tedly and of their malice aforethought, did shoot and kill Perry H.
Talbott, then the jury will find the defendants not guilty of murder in
the first degree. And the jury are instructed that the term willful, as
used above in this instruction, in law, means done intentionally; that
the word deliberately, means that the design to kill must have been
formed in the mind in a cool state of blood, that is, not in a heated state
of the blood, caused by lawful provocation. That the term premedita-
tedly, means thought of, and determined beforehand, and the term
malice, means a state of mind evidenced by a wrongful act, done inten-
tionally, without just cause or excuse.
2. The jury are further instructed that before they can find the
defendants, or either of them, guilty of the murder of said P. H. Tal-
bott, in either the first or second degree as defined in the instructions
given in the case, the evidence must be so conclusive that the homicide
of said P. H. Talbott, cannot be accounted for on any other reasonable
grounds or hypothesis, than that of the guilt of the defendants.
3. The jury are instructed that the witness Henry Wyatt, is
jointly indicted with the defendants, now on trial, and is charged as an
accomplice with the defendants, in the commission of the offense alleged
56
against them, and that the prosecution has a right to use him as a
witness; yet the evidence of an accomplice, when not corroborated by
the testimony of others not implicated in the crime, as to matters
material to the issue, ought to be received with great caution by the
jury, and they ought to be fully satisfied of its truth before they should
convict defendants on such testimony.
-
4. To the jury alone belongs the duty of weighing the evidence
and determining the credibility of the witness. The degree of credit .
due to a witness should be determined by the jury, by his character and
conduct, by his manner upon the stand, his relation to the case and to
the parties, his hopes and his fears, his bias or impartiality, the reason-
ableness or unreasonableness of the statements he makes, the strength
or weakness of his recollection, viewed in the light of the other facts
and circumstances in proof, and if the jury believe that any witness has
willfully sworn falsely as to any material fact in this case, they may
disregard the whole of the evidence of any such witness.
5. The law clothes the defendants with the presumption of inno-
cence which attends and protects them until it is overcome by testi-
mony which proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which
means that the evidence of their guilt as charged, must be clear, positive
and abiding, fully satisfying the minds and consciences of the jury. It
prosecution.
The instructions asked by the defendants and re-
fused by the Court were as follows:
6. The jury are the judges of the weight of the testimony and the
credibility of the witnesses, and may give to the testimony of any wit-
ness just such weight and value as they may think it entitled to under
all the facts and circumstances in the case; and if from such facts and
circumstances they believe that any witness willfully swore falsely as
to any material fact, they are at liberty to disregard the whole of such
witness' testimony.
7. In order to form a proper estimate of the weight and value of
the testimony of any witness, the jury may take into consideration the
conduct and demeanor of such witness while on the witness stand, his
interest in obtaining a reward offered in case of conviction of the
defendants, and also the character of such witnesses for honesty, in-
tegrity, virtue and veracity. -
is not sufficient in a criminal case to justify a verdict of guilty that
there may be strong suspicions or even strong probabilities of guilt, but
the law requires proof by legal and credible evidence of such a nature,
that when it is all considered, it produces a clear, undoubting and en-
tirely satisfactory conviction of defendant’s guilt. And the burden of
establishing the guilt of the defendants, as above required, is on the


57
-
8. The jury are instructed that the witness Henry Wyatt is a co-
defendant, jointly indicted with the defendants now on trial,
and that the prosecution has a right to use him as a witness, and
that the jury may consider his evidence for what they think it worth,
but that the testimony of a codefendant, or one jointly indicted with
those on trial, must and should always be received with extreme
caution, and should be carefully weighed and closely scrutinized by the
jury, and they should not convict upon it unsupported, unless it pro-
duces in their mind the fullest and most positive conviction of its
truth.
9. This is a case of circumstantial evidence, and one in which a
conviction is claimed on the grounds of confessional guilt. The jury
are thereforeinstructed that evidence of this charactershould be received
by them with extreme caution, and the jury will not be warranted in
finding the defendants, or either of them, guilty, as charged in the
indictment, unless the evidence and circumstances in proof is of such
a nature, after being duly weighed and considered by the jury, as to
exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, except that of the guilt of
the defendants.
THE PLEADINGS.
The opening of the case devolved on Scribner R.
Beech. Mr. Beech is a small, wiry man, full of energy and
life.
He was born in Crawford county, Pa., Dec. 25th,
1846. Was a private in the 83d Pennsylvania Volun-
teers, and was desperately wounded at the battle of the
Wilderness, May 5th, 1864. After the war he served as
postmaster at Cambridge, Pa., for two years, and then
resigned, and migrated to Nodaway.county, Mo., where
he farmed and taught school for three years. Was
elected sheriff of Nodaway county in 1872, and served
with great credit for four years.
He was admitted to the bar in May, 1877, and at
once took a high rank in his profession. He was one of
the attorneys for the defense in the celebrated murder

58
case of the State vs. Otto Sharp. He has a fine future
before him.
When he arose there was breathless attention. Per-
haps no lawyer ever before addressed such an audience
in Maryville. The hall was packed, crowded with eager
listeners, who hung on every word the speaker uttered.
Mr. Beech finished his argument at 3: Io P. M., having
spoken three hours and a quarter. He traveled over
the ground very thoroughly, and made a logical, convin
cing speech. His review of the evidence was masterly
[The reports of the attorneys' speeches are made verbatim from
shorthand notes taken by J. E. Huston, of Bedford, Ia. But they are
much condensed, the principal portions only being given.]
Mr. Beech spoke as follows:
May it please the Court, and you, Gentlemen of the Jury:
Under all the circumstances of this case, it seems but just to my-
self to state why I appear in this prosecution. It is well known to
most of you that Mr. Edwards, partner of Mr. Ramsay, has been for
some weeks severely suffering from an affection of the throat, and for
several days prior to the beginning of this inquisition, had been con-
fined to his house, and it was feared that he would not be able to appear
in the prosecution. I can assure you that my appearance in this case
is in no manner of my seeking, and is not a pleasant business for me.
I have engaged in it only on account of the earnest solicitation of Mr.
Ramsay. I would much rather ask a jury of my countrymen for the
acquittal than for the blood of these defendants; but sworn as I am to
prosecute the case to the best of my ability, under the law and evi-
dence, I am before you to participate in it; and it is my duty to
ask at your hands such a verdict as you may believe the law and
the evidence shall warrant. I can also say, gentlemen of the jury,
that this is an unpleasant position for yourselves; you may deplore
your condition, and think that your task is a hard one, and I admit
that it is ; but you are in much better condition than those who sat in
your places during the days of Blackstone; you are sitting in one of
those cases wherein the State has the right to ask the life of a defend-
ant of which there are but three on our statute books; while during
the days of Mr. Blackstone there were more than 160 felonies, the
punishment for which was death ; those accused were not allowed the
right of trial by jury, nor were they allowed to be heard by themselves,
nor by attorney; neither were they permitted to have witnesses in
their behalf; the crown produced such witnesses as it desired, and they
not sworn. But how different now. You recollect with what great
care you were selected ; taken from the remote parts of the county,
supposing that you knew nothing about the matter, and would be able








59
to try the case fairly and impartially; the defendants would not be per-
mitted to enter a plea of guilty, without first being told by his Honor
the terrible effects of such a plea ; defendants cannot now be brought
into court, and tried without being heard by themselves or counsel;
though the veriest pauper in the land, unable to hire anybody or do
anything, yet would his Honor furnish him the best of counsel, bring
evidence such as he might need at no matter what cost to the State,
and give him time for its procurement; this, gentlemen, is such a case
as you have never been permitted to appear in, and will most probably
never be called to participate in again; there are several questions in
this case, to which it is our duty to find answers. -
First. Was P. H. Talbott killed 2
About this there is no controversy.
Second. Was the killing of Dr. Talbott murder *
To this, all answer yes. -
Third. Was the killing not only murder, but was it assassi-
nation. -
Again we cannot disagree. If assassinated, then by whom 2
Was the assassin of Doctor Talbott a foreign or domestic one 2 If
domestic, who 2 If more than one, how many of them were there?
These are the questions you will be required to answer in your verdict.
First, then, as to whether the assassin was a stranger. We are told
that he was. In order that we may get a fair understanding of all the
circumstances of the case, let us first examine the premises sur-
rounding. [Here the speaker described the surroundings for a con-
siderable distance, in every direction from Dr. Talbott's house, to show
that the ground was open in every direction, except on the southeast -
there was an orchard.]
Next, let us inquire what kind of a night it was. The witnesses
Snively, Riddel, Wyatt, Leighty, Tump, and Mrs. Talbott, all swear
it was a bright moonlight night. Bud, one of the defendants, says it
was, and that after the shooting of his father, he saw the assassin
retreating in a southeast direction, and that he fired at his retreating
form a heavy charge of goose shot.
He told this to Rapalje, Turner and others. Didn't the sheriff
say he told him that. Didn't he (sheriff) afterwards look in that
direction among the trees for shot and found none. The sheriff also
tells you that he looked to see whether or not there were traces of the
retreating assassin across the fallow fields beyond, and that he found
none. Also that he found no tracks around the premises, notwith-
standing he and other witnesses say they made strict search for the
same. The defendants answer to this that no tracks could be found ;
that it had rained between the time the firing was done, and the search
made. How about that rain º Messrs Rapalje, Morehouse and others,
testify that the rain amounted to nothing; that it merely laid the dust.
Again they would ask you to believe that he didn't run over the fallow
field, but went immediately into the beaten road; but Mr. Turner
answers that. He says if he went in a southeast direction, he must

6o
have crossed over this fallow field. In reference to the finding of shot,
the sheriff said he did find shot marks in the south-west corner of the
orchard, but that was not the direction Bud said he saw the assassin
running. They say the glass in the window was out; but it was found
to be not on the inside of the house, but on the outside; and they
would have you believe that the man who fired the shot was therefore
very near the window when the shot was fired. You are asked to
believe that a man standing within two or three feet of the window,
fires through it, and the glass was not forced through into the house,
but fell upon the ground on the outside.
You are further asked to believe that the curtain was not such an
obstruction as that one could not see the form of an individual unless
close up to the window. Both of the witnesses, Morehouse and Toel
said if you step back by the tree you could not see through the curtain
at all. Rapalje said the condition of the glass was this: The main
bulk of the glass was two or three feet away on the ground, while some
little splinters were found inside the room. Now it must be clear to
your minds that if it had knocked a hole through the glass, it would
have been a small hole, the size of the missile passing through it, and
if glass had been driven through, it would have been into, not outside
of the room; and if the whole pane had been knocked out, it is evident
to you which way it would have gone. If the gun had been
right up to the glass it must have smoked the glass seriously,
and the witnesses all say there were no evidences of smoke.
Bud says in his testimony that the man who ran away carried
with him no gun. Now, if he brought no gun with him, it must be
evident he did not fire the fatal shot that destroyed the life of Dr. Tal-
bott. And if he did bring a gun with him, and took none away he must
have left it somewhere; and all the witnesses say no gun was found or
could be found after a careful search was made. Mr. Snively had per-
mission to search the well, yet no gun was found. Again, if this was a
foreign assassin he must have come from somewhere, and coming on a
bright moonlight night early in the evening, he must have been seen
by some one, and yet no witness testified to this fact. He must also have
gone somewhere after doing the fatal deed, and yet no one, except Bud,
testified to having seen any one. It is further evident that in coming
to and going from the Doctor's he must have gone over a very smooth
country without obstruction to the vision, on or near to the highway
thickly set with houses. Now as to the family, as to how they lived and
regarded each other, we have the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who
say that one night last spring as they were passing by, lights being in
the house and the curtain up, they saw forms passing in rapid succes-
sion and heard language to the effect, “I will cut your throat; I'll cut
your d-d heart out; I'll blow out your brains,” accompanied with a
fierce tumult as if with the flying of chairs. Smith told of an instance
when at Dr. Talbott's house one day, where the Doctor knocked one of
these defendents down, when he, the defendant, put his hand to his
pocket as if he would pull out a revolver and backed his father off. In


61 "
explanation of this he says the Doctor wanted to know what the defen-
dant had done with certain wheat; where he had sown it, and Ed said
he could tell him when he got ready, or it was none of his business.
Afterward he told him (Smith) in the field one day that if he had had
his revolver with him he would have shot the d–d old s– of a b-.
The witness, Mitchell, tells of an altercation between Bud and the ºld
man in the field, when Bud, being unarmed, went to the house for his
revolver and when he came back he said the the old s– of a b– was
making tracks away from him. Mr. Forrest tells of an occurrence
wherein the Doctor and one of of the boys where having a difficulty
one Sunday morning and one of the boys said he would knock him
down or shoot him down. He spoke about going, when Bud and Mrs.
Talbott, in a laughing manner, asked him to remain while the Doctor
would hold prayer meeting and, perhaps, preach a sermon. The wit-
ness, Wyatt, says that when the Doctor returned home there was almost
invariably a turmoil and a row between the Doctor and the boys.
Mrs. Hoshor tells of an incident the day of the burial of Mrs. Tal-
bott's infant, in which Mrs. Talbott said that the Doctor had abused
her until she could endure it no longer, and now the tie that bound
them was severed and she would leave him, that he and she re-
cently quarreled and that Bud would have shot him if he had been
prepared and that he was now prepared. Tump, to be sure, says that
everything was lovely and serene around that mansion, but, gentle-
men, can you listen to the recitation of these witnesses and believe
there was no quarreling there. Again, what is the testimony in refer-
ence to arms about there. Wyatt speaks of the guns, the revolvers and
of the dirk knife Bud carried. Nor was it sufficient that the male
members of the household, but also that the daughters should be
armed. Three of the witnesses testify that Olivia owned a revolver.
They not only had single instruments of warfare for their own use but
had an arsenal of large pieces. Next, we inquire what about plots.
Did they conceive the idea of destroying their father's life? Wyatt
testifies of one by which they were to get Mr. Talbott to go to the horse
trough, and when he came he was to be knocked down and killed with
a club. What do you think about the newspaper that was placed in
the road for the purpose of scaring the mule their father was driving 2.
the purpose being to stop and shoot him while not in motion. And
what do you say about the plots against Wyatt to kill him as narrated
by Mitchell and the Brightons?
Next, we inquire what was their preparation of means to accom-
plish their foul purpose? I ask you, gentlemen of the jury, to look at
the testimony of young Shinnebarger. He says that about ten days
before the murder, he was there at the house, and tells how a certain
gun was loaded; they loaded some shells with balls and some with
shot; he saw them loading two with balls; that they loaded one and
shot it off at a tree and it struck a stone and was battered. -
Wyatt, in his testimony, says it struck a root, and they got it.
and pounded it out again. He says they had a box there and when
62
they had finished the shells they put them into it and carried them
away. He says, and defendants in their confessions to Brighton and
others, admit, that they afterwards secreted two shells loaded with
balls in a fence post at the stable, and that Tump and another boy
while playing, found them there. Again, as to whether the assassin
resided at the Talbott house or in its vicinity. The evidence is, that
the Talbott family, except defendants, was at the County fair on this
eventful day, at least defendants were at their home that evening
before the others returned ; the evidence is, that the glass was almost
entirely on the outside. Now, is it a violent presumption, that these
defendants, who had previously prepared the gun and balls for the
perpetration of this most dastardly and almost unprecedented crime,
should have also prepared the window 2 That they did thus prepare
it, and that the muzzle of the deadly gun was thrust through the ap-
perture thus made, is in harmony with the evidence of their neighbor
Riddell, who resides a quarter of a mile or so from the Talbott
residence, and who testifies that he and his wife were seated
out of doors, upon their back porch, and heard both shots
fired. The first report, he says, was a dull, heavy report (the one
where, by one theory, the explosion was inside the house or through
the window), and that in a moment he heard the second report, which
was sharp and distinct and easily located at the Talbott place.
Bud and all agree that but two shots were fired, one by the -
assassin and one by Bud ; that Bud used the double-barreled shotgun,
and shot but once because there was but one load in the gun. Now,
the same emergency that made it necessary to keep this arsenal partly
loaded and primed, would dictate that it should be kept fully loaded
and ready. Where the object of keeping one barrel of a double-
barreled gun charged, and not the other 2 Gentlemen, I apprehend
that you are fully persuaded that that gun was fully charged; that
upon that fatal night that same gun emitted two reports, sent two
missiles—one crashing through the vitals of Dr. Talbott, and the other,
not at a retreating assassin, but into the air.
Why? Because Bud deliberately walked into the presence of
his mother and dying father, and did he tell them that he had seen and
shot at the author of their misery 2 Did he, having a large extent of
open country to traverse in pursuit, and a nice moonlight night,
summon his brother Ed and Wyatt, thus instantly making a party of
three well-armed, determined avengers, to follow, arouse the country
as they went, ºvertake and bring to condign punishment the perpe-
trators of this act—the most dark and damnable in the catalogue of
human crime and perfidy ? There was no alarm given or pursuit in-
stituted that night, the next day, nor at any time since by this family;
although the evidence of the family is that the assassins “waited
patiently about,” and made almost nightly raids upon that devoted
mansion, appearing at times three or four strong in the bed-room of
Bud, and all of them pouring their livid and relentlessfire into his bed,


- 63
without touching his person. Sººd to have been spared the assassin, to
be overtaken by the hangman, Little “Tump” says he never knew
of any shooting in the house eccept that done by defendants and other
members of the family. He says defendants shot at a light out in the
yard frequently. Gentlemen, one witness tells you that it was his
opinion that the Talbott estate was worth $100,000; certain it is that it
is in a healthy condition. Then, if the assassins of the husband of that
wife, of the father of these defendants, were other than these
defendants, and were taking refuge in the United States, in this
State; IN THEIR own county. Great heavens, gentlemen if defend-
ants and this family are to be believed, IN THEIR OWN SCHOOL
DISTRICT, making nightly assaults upon their home, not content
with the life of the head of the family, they seek also the blood of
these defendants, I ask you if all this were so, would this family, and
particularly these defendants, have refused the proffered aid of your
Sheriff and posse that has been offered them 2 No, gentlemen, speedy
application would have been made to him, and a posse of five thou-
sand men, if necessary, would have been like bloodhounds upon the
track, nor would defendants have lagged until the last dollar of their
fortune, and if needs be, drop of their blood was expended in their
effort to arraign the miscreant who had brought their parent to an
untimely end. -
What further evidence have we of the guilt of these defendants?
It is in proof that they were held for trial, and taken to jail at Savan-
nah to be held safely until the time of their trial. On election day an
occurrence transpired at that jail, to a perfect understanding of which it
will be necessary to describe the surroundings, particularly of the inside
of the jail itself. There are two iron grate doors which must be passed
through from the hall on the outside to the jail on the inside. On this
particular day, the prisoners had the liberty of the hall, into which the
inside door opened. It was the custom of Sheriff Star, on going into
jail at any time, to open the outside door, step into the space between
the two doors, being about two feet, and have some one to lock the
outside door and remove the key, and then to unlock the inside door
himself, and pass into the jail. It appears that over the top of the
cells there were some wooden pieces which defendants and others had
removed. They had a key with which to open the door next to them
that they might make their escape, even at the expense of the life of
the Sheriff when he should open the ſouter door. They had previ-
ously prepared themselves with instruments with which to destroy
his life, and the only reason the Sheriff was not killed was that
the clubs hit the pieces overhead, or the stone, at the side. The Sheriff
finally getting out his revolver persuaded them that they had better
retire to their cells.
Sheriff Stotts testifies to a leaden billy which he took from Ed;
also to a wooden key which fitted the lock of the door.
In accounting for the motives which prompted the defendants
in the perpetration of the foulest of all crimes, patricide, let us continue

64
our examination into the condition of this family. There was an utter-
lack of filial love or respect. Defendants had abandoned the parental
roof; sought each to make their fortunes abroad; had tried and realized
the cold charities of the world, one in Illinois, the other in Colorado and
elsewhere. Both had signally failed, and, like a prodigal son, such as
Judas would have made, returned repentant. And if the evidence of
their plots is true, conceived the idea of putting themselves into the
immediate possession of this large estate without awaiting the dilatory
motion of father time. But counsel for defendants will seek to parry all
these damaging circumstances. Mr. Moran will give you some most
exquisite quotations from Dante and the poets, will draw a vividpicture
of the great depravity of Brighton and his wife, and show you their utter-
lack of everything (except truth.) Judge Dawson will find sweet
solace in ridicule and bitter denunciation of all detectives except theirs,
while Judge Johnston will command his store of logic to torture the
most glaring fallacies into realities, and fail. -
But they say, “our evidence is all circumstantial rºº and that
“there is no positive proof of defendant's guilt.” What proof would
you have? Eye witnesses? What are the characteristics of assassination?
It is perpetrated in the deep tangled wild wood, or ravine, or under
cover of the night, at an unsuspected and unlooked for moment, when
none but God is nigh, and must be circumstantial. Is it not enough in
Heaven's name, what more in quantity, or quality would you have?
Counsel for defense will urge, that, “If defendants are guilty, deceased
knew it, and hence they are not guilty, for he in his last hour upon
earth, parcelled out his estate to them with others, and shook the parting
hand with them.” Do you tell me, that while that father stood with
one foot upon earth, and the other in the cold waters of the river of
death, with his spirit flickering, fluttering, and plumed for eternity, at
such a moment, harbored in his bosom revenge, though he knew all 2-
Again the defense introduce Wyatt's coat and Mitchell's letter, and
support them by the evidence of W.M. SEWARD, (of Ill.,) a sample of
the Lord's amazing mercy and long suffering, imported by them to
find and swear to said letter. His whitened locks, bespoke the frosts of
many winters, but are belied by the faultless row of ivory, which were
vigorously applied to the filthy weed in his mouth. He was twenty.
Gentlemen, when you beheld the sickly, fiendish grin, together with
the general deportment, and the forced conviction of the insincerity of
this individual. I pitied the defense from the bottom of my soul,
because, this unprincipated, purjured wretch, had with one fell swoop,
given the lie to their whole position, and swept from the tables the last
vestige of this most absurd, transparent and wicked defense. I pitied
him, because I felt that he was then and there, fitting his soul for a
perjurer's hell. I will leave him with his God and you.
I will draw you a picture of a peaceful, happy family, such as
Mrs. Talbott says they had. Here is a man just married and settled
down in life; a physician, located in a new country, with only here
and there a lonely house; he follows his profession; he rides across the






















65
bleak and friendless prairies, to see his patients at a remote distance
from his home, and returns to find his loving wife and babe in the
home his hands have prepared for them. As he warms by the fire, and
awaits the preparation of the frugal meal by the hands of his loving
wife, he takes up the cherub babe and presses it fondly to his bosom,
and seems to see for it a great and glorious future. As the child grows
he watches its every movement, and his heart swells with pride; years
roll on, he having massed a goodly fortune, so that this babe, or these
babies, for there are more than one, may be provided for when they
come to manhood. Every want is anticipated and provided for.
- When the father returns to his home, he is surrounded by his
family in peace and quiet, and all are happy. All at once a crash is
heard, the breaking through of a window, and the plunging of a bul-
let, which finds its way to the father's heart, and he falls to the floor
in a lifeless condition. You say it is impossible that one of his sons,
whom he had dandled upon his knee and cradled in his bosom, could
like an adder sting that fond parent to the heart, and hurl his soul into
eternity—could have committed that atrocious crime. I grant you that
it is altogether unnatural that any child should destroy the life of his
parent, and it would be altogether impossible in such a family and
with such sons as I have described. But was this such a family? All
the evidence clearly shows that it was not. -
Gentlemen of the jury, this case is a very peculiar one. A man
has been murdered in his own household, and not only murdered but
assassinated, and we are now in the examination of the case. I desire
to ask you, where are the mourners? Where is the wife and orphan
children? Where is the sister of the deceased 2 Are they found on
the part of the prosecution? No. Every relative is found on the part
of the defendants. However I will not criticise. It may be all right
for the sister to espouse the cause of the nephews, rather than that of
the deceased brother. Perhaps it is right for the wife to espouse the
cause of the sons in the same way. It is still plainly noticeable that
there are no mourners present.
You will recollect, gentlemen, that you are to perform a great
duty, such an one as you say you never performed before. Others con-
nected with the case also perform great duties. His Honor comes from
his home and spends two weeks in the case, and if you are to bring in
the verdict of guilty, it will be his duty to pronounce the sentence.
And do you think he would shirk that duty? The prosecuting attorney
has no pleasant task. It is no mere pastime for him to prosecute these
defendants. But do you think this prosecuting attorney will stop one
moment in the performance of his duty, during his entire term of
office, notwithstanding it exposes him to danger? He must spend
many wakeful nights traversing the county to prosecute crime. And
how is it with your sheriff? Do you think it pleasant to walk up to
defendants like these and say: “I want to arrest you and put you on
trial for your life?” It is a little dangerous, but does he hesitate? Did
he say rather than expose his life in this way he would resign 2 No,
O
66
sir. He would go, I apprehend, and take any man he could find, or
die in the trying. These officers of the law have their duty to perform,
yet the last sad duty to be done, if you bring in a verdict of guilty, is
to be performed by His Honor. Gentlemen, you have taken on your
lips a solem oath. It is recorded in Heaven to the effect that you will
try this case and return a verdict according to the law and evidence. I
ask you, gentlemen, to consider the enormity of the crime committed.
It is no ordinary murder that these defendants are on trial for. It is
such a case as never occurred before in this county. A man is not only
killed but assassinated, and the assassination done in the most fiendish
possible manner. It is not only an assassination, but it is assassination
intensified by paricide—a slaying of one's one parent, a father, who
had given them existence, and had nourished them from infancy to
manhood, and upon what provocation ? No intoxication, no sudden
quarrel or heat of passion, and no avenging of any terrible wrong.
But I can say no more. When I pronounce the word paricide I
have said the largest word descriptive of crime that can be said. In
conclusion I have to say if these defendants are innocent of the crime
charged against them, they are the most persecuted individuals that
ever came under my observation. And it is simply terrible that they
should have been arrested for this diabolical crime. And if you find
this to be true under the name of law and evidence, in the name of
God, turn them loose. But if you find from the evidence applied to
the law given you, that they are guilty, then I ask you, in the name of
Heaven, to bring in a verdict that will mete out to these defendants a
punishment that will commensurate with the enormity of their crime.
M. G. MORAN FOR DEFENSE.
Mr. Moran is a young lawyer, only twenty-three
years of age. He was born in Berlin, Wis., and was
educated at the Jesuits' College in Milwaukee and Balti-
more. He was admitted to the bar in 1877. On him
devolved the task of opening the defense. He is a very
fluent speaker, and finely read in the classics. He spoke
for over three hours, and at times grew truly eloquent.
As the evidence on the side of the defense was so ably
reviewed by Judge Johnston, we will give only the closing
of Mr. Moran's effort.
Mr. Moran, after reviewing the evidence, said:
GENTILEMEN OF THE JURY. – Who can believe the evidence
adduced 2 What motive prompted the awful daring of the defendants?
Has their lives been that of criminals and outlaws? Were they ever
















67
arrested before? Is not this the first time they were ever charged with
the commission of a crime 2 They are young men whose minds are
unimpaired by the demon of intemperance; they never traveled the
dark mazes of guilt, nor held council in the habitations of infamy.
Their whole lives have been beguiled at the paternal home. Do such
influences breed particides * Is it at the family altar that men forswear
all sense of moral and religious accountability? It seems to me that
all the elements of mind and soul would combine, in jarring and per-
turbed force, to overwhelm, confuse and mock the resolution of a
parricide. The past and the future, heaven and earth, time and
eternity would combine against him, till he would flee from himself
and seek refuge in contrition. I am unwilling to recognize such a
character in the defendants. They are not such very wretches. The
career of crime is not inaugurated by the deliberate commission of
willful murder and parricide. Such remorseless deeds are the deep
workings of a soul unmixed with aught of pity. Such enormous
criminality is the result or consequences of continuous transgressions,
which overgorge and hebetate the moral sensibilities, and concentrate
the baser criminal passions into merciless desperation. When did the
defendants learn such proficiency in guilt 2. The road that slopes the
way to crime is gradual and irregular ; vice and virtue, crime and
innocence, are divergent as the zones. Transitions from one extreme
to the other, are not wrought with the velocity of the whirlwind. The
criminal stealthily journeys the avenues of guilt. He skulks with
imperceptible pace as darkness steals upon the day, and his career is
often interrupted by returning light. But the prosecution, in con-
tempt of every impulse and law which mould the actions of
human life, would have us believe the defendants guilty of the
willful and deliberate murder of a devoted parent, and it is the first
crime they ever committed. The author of our being has planted
impulses in the soul of man which govern and control his actions
in life. They are akin to the attributes of God, they partake
of the divinity of his nature. They are averse to the nature of sin
and crime. They wage perpetual warfare against the baser passions.
Even when subdued by continuous criminality, in moments of thought-
lessness they quicken, and vindicate the ways of God to man. The
guilty are perpetually rebuked by a consciousness of their crimes.
There is a secret remorse inherent in the heart, which like a juggling
fiend pursue and haunt the guilty. Guilt and security hold no com-
munion. Time may alleviate the wounds of the body, but those of the
soul are as immortal as the essence upon which they are indicted. If
such be the nature of murderous guilt, would these defendants have
made confidants of strangers? Would they not, on the contrary, have
hid their guilt in the drear and soundless realms of silence? If these
defendants were capable of the murder of their own father, they would
have known no friends or confidants. Murderous guilt is too fitful and
feverish for the strange confidence which this evidence discloses. Its
creations are dark and portentious. It is a choking gall to happiness.
68
It fires the life's blood of the soul with the hellish sulphur of remorse.
Such dreadful guilty consciousness knows the consequence of divul-
gence.
If these defendants were guilty would they calmly await their
doom in the very habitation which witnessed their guilt?
They could neither forget themselves nor their victim. Though
they might appear externally confident and secure, inner trepidation
would urge them to concealment and flight. Nature cannot be coun-
terfeited.
“Still is the seal’d up bosom haunted
By thoughts which nature has implanted,
Too deeply rooted thence to vanish,
Howe'er our stifled fears we banish,
When, struggling as they rise to start,
We check those waters of the heart,
They are not dried—those tears, unshed,
ut flow back to the fountain head, -
And resting in their spring more pure,
Forever in its depths endure,
Unseen, unwept, but uncongeal’d,
And cherished most when least revealed
With inward starts of feeling left,
To throb o'er him of life bereſt;
Without the power to fill again
The desert gap which made their pain;
Without the hope to meet him where -
United souls shall gladness share.” |
Such are feelings of a parricide as described by Byron, the subli-
mest bard of English poesy. I can’t believe that the defendants, if
guilty, would remain at home, suffer a reward to be offered for the
conviction of their father's murderer, invite the surveillance of detec-
tives, and quietly submit to the officers who arrested them—even come
to where the officers were. -
The prosecutor says the Talbotts did not live agreeably. They
attempted to poison the minds of the jury by proving difficulties
which took place between the deceased and the younger defendant.
As Mrs. Talbott testified, the Dr. often spoke harshly, but was never
cruel or severe to his children. We all knew him in life: he was frugal
and temperate in his habits ; he was an impulsive man, but of a most
ardent and generous nature; he was learned, ambitious and indus-
trious; in the hour and article of death, he testified his devotion to
his family. If the Dr. and his family had lived in deadly hostility
with each other, could he have made his widow executrix without bond
of his last will? Would he have placed his immense estate at her dispo-
sal, and empower her to convey real estate and dispose of all personal
property for the education of his children? If the defendants were his
murderers, he must have known it; if so, would he remember them in
his will equally with his other children? The welfare and happiness of
his family was his last concern. When all hopes of life had waned he
called his family to his bedside and bade them a last farewell. The


















69
prosecution would have us believe that those hands which he
clasped with the last remains of life were incardined in his own blood |
Gentlemen, I have about acted my part. The result is with you.
The hopes and happiness, the lives and liberties of the defendants are
committed to your care—are at your disposal. I pray God that noth-
ing but indubitable certainty, positive proof and the eternal principles
of law, religion and justice, will influence your judgments. May
Heaven dispose your minds, and grant you to discharge your duty with
calm, steady and discerning minds. I adjure you that prejudice and
suspicion do not find lodgment in your hearts. You are to discharge
a duty of everlasting responsibility. If passion and falsehood preoccupy
your minds, and influence your judgments, the consciousness of hav-
ing violated honor and duty, and having sacrificed human life and
liberty, will remain with you, and rive your souls with the eternal light-
nings of self-condemnation and rebuke. It matters not that the public
mind is prejudiced against the defendants. Passion, prejudice and credu-
lity are ephemeral, transitory, and will pass away; but justice is eternal,
abideth forever. Life is short; we are all hastening to the goal of
eternity. Our ashes may ere long be scattered to the winds of heaven;
but the memories and consequences of this day's verdict will live when
the tongue that now addresses you is silent, and the hand that writes
it is traceless in the tomb. Gentlemen, have mercy upon yourselves;
do not forswear your salvation; but, by your verdict, testify your de-
votion to truth, honor, honesty and respectability. Lend no sanction
to suspicion and credulity. Even strong probability will not warrant
a conviction in a capital case. Organized guilt and depravity have
made a desperate effort at judicial murder. If you unjustly convict
the defendants, the time will surely come when your souls will look
inward upon themselves and review your verdict with keen regret.
The hour of extremity inevitably awaits the children of earth. Then
sweet are the recollections of having done justice. In the dread hour
of dissolution, when the ills of mortality press heavily upon us, sweet
are the memories which recall the just transactions of our lives.
Cheering are the hopes inspired by consciousness of having acted justly
with our fellow-men. In that dread hour the whisperings of curious
suspicion, the credulity of interest, the unconscionableness of merce-
nary detectives, will afford you small relief. It is the reward of virtue
to be honored with recognition in proceedings against life. At the
tribunal of conscience—eternal justice—you will be responsible if you
lend it to human hulks, in whose hearts neither virtue, honor, dignity
nor humanity, truth nor conscience, have had a habitation for years.
Beware of the awful word of “guilty!” Its import is of eternal sig-
nification to you, as well as to the defendants. Once uttered, you
are powerless to control or recall it. It implies the sunset of hope and
life to the defendants. It visits upon them a felon's death and stamps
upon their tomb a paricidal epitaph. Before you do this, possess your-
selves of reasons indubitably founded in truth and justice; reasons that
will fortify and sustain you in your own great extremity: reasons to

7o
which you can appeal in every emergency of life; reasons which will
require no art or sophistry to palliate or justify; reasons as self-support-
ing as the attributes of Deity; reasons that will cheer, console and
comfort you at the bar of eternity, and in the presence of an adjudg-
ing God. I have done. -
JOHN EDWARDS—FOR STATE.
Mr. Moran was followed by John Edwards for the
prosecution. -
Mr. Edwards was born in Chester county, Pa., on
December 8th, 1836. His parents removed to Highland
county, O., in 1837, and here he grew to manhood. In 1862
he graduated from the Miami University, at the head of
his class. He was admitted to the bar in 1867. In 1868
he located in Maryville, and soon took his place among
the leading lawyers of Northwest Missouri. In speaking
he is concise and argumentative. In the following speech
he does not aim at fine rhetoric, but to give a clear, log-
ical analysis of the evidence.
May it Please the Court and Gentlemen of the Jury:
Grecian mythology informs us that Daedalus and Icaeus, design-
ing to effect their escape from the island of Crete, made to themselves
wings of wax, and endeavored to fly across the sea. Icaeus, ascending
too high—too near the sun–his wings melted, and he fell into the
AEgean sea, where he was drowned.
Warned by this example, I will endeavor not to soar too high.
Gentlemen of the jury, you have been selected to investigate the
facts in this case, and therefrom determine the guilt or innocence of
these defendants. From the list of forty qualified jurors, eight were
stricken off by the State and twenty by the defendants, while you
twelve remain to try the case. You have been chosen from the ordi-
nary walks of life, and you are supposed to bring with you the knowl-
edge and varied experiences which will enable you to correctly weigh
the evidence and form a sound judgment as to the guilt or innocence
of the defendants now on trial.
When this country was peopled with colonists from England, the
principles of magna charta which the English barons, at Runnymede,
wrested from King John, were brought with them, and became incor-
porated into our jurisprudence. Consequently we find engrafted upon
our own constitution, as well as upon those of the various other States
of the Union, the fundamental law first guaranteed to freemen by that
7 I
charter, that the right of trial by jury shall be held inviolate, and
that no man shall be convicted of felony except by the verdict of
twelve of his peers, selected from the vicinage where he lives.
Inasmuch as most of you have lived as long in the world as my-
self, been reared in Christian communities, and taught from your
mothers' knees the principles of morality, and those rules of social con-
duet which enable you to discriminate between right and wrong, I will
deliver to you no homily on moral duty.
On the 18th day of September, 1880, about 9 o'clock at night, in
this county, Perry H. Talbott, in his own house, was shot down by the
hand of an assassin, like a wild beast in its lair. The whole county,
when intelligence of the murder spread abroad, pulsated with intense
excitement, and every good citizen manifested the most earnest desire
to learn who had committed so foul a crime. -
It is natural to picture the midnight assassin as a villain with
bloodshot eyes and countenance stern from the impulses of vengeance.
The evidence in this case, however, points to those as the murderers
who are but beardless youths, sons of the murdered man, to whom he
had given existence, whom he had dandled upon his knee in their in-
fancy and reared with tender care. When the murder was first made
known, all eyes were looking in every direction to discover some evi-
dences which would lead to the detection of the guilty parties. The
whole community became aroused, and were determined, if possible,
to bring the perpetrators to light and justice. How was this to be done?
Was there any effort made in that direction by the household of the
deceased—by these defendants—from the 18th day of September until
the beginning of October, 1880, which would indicate that they desired
in the least to discover who were the assassins 2 None at all.
Is this not, then, a sufficient apology for the work done by the
detectives in this case at the instance and in behalf of the State?
While on the one hand we would naturally expect from the defendants
the utmost vindictive feeling against the whole corps of detectives
whose well directed efforts have fastened the guilt of this murder upon
them, on the other, their very apathy after the crime was committed,
in making no endeavor to ferret out the perpetrators, and their hatred
of all witnesses who testified for the prosecution, are among the most
significant circumstances tending to establish their guilt.
Dr. Talbott was a citizeri of wealth, and ranked high as a physi-
cian in this county. He was more widely known as the editor of the
Greenback Standard, and had been recently before his death actively
concerned in politics. He was a man of lofty aspirations, honorable
and straightforward in all his business dealings, endowed with more
than ordinary ability, and possessed of an iron will and indomitable
energy. - -
On the 18th day of September, 1880, Dr. Talbott had been in
attendance at our county fair, at Maryville, and returned to his home
about seven o’clock in the evening. Immediately afterwards he went
to Whit Leighty's, to see his sick child, and arrived home again about


72
9 o'clock at night. Albert, one of these defendants, put up his father's
mule, but soon returned into the house. The doctor went into his bed
room—the north room down stairs. Mrs. Talbott was there lying on
the south side of the bed, with her feet towards the head of the bed.
The doctor asked for letters and she gave him one which the children
had brought from the postoffice. He read the letter, in which was
enclosed a copyright recently granted him for a book. When Albert
came in the doctor handed him the letter. Albert sat down to read it
by the lamp, between the two windows, on the north side of the room.
His arm was resting on the window-sill of the west window on the
north side. The doctor had taken off his coat and vest, and was sitting
on the north side of and near the head of the bed. He was inclin-
ing forward with his face to the north, and had just put his right hand
up to his breast. At this instant the shot was fired. Mrs. Talbott,
who gave to Scott K. Snively this account of the shooting, and its
attending circumstances, says she heard the glass jingle simultaneously
with the report. She says Albert thought the lamp had exploded. Mrs.
Talbott testified that for a moment she said nothing, then she
exclamed, “Doctor, did you hear that?” He made no answer. She
repeated the exclamation and the doctor said: My God Belle, I am
shot.”
This is all quite natural, and, I suppose, in part, true. Mrs.
Talbott says Albert then picked up the gun. Albert, himself, says he
tried to get the gun, but had to desist for a moment to assist his father
to the bed. When he had laid his father on the bed, the latter said:
“Take that gun, go out and shoot the damned scoundrel who tried to
assassinate me.”
- Whether the doctor actually used these last words I leave you to
determine. When, however, we consider that the doctor must have
known, almost instinctively that the wound from this shot would
surely cause his death, the expression seems out of place, and too
strong, too profane to come from the lips of a dying man.
Mrs. Talbott narrates a circumstance connected with the perpe-
tration of the crime to which I desire particularly to direct your atten-
tion. She says when the doctor sprang from the bed, some glass was
shaken from his lap and fell upon the floor. -
This circumstance can be explained in but one way. If the win-
dow curtain was down, reaching, as it did, fully to the window sill,
this glass which fell from the doctor's lap must have passed through
the curtain at the same time with the ball, and must have perforated
the curtain in a hundred places. Such was not, however, the condition
of the curtain as shown by all the evidence on that point. But
her account incidentalally confirms in a very remarkable manner
the statment of Defendant Edward H. Talbott, as given by
Wilfred Mitchell, that when the shot was fired, Bud. was
in the room holding up the curtain. Mrs. Talbott's evidence
and the confessions of the defendants as to the direction of
the shot are confirmed by the post mortem examination made by













73
Dr. Samuel M. Dunn. He says the ball entered the breast on a
line with the nipples, a little to the right of the center of the sternum.
The opening was large enough to admit the insertion of one's thumb.
The point of exit was a little to the right of the spine, and about six
inches lower than the place of entering. The Doctor's thumb of his
right hand was shot away to the first joint. The ball was found where
it passed through the plastering in the south wall near the southwest
corner. The opening in the window pane, where the ball entered the
room, was just high enough to be made from a shot fired by a person
of medium height, standing outside, a few feet from the window, not
so far away, however, as to prevent the smoke entering the room. The
mute evidence presented by those marks on the wall and in the
window, by the wounds on the person of the Doctor, conspire with the
most convincing force, to prove that the Doctor was shot by an assassin
from without ; that he was at the time sitting on the bed, with his
right hand to his breast and his body inclined forward, facing
toward the north. The mark of the spent bullet on Mrs. Talbott's leg,
in the range of the bullet, shows her feet were to the head of the bed.
Therefore, gentlemen, we need have but one theory about this murder
—all the facts are in harmony. Mrs. Talbott I exhonerate from com-
plicity in this crime, but in her testimony, unwittingly, she has cor-
roborated the evidence for the State in a very remarkable degree.
- Whoever committed the murder of Dr. Talbott prepetrated it in
cold blood. It was a premeditated, deliberate and most atrocious
murder. The charge, as sustained by the evidence, is that Perry H.
Talbott was killed by his own sons, these defendants. So unnatural is
this that the instinct and disposition of every man on this jury must
be averse to finding the defendants guilty unless the testimony shows
an extraordinary state of feeling existing between them and their
father. The natural affection which the one ought to possess for the
other, the respect, the veneration, the love, the sense of filial duty of
the sons toward the father, stand as almost unsurmountable barriers in
opposition to your arriving at the conclusion that these defendants
would murder their father, and must first be broken down. No mere
political enmity, no ordinary ill-will, could have prompted the per-
petrators to action. The motive was generated in breasts desperately
wicked. Let us, then, examine the evidence bearing on the state of
feeling existing between the Doctor and the defendants, and their
conduct toward each other; we can thereafter be better prepared to
answer the question :-Did these defendants commit this crime, the
darkest and foulest in the catalogue of murders?
If the Doctor was a kind father to these boys and they were
dutiful sons toward him, we could hardly expect to find them the
perpetrators. But if their language and conduct show that they are
among the most brutal and degraded of characters and are wholly
devoid of natural affection for their father, we may then be prepared
to lay the crime at their door, if the other evidence so warrants.
The first witness on this point, William Smith, lives south of
Maryville about seven miles and is no detective. He has known the


74
Doctor and his family seven years and has during that time lived in
the same neighborhood. He testifies that in the spring of 1880, he
was, with his wife, passing the residence of Dr. Talbott. He was
riding in a wagon, and when he came opposite the house of Dr. Talbott,
he saw evidences of a great commotion in the front room and heard
loud and angry words. He knew the voices but could not discriminate
the one from the other. He remembered these expressions: “I’ll
knock your damned brains out;” “I’ll cut your damned heart out;"
“I’ll shoot your damned brains out:”
They do not indicate a very pacific state of feeling in the house-
hold. But counsel for defendants say that notwithstanding their
clients did use such expressions, yet they meant nothing by them.
It was all simply bragadocio and declamation. If they did not
mean anything how are we to understand men's hearts? If they
belie their sentiments by their words, how are we to understand
their thoughts? What evidence has been adduced to the effect that
they did not mean what their words import? It seems strange,
indeed, if any affection existed between them and their father,
that they should bandy words with each other in this manner or
use such unusual modes of expressing their regard. When ordinarily
we hear men use such expressions, we understand they mean what
they say. What extraordinary characters these defendants must be, iſ
they use such threats, and that, too, in the most angy and violent
manner and yet mean nothing by them I Do we hear good boys
talking in this way to their fathers ? How are you to judge of men's
conduct except by the ordinary standards 2
The next witness is also named William Smith. I shall call
him. Wm. Smith number two. He lives one mile and a half east of
Arkoe. He testifies that he was at Dr. Talbott's house December 14th,
1879, and, while sitting by the fire with Doctor, the defendant, Edward
H. Talbott, came in, and the Doctor said to him: “Ed., don't you
know better than to feed the cattle when only four or five are there,
and the rest half a mile away?” Ed, retorted: “God damn your old
soul, I don’t want any of your jaw.” Thereupon the Doctor knocked
him down, and, as he arose, told him he had better leave and never
come back, as he did not want his evil example before the younger
children; that he would give him ten dollars to leave. Ed. replied:
God damn your old soul, give me the ten dollars and I will leave; you
son of a bitch.” The Doctor then told him to go about his business.
Here the father, whose duty and right it was to correct his son, and
reprove him for his misconduct, made a remark, rebuking the boy in
no improper spirit, and in terms of the mildest character. In the
presence of a stranger, or at least a guest at the house, Ed, replies, ut-
tering the foulest and vilest epithets, and this, too, in a talk to
his own father. Gentlemen, if such expressions as these are indicative
of a good boy, what utterances shall be sufficient to characterize a bad
one 2
James A. Forrest is the next witness on this point. Who is he?
He is a young man who has lived in the neighborhood of the Talbotts
75
all his life. He is no detective—no common liar, to borrow epithets
applied by counsel to the defence to the State's witnesses. He is a
young man whose character and veracity are above reproach. He
says: About three or four weeks before the homicide, he was riding
along the road in front of the Doctor's residence, about eleven o'clock
in the forenoon. He heard a noise as of some one ascending the stairway,
and then heard the voice of Dr. Talbott at the top of the stairs, asking
Ed. why he did not get up. Ed, said: “If you do not go down I will
shoot your head off.” The Doctor, said the witness, immediately
went down stairs, What think you of this conduct, as indicative that
Ed. is a dutiful son 2 -
The next witness to these disgraceful scenes between father and
son, is John P. Griffith. He lives at Bridgewater, not a mile from the
scene of the murder. He has been a citizen of this county for twenty
years, and has known Dr. Talbott for that length of time. He went to
Dr. Talbott's September 20, 1879, to procure some seed wheat. He then
heard the Doctor say to Ed. : “Why do you not report to me what has
become of the seed wheat?” Ed. replied that he would report when
he got ready. The Doctor then told Ed. not to be saucy. What is Ed.'s
reply? It is characteristic of the utter depravity of the boy, both on
account of its profanity and lack of filial respect. “You damn son of
a bitch, I am not afraid of you,” said Ed., and at the same time thrust
his hand in his hip pocket. Reaching for a pistol, no doubt—to shoot
his father, or at least intimidating him by such action. A boy who
is ruffian enough to thus menace the life of his father—to all appear-
ances in earnest—has the wickedness of heart, when occasion requires,
to complete the crime.
Here are four witnesses, neighbors of the Talbott family, who
testify substantially to the same effect. They are not “scorpions girt
with fire,” as they are denominated by the classical orator who pre-
ceded me. They are natural human beings, dwellers in the valley of
the One-hundred-and-two River, about seven miles south of Maryville.
Can you doubt the facts they bear witness to 2 If you do, then
must you shut your eyes obstinately to everything which points to
the guilt of these defendants, and magnify everything in favor of
their innocence.
We know (taking as our standard the every-day experience of
life) that the facts I have narrated seem dark and terrible indeed.
Look at the state of affection here between father and son. Have you
in all your lives known its parallel?
I undertake to say that by the testimony of these four witnesses,
these boys are shown to possess the most malignant and wicked hearts,
and such ferocity of nature as to lead us to the conclusion that they are
capable of wreaking their malice, when prompted by the slightest
motives of vengeance, upon even their own father. They are prepared,
so far as their evil predilections can guide them, to commit any crime.
We now approach the most material parts of the evidence in this
case; the testimony bearing upon the most vital point, and to which
the speakers who have preceded me have, wisely, indeed, directed


76
their most careful and cogent arguments. I refer to the confessions,
(or rather the statements) of these defendants. The witnesses who
testified to these are Whit. S. Leighty, Wilfred Mitchell, Jonas V.
Brighton and Virginia Brighton, his wife. The first of them who
testified, Whit. S. Leighty, was not brought from Kansas. He has
been a resident of Nodaway county for nine years. He says he was
present here in Maryville at the preliminary trial of defendants, and
went to the jail where they were being incarcerated. He conversed
with Ed, who told him that Wyatt shot his father, and Albert at the
time was in the room when his father was shot. After Wyatt did the
shooting he ran around to the front and west side of the house, and
there laid the gun down on the walk. He then passed around the
south end of the house and entered the kitchen door on the east side
of the kitchen. After Wyatt shot, Albert ran out, picked up the gun
from the walk and fired off the other cartridge. He then carried this
gun back into the room where his father was shot, and stood it beside
the chimney, where it belonged. How do you suppose Ed learned all
these facts if he was innocent? Was he asleep, and did Wyatt and
Albert afterwards tell him all about the shooting 2 This is his own
story. Is it possible he could be innocent, and, after hearing of his
father's murder, keep perfectly silent. No! Such conduct is un-
natural—improbable His guilty fears kept him still. When, how-
ever, the strong arm of the law reached forth and seized these guilty
wretches—brothers in blood and partners in crime—Ed is suddenly
aroused, solely by the sense of his own peril, to open his lips and
betray the perpetrator, or rather to fasten the crime upon Wyatt by a
plausible story, and shield himself. But there is no sufficient motive
shown for the hired hand to imbrue his hands in the blood of one who
had ever treated him with kindness. Ed was not asleep. He himself
leveled the gun and fired the fatal shot. He himself perpetrated the
bloody deed which, in his statement to Leighty, he falsely assigned to
Wyatt. -
These three boys were familiar spirits, what one knew, they all
knew. After the murder of Dr. Talbott threats and terror sealed the
lips of Wyatt though his conscience struggled to reveal the crime. Ed
how seeks to exhonerate himself by charging the crime on Wyatt.
Wyatt is made the scape-goat of these defendants, to bear away their
sins into the wilderness, after the Jewish mode of exculpation. The
scape-goat, however, did not perish in the desolate places, but has re-
turned bringing back his burden of iniquities. He returns, the evil
genius of these defendants, to torment them, before their time. Wilford
Mitchell next testifies as to statements. He came back to Nodaway
county from Kansas, October 5th 1880, having gone away from here in
March of the same year. Previous to his departure for Kansas he had
resided in the northern part of this county six years. He is nomythical
character, no itinerant of unknown antecedents. He did not come
from Mrs. Lodge's boarding house in Kansas. His escutcheon is
without blemishes. If attorneys for defendants had desired to impeach
him, they could have summoned the citizens of Independence town-
77
-
ship, among whom he has lived, for this purpose. They would have
done this, had it been possible to sully his character. They are learned
in their profession and have exhibited great energy and industry, in
hunting up evidence for their clients, leaving no stone unturned, omit-
ting nothing which would benefit their clients. Their scouts have
scoured the plains of Kansas hounding the Brightons and hunting
down their veracity and virtue. Their attempt to impeach Mitchell but
made his character fairer and are as ridiculous as they are futile. Mr.
Moran says he sent back money by postal order to pay a man in Nodo-
county to whom he was indebted in a small amount, and charges that
this was done by Mitchell to fix a date when he was in Kansas, the
very time when Dr. Talbott was shot, and thus prepare to establish an
alibi, in case he should be accused of the crime. There is not the
slightest evidence of his complicity in the crime, and hence the argu-
ment is without force. I think a very different conclusion should be
drawn from such conduct. If Mitchell was in Kansas and sent money
back here to pay a just debt, that should be taken as evidence of his
honesty and sense of honor. It is a thing unheard of heretofore in
this county that a knave who had absconded to Kansas, should send
money back to pay his debts. Mr. Wooldridge, who testified in regard
to this matter, says Mitchell did not say anything which indicated he
had any connection with the murder, but he merely spoke of being in
Kansas when he sent the postal order and that this was at the time of
the assassination. As to the motives which induced Mitchell to return
here, he says himself he came back to see his child. He had married
Mrs. Belle Talbott's sister and had known Dr. Talbott for nine years.
Upon his return from Kansas, after getting off the cars at Arkoe, he
immediately went to visit the family of the Talbotts. He had no
sooner sat down, after his arrival, than they told him there
had been strange shooting going on around there, and if
he did not look out he would get his head shot off. He replied
that he had no fears in that respect. He remained at the resi-
dence of the Talbotts till Oct. 23, 1880, by which time he had become
very intimate with the boys and had won their confidence. He told
them of marvelous stories of adventures in the West, and aroused their
desire to rival him by recounting their own exploits.
At this last date he had a conversation with the boys in which
Albert manifested an inclination to disclose some secret, and turning
to Ed said, “Ed, shall I tell him.” Ed replied, “I don't care.” Albert
then took this witness aside from Ed and told him that Henry Wyatt
had shot his father; that he (Albert) was in the room where the
doctor was shot holding up the curtain. After the shot was fired he
went out took up the gun, removed the cartridge shell from the other
barrel which had been discharged and threw it away, and put the
loaded ball in its place from the other barrel, then fired it off. “Ed,”
he said, “made the ball and weighed it. It weighed an
ounce and a half.” Albert said that he loaded the gun and Wyatt
shot it. Albert afterwards stated to this witness that he would have to

78
kill Wyatt for the reason that he was talking about him and Ed. He
was afraid Wyatt would divulge the secret of the murder.
This is the evidence of no professional detective. It is the testi-
mony of the uncle of these defendants. Do you believe he would
swear to a lie 2
Observe how his testimony tallies with the other testimony in
this case. He says that Albert confessed to having assisted in the mur-
der by holding up the curtain, and Mrs. Talbott herself testifies that
when the doctor sprang up, the moment after he was shot, glass fell
from his lap and she heard it jingle on the floor. A. P. Morehouse
says a person in the room could not be seen from without unless the
curtain was held up. The presence of the shattered glass in the doc-
tor's lap shows conclusively that the curtain was up when the shot
was fired.
The hole found in the curtain was two or three inches below the
hole in the window-pane. This hole was rent almost in the form of a
cross. It could not have been made by the passage of a bullet.
Mrs. Talbott says when the doctor sprang up he was about to fall
and she took hold him and Albert helped her. This must have occu-
pied at least a minute of time, during which the assassin without was
slowly wending his way around the house and amongst the shrubbery
and fruit trees. A very cool assassin, indeed. For when Albert had
laid his father on the bed, got hold of the gun and opened two doors
to get out on the front walk this assassin was leisurely walking off
among the trees south of the house. What a laggard for an assassin .
The truth is the story of his being a strange assassin is a fiction. He
was one of the family, and had no fears of being pursued or shot. See
what coincidence there is between the statement of the transaction as
given by Albert to his uncle, Mitchell, and the account of the affair as
told here in court by Mrs. Talbott.
George Riddle says he heard two distinct shots fired that night.
One sounded dull and heavy, as though fired into the house. The
other produced a clear report, as if discharged in the open air. They
were about a minute apart. Albert admits having taken the loaded
shell out of one barrel of the shotgun and putting it into the one just
discharged. This was done for the purpose of preparing the evidence
to show that but one barrel of this gun had been discharged, and hence
but the one shot had been fired by Albert. But Albert says there were
two shots fired. He wants you to believe, however, that a strange
assassin fired the first. Can you believe it? -
He did not cunningly cover his tracks. Scott K. Snively and Ed
Rapalje picked up the empty shell which Albert confessed to Mitchell
he had thrown away. This shell very much resembles the one Sher-
man Shinnabarger saw the boys charging the day he was at their
house. This shell fits the double barrel shotgun found on the premises
of the Talbotts. The experiment of fitting it into the gun has been
successfully tried before you here in court.














79
We now come to the testimony of Jonas V. Brighton, who, ac-
cording to Mr. Moran, is a very bad character. He has served out a
term, it is true, in the penitentiary of Kansas; still, if his testimony
is strongly corroborated by the circumstances, and by the testimony of
other witnesses, and it is not inconsistent in its different parts, nor un-
reasonable, there is no good ground for the jury disbelieving it. You,
as jurors, are the sole judges of the weight of the evidence and the
credibility of the witnesses. If you believe that any witness has sworn
to anything which is untrue, you may disregard his evidence; still you
are not bound to do so. If you believe his testimony is confirmed or
corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses, it is your duty to believe -
it, unless such corroborating witnesses are also unworthy of credence.
The arrest of these defendants was made upon the affidavit of
Brighton on Tuesday, October 26, 1880. On the Saturday preceding,
Brighton says he saw Albert in Maryville. On the next Monday, he
called at the Talbott residence and met Ed at the door, Albert then
being absent at town. Ed said he was glad to meet Brighton, and in
the conversation which ensued, Ed, after enjoining secresy, mentioned
about the interview between Albert and Brighton in Maryville. He
said he and Albert were about to be killed. He then remarked that
there was one damned man, meaning Wyatt, who ought to be put
out of the way, because, he said, he knew too much about their killing
their father. His words were, “By God, there has got to be a man got
out of the way.” He agreed to give Brighton $50 to kill Wyatt.
Albert afterward came down to where Brighton was stopping at
the Snively house, and said he came to talk over what Ed and Brighton
had conversed about. He then told Brighton he would see that the $50
was paid. Albert said he would have himself done the job, but he had
done so much meanness around there they would at once suspect and
arrest him. Brighton asked Albert why he wanted Wyatt killed, and
Mrs. Virginia Brighton, who was then present, says that Albert
answered, “Because he knows too much about our killing our father.”
This last talk was on Monday, October 25, 1880, the day preceding
the arrest. Brighton says Albert came to his house that day alone,
and that he (Brighton) rode Albert's mule back to the Talbott residence
for Ed. Another witness, Avery Perkins, says he saw Brighton on
that day, riding a mule in the direction of the Talbott residence, and
returning again to where Brighton lived, just before sundown. You.
perceive whenever one of these defendants talked with Brighton, the
other afterward knew all about the conversation. They were in
strict confidence and collusion. Look at the scene during the conclave
at Brighton's, up-stairs, when Albert, Ed, and Brighton and wife were
present. Remember what they said and the armed condition in which
these young desperadoes appeared there. You will theri have no
difficulty in forming a correct judgment as to their character. Sheriff
Toel found the same kind of weapons on the persons of the defendants
when he arrested them as they are described to have had at this meet-
ing. If Brighton is a liar, how does he guess at all these descriptions.

8o
-
with such accuracy? Did Brighton know that Avery Perkins saw him
on the road, or did he persuade him to swear to that corroborative cir- -
cumstance? Gentlemen, the evidence of Jonas V. Brighton, as given
before you, is the very truth. -
Notwithstanding all this, if you do not believe these two wit-
nesses, it is your privilege to reject their evidence. As to whether or
not the testimony of Brighton and his wife is true, is wholly immaterial,
since the wituesses Leighty and Mitchell, who come before you un-
impeached, have testified to enough to show that these defendants are
the identical wretches who perpetrated the crime charged in the in-
dictment. Nor are we by any means confined to their evidence.
The testimony of the defense, so far as the circumstances of the killing
are concerned, entirely agrees with that of the State. The other
matters of defense, attempted to be shown, being manifestly fictitious,
serve only to deepen our convictions and afford additional lodges of
guilt.
Did you ever hear the fable of the lion, who gave out word to the
other beasts of the field that he was sick and about to die, and that he
could not die in peace until he had received their pardon 2 The bloody
warfare which he had carried on against them was now brought to a
close, and he begged them to come and grant him their forgiveness.
In accordance with this representation and request, the bear, the
racoon, the wolf and the hare visited his den. Finally the fox came,
and, as he approached, he cautiously scanned the tracks of all those
animals, but stopped and would not enter. At last the lion cried out
and said: “Why do you hesitate? Come in, my friend, come in. I
cannot die in peace until I have received your forgiveness. Why do.
you hesitate?” The fox answered : “I notice that all these tracks
iead into your den, but none tend away from it.” - -
So you will observe, gentlemen of the jury, all the tracks—the
evidences of guilt in this case—lead into the den of these boys, but
none lead out.
You recollect the exciting scene which ensued when the witness-
Henry Wyatt, was brought down the aisle by the Sheriff and intro-
duced as a witness for the State. It was well calculated to blanche, as
it did, the cheeks of these defendants. Wyatt took the stand and told
his story in his own artless way. He does not pretend to be a man of
education. What are the reasons why we may believe his evidence?
His simple manner, the straight-forwardness and consistency with
which he gave his testimony must have impressed every one with the
truthfulness of his statements. He says Dr. Talbott always treated him.
well; that he began work there the 16th day of June 1880, and remained
there until about a week after the Doctor's death. After he had been
there a very short time, these defendants revealed to him the plans by
which they were intending and contriving to take their fathers life.
One of these was to allure him to the stable on pretense that something.
was wrong with the horses and when he came there, to strike him on
the head with a club. Another was to put a newspaper in the road.





















81
leading from Maryville to his home, so as to frighten the mules which
he was driving and cause them to shy. When he halted them to see
what was wrong, then they were to shoot him. This was actually
attempted one night by Albert, but the Doctor drove so fast he was foiled
in his purpose. They devised another scheme to take the Doctor out of
his bed at night and hang him. These defendants seemed to have
plotted the death of their father with a coolness that is perfectly astoun-
ding, considering their relationship to him. This witness details most
of the circumstances attending the murder. He says that Ed brought
the doubled barreled shot gun up into the defendants' bed-room, on the
night of the murder and after Albert had put up the mule and returned
into the Doctor's bed-room, Ed went down stairs, gun in hand; about
a minute after Albert entered the room, witness heard the shot. They
both told this witness that Ed shot their father; that after the shooting
Ed ran around in front of the house and laid the gun on the walk;
then ran around the house into the kitchen by the back way. Albert
staid in the room to call for help, to run out and fire the gun off as he
was to pretend, at the retreating assassin. - -
This witness says these defendants, about six weeks before the
homicide, moulded three bullets in an auger hole in a stick. These bul-
lets Ed shortly afterwards hid in a post of the shed, west of the house
and across the road. Two little brothers of defendants, Win. W. Tal-
bott, called “ Tump,” fourteen years old, and a younger brother, found
two of these bullets where they had been concealed in the post. Ed
took them from the little boys and gave them to Albert, who trimmed
them into shape and cut rifles on them,-(the ball which shot the
Doctor was here exhibited) These bullets, says the witness, were like
this one. These bullets they loaded into cartridge-shells. One which
had no rifles on it, they discharged from the shot gun, at a grindstone.
It missed the grindstone and flattened against a root in the ground.
Witness says they intended to shoot their father with one of the rifled
bullets. He says the bullets prepared in the way he speaks was designed
to make persons, who afterwards investigated the matter, believe it
was a rifled gun, out of which the bullet had been discharged, no such
gun being found in the defendants' possession. By an examination of
this ball, gentlemen, what seems to be rifle-marks on the sides of it are
not of uniform distance apart. You will also notice the ball is of too
great size to have been discharged from a revolver of any sort, Amy
one can see from an examination of this ball that these appearances
of rifle-marks upon it were not made by its being forced through a
rifle gun. A bullet of that sort would manifest appearances of ridges
on its sides, where the lead had been compressed into the grooves on
its passage through the barrel. Further, gentlemen, I want to say
to you, in reference to this bullet, that when it was shot through
the body of the doctor it passed through the inner plastering of the
partition wall and lodged there. It was taken out of this partition on
the 19th day of September, 1880, and ever thereafter remained in the
custody of the sheriff. How then could Wyatt, if he did not actually
see the ball which destroyed Dr. Talbott, describe, with such particu-
6 -

82
larity, this ball and the manner of its preparation—this very ball
which killed the doctor, and which I now hand to you with the hope
that every man of you will carefully examine it. Wyatt says Tump
and his little brother found the balls in an augur hole in the post, and
they were taken from them by Ed and put under the mattress where
defendants slept.
If these things were not true, why were not these little boys called
upon to disprove them 2 Why was not little Tump while on the wit-
ness stand asked about these bullets? Sometimes from the very silence
of individuals, we draw the most certain conclusions.
“Silence is vocal if we listen well.”
- When damaging charges are made, and the accused has the
means at hand to refute them, it is reasonable to conclude that he will
do so. If, however, they are brought against him and he makes no
effort to refute them, we are driven to the conclusion that he is unable
to do so. These statements are made by Wyatt, and the witnesses for
the defense, who have equal knowledge concerning them, are not even
examined concerning them.
The court says in an instruction given for defendants that Henry
Wyatt is indicted jointly with the defendants as their accomplice, and,
therefore you may look on his testimony with suspicion, and, if it is
not corroborated by other testimony you should not found a conviction
thereon.
We say the same thing. We want you to take all the evidence
together. You will then see that Wyatt's testimony is corroborated in
every particular, even by the statements of Ed so far as they go, except
as to the one who did the shooting. His statement is that Wyatt,
not he, did the shooting, otherwise their stories are the same.
But let us see further in reference to the shooting and ascertain
if possible which of these two did it. Little Tump is put on the wit-
ness stand and he says Wyatt was up-stairs on the night of the murder
with his clothes on, but without his boots. Tump dropped asleep and
was finally awakened by the screams of his mother. When he got up
and went down, Wyatt was already in the room where his father was.
Mr. Talbott says Wyatt was all dressed, except that he did not
have on his boots. No other conclusion than the one I have suggested,
namely that Ed fired the fatal shot, can be drawn from the evidence of
little Tump. He says, when his mother screamed a second time, he
arose and went down, and Wyatt was then in the room where the
doctor was shot. Mrs. Talbott herself says she screamed a second time,
and that Wyatt then came in, all dressed except as to his boots. This
would give at least a minute of time, sufficient for Ed, who had been
out doing the shooting, to return up stairs and, when called a second
time by Mrs. Talbott, to rush down again. Mrs. Talbott does not know
whether the shotgun was in the room at the moment the shot was fired.
Certainly it cannot be thought strange that she did not know this.
She had been lying on the bed, but without having taken off her

83
.
clothes, awaiting the coming of the doctor, who had been out on a pro-
fessional trip. Of course she was not looking for guns. At the time of
the shooting, she was looking in the direction of her husband and son.
She so testifies. When the shock came she cried out, “What is the
matter?” and the doctor said, “My God, Belle, I am shot!” She in-
stantly sprang up and caught him. Now, do you think she was look-
ing for guns? Did you notice that neither one of these gentlemen,
counsel for defendants, asked Mrs. Talbott anything about seeing the
gun at that instant of time? She passes off the stand without having
testified in reference to it, and we can come to but one conclusion about
it, namely that she did not wish to do so. You ask, what if she did not
know the gun was in the room 2 What possible difference could this
make? It is this: the gun was not in fact there. It was being used
outside that night. Wyatt says when Albert went out he picked the
gun up from the walk, and shot out the remaining load, pointing the
gun up in the air.
This is all the material evidence bearing upon the relation of the
several parties implicated to each other, up to the accomplishment of
the murder. There is much which occurred afterward that I cannot
speak of, as I desire to leave it to the State's attorney.
Let me ask you, gentlemen, what have the defendants done to
break the force of this evidence? What did the twenty-five witnesses
they introduced testify in reference to? One or two were used for the
purpose of showing that Jonas V. Brighton at one time said he had the
boys arrested, that they were held for trial, and if he could procure
their indictment, the Talbotts would give him ten thousand dollars,
which he would take and skip out.
We know they were indicted, yet Brighton did not skip/ of
these twenty-five witnesses, introduced by the defense, eighteen directed
their testimony at the characters of Mr. and Mrs. Brighton.
When Mr. Moran, who cross examined poor Virginia Brighton,
felt that he had arrived at that point where her virtue was utterly an-
nihilated, the blushes played on his modest cheeks, as the sunlight,
falling through the clouds, dances in dimples on the green fields in
summer time. Had counsel for defense been as diligent to secure evi-
dence to rebut the other testimony offered by the State on the trial of
this case, as they have been zealous to attack the virtue of this woman,
they would not have seemed powerless, during this protracted trial, to
make any rational defense.
True they have some detectives of their own, imitating the
strategy of the state. This man J. J. Dixon who has once been Sheriff
in the State of Ohio, takes a contract of husking corn. Then too, they
have William Seward, the babe from Illinois, who was brought out
here at the instance of Mrs. West, who is from Ohio, to ferret out the
perpetrators of this crime. He employed Jack Kroyles also to assist in
the work. She is a lady and supposed to be solicitous as the sister of
Dr. Talbott that those who participated in his taking off might be
brought to justice. Can you conjecture, gentlemen, why it is that
-
84
those detectives whom she employs, report not to the Sheriff whose
duty it is to make arrests, nor yet to the prosecuting attorney whose busi-
ness it is to prosecute persons charged with crime, but only to the lady
herself? This class of detectives do not report to the officers of the law,
nor do they report on the trial of this case in aid of the prosecution.
They are a very peculiar class of detectives indeed. Their efforts as if
by pre-directed design, all conspire to one end. This poor boy, Wm.
Seward is sent out to search for old coats. He goes to the smoke
house and for what? to look for a breech loading shot-gun which per-
adventure the assassin, seen on the night of the shooting, retreating in a
southeasterly direction unarmed, might have left there? No. He goes
out in search of old coats; and what is all this for? He does not expect
to find any letter of course, yet as if guided by some certain premoni-
tion, he finds this coat and in its pocket a letter . The contents of this
letter you do not know. It was not offered in evidence. There was a
flourish made to identify the hand writing, before the judge, which
failed, and then this letter dropped out of sight. Why did this detective
not go further? He has not spent all the vigor of his youth. Why he
does not keep on, I do not know. For some wise reasons counsel on
the other side suddenly let the matter of this letter drop and with it we
will bring our review of the labors of this detective to a close, and as
we bear no malice toward the vanquished let this be his fitting epitaph.
– Requiescat in pace, let him rest in peace. Instead of bringing these
men, the so-called detectives of defendants, out here to engage in their
search and keeping their labors hidden until this trial, why was not
the knowledge which they claim to have had concerning the killing of
Dr. Talbott fully given at once, when acquired, and active steps imme-
diately taken to secure the arrest and conviction of the perpetrators
of the crime. Can we believe from what has transpired
here, that they were seeking to bring to light facts which would
lead to the detection and punishment of the murderers of Dr. Talbott?
Must we not either come to the conclusion that they were seeking to
cover up the facts and to divert attention from the real murderers?
Something was intended to be accomplished by their services, but
surely it was not in aid of the State, as they would have reported to the
proper officers of the law and not to Mrs. West. -
As to the statement of Mrs. Anna Hoshor, Mrs. Talbott says she
did not, in the south room up-stairs of her house, on the day of the
burial of her baby, say to Mrs. Hoshor that she had had a quarrel with
her husband once as he was about to start to town, and that Albert
would have shot him then if he had had his pistol, and that then, at
this time of the conversation, Albert was prepared for him. Still, Mrs.
Hoshor affirmed she did make these declarations. Mrs. Hoshor is a
credible person and lives in this county. No attempt is made to im-
peach her. Mrs. Talbott is biased by her affection for these boys.
Mrs. Hoshor said: “Do you think he (Albert) would have shot him?”
Mrs. Talbott answered : “I do.”
You will recall what Wm. Smith said in reference to the diffi-
culty between the Doctor and the boys; and James A. Forrest details a

85
circumstance that occurred at another time. In this latter Mrs.
Talbott figures. It seems the Doctor was using loud and harsh words,
and Forrest appeared inclined not to remain, when Mrs. Talbott said
to him : “Come in and stay awhile; the Doctor is now having prayer-
meeting, as he does every morning, and after awhile he may preach us
a sermon.” This little sally of irony shows her stronger sympathy
to be on the side of the boys. Mrs. Talbott insists that theirs was an
ordinarily quiet home; that while the Doctor was hasty and passionate,
he was yet kind to the boys; and that she never heard him utter
threatening language toward them. Still, suppose she is mistaken,
and that other witnesses testify truly to what they saw and heard; do
you think, if trained under such influences, these defendants would
feel toward their father as children ordinarily do toward their parents?
It seems to me they could not.
As to what has been said about the Doctor's distribution of his
property among his children, by his last will and testament, nothing
can be inferred from this circumstance, because most manifestly he
could not have known who his assassin was.
Gentlemen of the jury, I have now passed over most of the
salient points in the testimony, and I think I have done it fairly. I
have quoted much of the evidence literally in order that you might be
able to draw just conclusions therefrom. It is not so much by the
flowers of rhetoric or flights of oratory, as by the exercise of our
reasoning powers, that we arrive at the truth. Reason constitutes the
distinguishing faculty between man and the lower animals, and
enables him to arrive at just conclusions, upon which he may rest as
on a rock. Passion and sympathy are delusive guides, and disregard
all established distinctions in the moral world between right and
Wrong. -
If you believe from the testimony which has been adduced that
the defendants are guilty, you have but one plain duty to perform.
You should not allow any motives of sympathy to cause you to
swerve in the least from such duty. -
You are not to be influenced by notions of public policy on the
one hand, nor on the other by mere sentiments of sympathy for
defendants; but as rational men you are expected to do justice and
nothing but justice toward all concerned. I think we have clearly
made such a case as warrants—nay, demands—that you bring in a
verdict of guilty. But if you think otherwise, in Heaven's name bring
in a verdict of not guilty and allow these defendants to go to their
home. If, however, you think under the law and the evidence that
they are guilty, bring in a verdict accordingly, and let the law be vin-
dicated. We live in a civilized community, and society demands that
the law be upheld; that the guilty violators of it shall receive the just
reward which their crimes merit. The safety of the citizen requires
that punishment shall be certainly meted out to those who disregard

86
not the rights of others, especially when they violate them to the
extent they did in this case, as shown by the evidence. -
In conclusion, then, I shall express the hope that you will care-
fully weigh all the testimony offered on the trial, as dispassionate,
candid, thinking men; and thus be enabled, in this case—where life
and liberty are cast into the balance to be weighed against each other—
to do exact justice. -
JUDGE T. J. JOHNSON.—FOR DEFENSE.
After the conclusion of the speech of Mr. Edwards
Court adjourned until Friday morning, when Judge T. J.
Johnson opened for defense.
Judge Johnson was born in Perry, Pike county, Ill.,
was a student at the Christian University, Canton, Mo.,
but did not complete his course. He read law in Pitts-
field, Ill., in office of D. H. Gilmer; was admitted in
1861. Practiced in Sullivan county, this State, from 1864
to 1870. Served in that county as Probate Judge.
Moved to Maryville in 1870. - -
Judge Johnson is one of the best lawyers in this
judicial circuit, and was a member of the last constitu-
tional convention. He spoke in a conversational manner
and always right to the point. He is one of the closest
reasoners of the Maryville bar. º
May if //ease the Court and you, Gentlemen of the /ury:
I will state as a proposition that it is the duty of the State to make
out a case against the defendants before they can be called upon to say
a single word or take a single step in their own defense; and the case
when made out must be such that you, gentlemen of the jury, may
legally find a verdict of guilty against them. I state these propositions
and hope they may be kept in view in the rehearsal of the testimony and
the arguments that shall be drawn therefrom by me and the counsel who
shall follow me. But before I begin the argument on behalf of the
defendants and an examination of the facts proven and present my
conclusions from them, I desire briefly to notice some of the positions
taken by Mr. Edwards, of counsel for the state, who preceded me. Mr.
Edwards opens his argument by giving us a short lesson in Grecian
mythology, in which he is very lame. He says: “Grecian mythology
teaches us that Dadalus and Icarus desiring to make their escape from

the Island of Crete, made themselves wings of wax. That Icarus flying
too near the sun melted his wings, and fell into the sea and was drowned.
Dadalus escaped.” I will be warned by the example and endeavor not
to soar too high. Gentlemen of the jury, Grecian mythology teaches
us that Icarus fell into the sea and was drowned, and the sea from that
day was from that circumstance called the Icarusian sea. It was Ægeus,
King of Athens, who plunged into the AEgean sea and was drowned;
from which that sea derived its name of Ægean. So you see that Mr.
Edwards is beginning in the very out-set to get things mixed tip, and
in his first effort has had his wings melted; but seriously, Mr. Edwards
assumes that the circumstances of the case were such that it became
necessary, in order to ferret out the criminal, to go or send to Kansas
and import a detective, thereby laying a charge against our officers
of the law and our citizens here of a want of zeal or desire to search
out criminals and bring them to punishment. I do not believe Mr. Ed-
wards fully realized the force and effect of the charge implied by his
statement that it became necessary to bring here a detective from the
State of Kansas. Our officers are as diligent and our people as zealous
in the maintenance of order and the enforcement of the laws as can be
found in any community whatever or wherever, and such implication
being unfounded is very unjust.
The charge against these defendants is a very grave one indeed
—one of the very gravest known to our laws and punishable with the
greatest severity—the penalty which the law inflicts if the charge is found
to be true, being no less than that the life of the individual charged shall
be forfeited upon the gallows. It is the only kind of case, except high
treason, wherein the State assumes the right and responsibility of taking
the life of the offender. On account of the awful effect which may fol-
low the finding of the defendants guilty, under the indictment in this
case, there are thrown around the prisoners certain safeguards, and
around those selected to try them, certain bounds, beyond which they
dare not go. If you disregard the safeguards and privileges of the
accused, and go beyond the bounds set by the law for you, as jurors,
and you should find these defendants guilty and the State should execute
them on such verdict, it would be what is termed judicial murder, for
under the law no man can be found guilty and executed except accord-
ing to the forms and by the sanction of the law. In this case the State
of Missouri, with all its powers, represents one side, while these two boy
defendants represent the other. This court, as organized, is
but a representation of the majesty of this great commonwealth,
and you, gentlemen of the jury, constitute a part of the court.
The law imposes upon you certain dutiés, and limits you in those
duties by certain wise rules which, if observed, can result in no
injury to the accused or the people; but which, if disregarded by you,
may result in absolute and limitless ruin to the accused and irremediable
disaster to the State, in that the State is caused to destroy the lives of
these two young men without the sanction of law. Hence, to avoid
such a deplorable result, society has adopted the humane maxim, that
“it is better that ninety and nine guilty go unpunished than that one in:
nocent man should suffer.” And why? Because human life is so sacred
that nothing on earth or within the power of man to give can com-

88
pensate for the loss of it. It is beyond the power of man to appreciate
the injury to society and the State that would result from an unwarranted
destruction of a single human being. Human life taken without the
sanction of law You may destroy the State—may blot it out so that
not one vestige of its legal entity remains; all this may be done. Yet
the fabric may be rebuilded, and the State resuscitated. But destroy
a human life and there is no remedy in the whole economy of nature.
The wrong remains for which some one must answer in that day when
eternity begins. It is for this reason that the State tells her juries that
the case must be made out beyond a reasonable doubt before a verdict
of guilty shall receive her sanction. It is eminently proper that we
should be understood in the use of terms, and I will say that the law
means by “reasonable doubt” one growing out of the case as made
out; not a frivolous one, but a substantial one, arising in the mind from
some inherent weakness in the proof or circumstances relied upon by
the State to make out its case. In other words, if you can account for
the assassination of Dr. Talbott upon any other rational hypothesis than
that the defendants are the guilty parties, then you must have a reason-
able doubt that they did it, and your verdict as a consequence must be
“not guilty.” - -
Another safeguard is that the jury are the judges of the credibil-
ity of the witnesses, and of the value of each item of evidence deliv-
ered. Hence you are left free and untrammeled in forming an estimate
of the credit you will attach to the statement of any witness, and are not
bound to believe a fact exists or is true just because Brighton, Mitchell
or any other witness swore it was true; but you have all your experience
in life in dealing with men, and your common sense, to tell you that
some men are unworthy of belief, and that the world is full of decep-
tion, so that it is possible that the very elect may be deceived. The
result of the rule is, that it is your province, if you believe any witness
presented before you is unworthy of belief, or has willfully sworn falsely
to any material fact, to disregard the whole of the testimony of such
witness. It is your duty to inquire and inform yourselves as to the
moral character of the witnesses, as to their character for honesty and
integrity, for truth and veracity, and then say whether you believe them,
say whether you are satisfied to act upon what they say, and whether
you would risk your fortunes with such a witness, or place it in pledge
for the truth of what they have delivered here before you. If you
would not believe them in ordinary transactions—if you say, “I would
not risk my fortune with such a person,” will you upon the testimony
of such a person return a verdict that will destroy the lives of the de-
fendants? The lives of these boys are more sacred than ten thousand
such fortunes as any man possesses. º: º: º: * * *
Your experience tells you to look into the faces and upon the persons
of those who testify before you, and observe carefully their demeanor
upon the witness stand, and listen attentively to the story they tell; and
if faces, which all know to be true indexes to their characters, have the
appearance of truth and credibility, and their demeanor is that of per-
sons who state truly what they know—then if the story is reasonable and
consistent with the situation, and in harmony with undoubted facts-
such evidence will be entirely satisfactory to your minds. No doubt of

























89
any kind will find a place there. Such witnesses and such testimony
the law demands the State shall produce before it can call upon you for
a verdict of guilty, and before it will sanction such a verdict—because,
without which, you can not lay your hands upon your hearts and say,
* We are satisfied—we have no reasonable doubt.”
The law, as given to you by the court, tells you"that you must be
fendants before you can pronounce them guilty. The charge is mur-
der in the first degree, and, as we have said, the charge must be sus-
tained with a degree of certainty that admits no rational doubt. * *
* Has the charge been so sustained, and that by witnesses
in whose integrity of statements you would rise the most sacred thing'
in earth? º: * * º: Now let us examine the characters
of the witnesses and the testimony delivered by them, and thus
rationally determine whether the charge has been made out as I have
indicated that it should, and as the court has declared the law requires
it to be.
The witnesses upon whose testimony the prosecution relies to
establish the charge may be divided into three classes. First, those
who testified as to the residence of Dr. Talbott, his family, of whom the
defendants were members; the appearances and circumstances present
and surrounding the family and house of the deceased before and after
the homicide, and these were Sheriff Toel, Morehouse, Rapalje and
others, whom the jury remember were called for that purpose. Second.
Those who testified as to inculpatory facts, tending to connect the
defendants with the crime charged, such as the manufacture of the bul-
let with which the Doctor was shot, and that the defendants were in the
possession of the bullet, or one something like it, some days previous
to the homicide, and the bad state of feelings that existed between Dr.
Talbott and these defendants, and these were the two Smiths, W. S.
Shinnebarger, James Forest, Wm. Turner and some others; and third,
witnesses who were introduced to prove confessions and admissions by
the defendants since the occurrence of the homicide, and these were
Brighton and wife, and Wilford Mitchell, the detectives, and Whit
Leighty.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, we submit to you that the case has
not been made out by all the witnesses employed and mentioned in the .
first and second classes, and unless the testimony of the third class of
witnesses is reliable and of such a character that a verdict of guilty
can be safely based upon it, then no juror can conscientiously say that
he has no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. It is very
evident that the introduction of the witnesses of the first and second
classes was for the purpose of preparing your minds to receive the tes-
timony of the third class, that is, the defendants stand charged with
murder. To prove that charge the State introduces evidence, as men-
tioned by the first class, giving you the situation of things about the
premises where the homicide occurred. And next, certain facts and
circumstances from which some inferences might be by you drawn det-
rimental to the defendants, at least such as would arouse in your minds
a suspicion that the defendants are guilty, and prepare you for the
reception of the testimony of these imported detectives, and men who
entirely satisfied as to the truth of the charge made against these de-







90
swear for hire. The attorneys for the State well knew that to introduce
the witnesses mentioned in the third class, with their confessed stultifica-
tion, would so shock you as to entirely ruin their case. Hence some pre-,
paration was necessary, some apparent foundation must be laid.so that
you would be half convinced of the guilt of defendants before they would
risk the character of witnesses who were expecting pecuniary compensation
for the testimony they were to deliver. The policy of the prosecution has
been to pave the way for the reception by you, as I have stated, of the
testimony upon which the State seeks to convict these boys; for instance,
the prosecution introduces Smith and wife to prove that a quarrel occur.
red one evening between these defendants and the Doctor, in which
harsh language was used and threats employed by all parties against
each other. They say they heard these parties in the quarrel threaten
to take each others lives. Yet nothing more serious than threats
resulted—nobody was hurt in the least and the storm was soon over.
But the prosecution anticipated the effect such evidence would have on
your minds, and expected you to draw an inference from it unfavorable
to these defendants. Other witnesses were introduced to show the
feelings of hostility and bad relations existing in this family, yet out of
all these numerous quarrels and threats, no witness has been found
in the county by which it can be proved that either of the boys
ever actually assaulted his father. No hurt ever came from it except,
perhaps, the bad example. The Dr. and these boys may have quar-
reled and fussed and had their disagreements—such is the case with
many families. Yet this does not argue that they are guilty of murder.
That quality or principle implanted in the bosom of parents and children
by the Almighty, is not to be stified or blotted out in a day—that re-
quires a long course of crime, the parent or child has to be transformed
by a long course of crime into a beast, before that God-given emotion
ceases to assert itself in the breast of a parent toward his child or the
child toward the father. Have these boys been following such a course?
Who ever heard of these boys committing any crime before ? No living
person. If these boys are guilty now this I assert here, that it is the
first criminal act of their lives so far as ... by any person in the
community. Gentlemen of the jury, you have looked into the faces of
these boys. They have now been before you for several days; you
know in your experience in life, that the human face manifests the
emotions and thoughts within. Now do you see in the faces of these
boys the hardened criminal? Do you detect anything therein but a con-
sciousness of perfect innocense? º: * * º:
The State, as I have told you, must rear a structure of solid, sound
material; there must not be an unsound stick or stone in it, for no chain
can be stronger, as you all know, than its weakest link.
We will now examine the materials of which this structure is
formed, and the links in the chain of facts and circumstances of which
this chain is composed. -
Smith the second, you remember there were too Smiths intro-
duced, tells you that upon one occasion, while he and Ed, were in the
field gathering corn, that Ed, said he would kill his father—they had had
a difficulty you remember about feeding the cattle. Ed. was then but
seventeen years of age, a mere boy. Now, gentlemen, the State would

9I
have you infer from that circumstance that Ed, would commit murder,
or make some other unfavorable inference against him. If that was not
the purpose of introducing it, what other object could it have I will
admit that if Smith detailed the statement of Ed, truly as it actually
occurred, it manifested a great recklessness of expression on Ed.’s
part, or that his passions were greatly wrought up, but you remember,
gentlemen, that Ed, was then only a boy and without that discretion
possessed by one of more mature age. A mere boy without thought of
the meaning that might be attached to an unguarded statement made in
a moment of excitement—nothing further came of it—no crime was
committed, and in all probability the whole matter forgotten by Ed. long
since, or if remembered by him was remembered to be ashamed of. This
is one stone the State has worked into the building and I submit, that
whether it affords any weight in the making up of this case admits of
considerable doubt. * * * Jas. A. Forest tells his story; he heard
the Dr. scolding and cursing Ed. for not rising earlier in the morning.
Heard Ed, swear he would shoot the top of the Dr.'s head off if he did
not go away, &c. Forest then started away and Mrs. Talbott called
him to stay, she said the Dr. is having his regular morning’s prayer, and
that if he would wait awhile the Dr. would preach a sermon. Now, this
is another sample of their material; another link in the chain; but is
there anything in it? Did Forest, by whom they proved it, think there
was anything of a serious nature in it? He was on the ground and saw
and heard all that transpired, and yet asked what he thought about it
and how he felt about it, he said it caused him to laugh. It must have
been a farce that the Dr. and Ed. were playing. Well, nobody was hurt
and nothing serious ever came of it. That was the end of it, and the
whole matter affords nothing from which an unfavorable inference
ought to be drawn. 3: * * * º: 3: * º:
Next Mrs. Hosher is produced who furnishes another item, and
this it is. She says, in a conversation with Mrs. Talbott on the afternoon of
the day that Mrs. Talbott’s youngest child was buried that she told Mrs.
Hosher that a short time previous she and the Dr. had quarreled,
and that if Bud. (Albert) had been there and had his pistol he
would have shot the Dr. Mrs. Talbott does not recollect having
any such conversation; but suppose Mrs. Talbott did state just
as Mrs. Hosher testifies she did, What of it? Bud was not present
at the conversation to deny that he would have done any such
thing as shoot the Dr., and besides that how could Mrs. Talbott
know that if Bud had been there what he would have done or what
he would not have done. Gentlemen there is no evidence in that,
it is the mearest hearsay and not legitimate conclusion can be drawn
from it, because not properly before you as evidence and the only
effect it can possibly have in the case is to poison your minds against
the defendant, Albert, which we submit ought not to be allowed and if
you find, while thinking over the facts proven, that this conversation
detailed by Mrs. Hosher, will recur to your minds, then your minds
have been poisoned by it and you should exclude it—throw it away and
if possible forget it, for these defendants must not suffer from state-
ments made by others not in their presence. . " º: º: º:
It is fully proved that the Dr. was a passionate man and there can


- 92
be no doubt but that the boys were often in his presence when there
was equal provocation, and that too when they were armed, and yet not
a hair of the Doctor's head was ever hurt by either of them. * * *
We have now argued two features of this case—the circumstances
furnishing ground from which inferences injuriously affecting the defend-
ants are sought to be drawn by the State and the relations of the parties.
We come now to the more substantial and material evidence affecting
the defendants in this case; and here the prosecution must stand or fall.
If the evidence now to be examined, in connection with that upon which
we have already commented, will not produce that conviction in your
minds—that satisfaction of the truth of the charge as to leave no sub-
stantial doubt of the guilt of the defendants, the prosecution falls to the
ground and the defendants go free. It is here too, gentlemen, that we
appeal to your experience and what you have learned of the character
of men by your observations and dealings with them. You know that
“men do not gather grapes from thorns, nor figs from thistles.” You
know that “sweet water can not flow from bitter fountains,” neither can
you trust the statements which flow from a corrupt witness. If a witness
is produced before you who is proven to be corrupt how can you expect
pure testimony to be obtained from him. The Court has told you that
you are to take into consideration in estimating the value of the testi-
mony, the character of the witness who delivers it for honesty, integrity,
veracity, &c. Also the reasonableness or otherwise of the statements
made and their harmony with known facts and their coincidence with
human action and conduct. These young men, the defendants, do not
differ, I apprehend, from other persons and under the same circum-
stances would act pretty much the same way. * * * Now with
these rules of common sense in view let us proceed to examine this
evidence.
I appreciate the fact, gentlemen, that we are treading upon tender
ground and yet, herein lies the whole case. The evidence now to be
examined consists chiefly in confessions and admissions made by these
boys. Witnesses have come before you and testified that the accused
made certain admissions. Now, gentlemen, they made them, or these
witnesses have fabricated most damning falsehoods against them. Here,
gentlemen, we have a right to demand that the prosecution shall pro-
duce witnesses whose characters are above reproach, in whom you can
º: º:
rely with the most implicit confidence. º: º: The
prosecution introduces before you Henry Wyatt, an accomplice, who
does not pretend himself to be innocent of a share in this most out-
ragous tragedy and you are asked to believe what he tells you
concerning it. I shall not pretend to rehearse the whole or any consid:
erable part of this man's testimony. According to Wyatt, these defend-
ants made three bullets similar to the one here exhibited to you as the
one with which this homicide was committed. He says the balls were
made by being melted and run into a block of wood in which a hole
had been bored for the reception of the lead. That after the balls had
been moulded the boys took them to the barn and hid them away in an
auger hole in a post close to the roof so that they would not be discov-
ered by any one. And while arguing this item of the evidence, gen:
tlemen (for the prosecution hung upon the fact that the boys hid away

93
these bullets, as furnishing very patent evidence of guilty intent on their
part), their theory is that because the accused kept these bullets hid away
and concealed, according to Wyatt's account, that therefore it is to be de-
duced they meditated crime. But the prosecution straightway introduce
young Shinnebargar, who testified that the week previous to the homicide
he was at Dr. Talbott’s house and there he saw these same defendants
loading these same balls into a shot-gun and shooting at a target with
them; that one of the smaller boys of the Talbottfamily was present, and
that Ed got the ball that had been fired at a tree, and took a hammer
and hammered the ball round, as it had been battered some by striking
a root of the tree or some other hard substance. That the ball these
defendants were using on that occasion, looks like the one here exhibited
to you and the one with which the prosecution claim the homicide was
committed. Now, it is argued that these boys were practicing with this
ball and learning its effect when fired from the shot-gun by actual exper-
ience. When the prosecution produced before you young Shinnebar-
gar's story, gentlemen had forgotten that they had just been very careful
to prove to you that the accused were guilty because they concealed these
bullets, so that no one could know who had them prior to the killing of
the Doctor. Shinnebargar's statement proves conclusively that these
boys made no attempt whatever to conceal anything. They did not
think that day, that after the homicide was committed and the bullet
found, that young Shinnebargar would say: “I know who did it. I
know who used that bullet. The Talbott boys did it themselves, for I
saw them practicing with it some ten days before, and they made no
secret of it. They did not seem to care who saw them, &c.”
Gentlemen of the Jury: By the introduction of young Shinne-
bargar, the State simply destroyed the whole force of the testimony of
their witness Wyatt, and the inference which Mr. Edwards drew from it.
If the inference of guilty intent can be legitimately drawn from the fact
that the boys concealed the bullets according to Wyatt, then I submit
that the inference of any guilty intent was not entertained by them, by
publicly displaying them according to Shinnebargar. If Shinnebargar
speaks truly, these boys were not covering their tracks. They were
simply, if they meditated crime with that gun and that bullet, furnishing
in advance the means of their detection; furnishing evidence by which
a meditated crime could betraced to them and fastened upon them. *
* Is it reasonable, gentlemen, that these boys, some six weeks,
according to Wyatt, in advance of the homicide, would make prepara-
tions to commit it, and then straightway furnish the means of their
detection and conviction, according to Shinnebarger ? Do men act
that way : Is it according to experience? Is it according to the modes
and operations of the human mind? If the conduct of these boys was
as stated by Shinnebarger, then Wyatt did not depose truly. If they
acted as Wyatt says they did, then Shinnebarger is at fault. At all
events an evil intent cannot be inferred from acts of an exactly oppo-
site character. If either told the truth it was Shinnebarger—at least
we must suppose so, for he had no reason to state anything but the
truth, while Wyatt was laboring all the way through under the most
pressing necessity to shift the burden of a most inexcusable and atro-
cious crime from his own shoulders, or at least divide the burden by

94
fastening upon the defendants the relation of accomplices. It is said
that even misery loves company. If Shinnebarger deposed truly, then
the conduct of defendants furnishes no premises from which an unfa.
vorable inference can be adduced. So the argument of the prosecution
utterly fails here, and gentlemen must furnish other proof * * * *
The next witnesses introduced by the State were Josiah V. Brigh-
ton, Virginia Brighton and Wilford Mitchell. Upon the testimony of
these witnesses you must rely, for outside of them the evidence is en-
tirely too trivial to furnish any basis for a verdict of guilty in this case.
And the prosecution will admit as much. If not, why appeal to such
characters? They profess to be defectives, s/ies and informers. An
enviable position, indeed, in society, that; prowlers who go about
prying into the affairs of others for the purpose of exposing them
for pay, insinuating themselves into your confidence simply, and
only simply, for the purpose of betraying you. The experience
of the past two thousand years teaches us that a man who will
engage in such a vocation, for a consideration, will betray the inno-
cent just as well as the guilty, and fabricate evidence where they
fail to find it ready at hand and existing in fact; so that in later
years no case has succeeded where the testimony of the detective had
to be relied upon for that purpose. Why, gentlemen, nearly the first
detective we read of was Judas Iscariot, and it was the Savior of the
world whom he betrayed. I tell you, gentlemen, no man can follow
that business long and retain his integrity. Judas betrayed innocent
blood, but he repented, gave back the thirty pieces of silver, and went
straightway and hanged himself; and by that act, in the minds of some,
partially atoned for the wrong he did. Now, I should think a great deal
more of these three detectives should they follow Judas' example by
speedily becoming ashamed of their work, and going forth and hanging
themselves. º: * * * * º: º: º: º: *
The State introduces Brighton, who on Wednesday before the
arrest came to Mrs. Talbott's. And here I would have you remember
that Mitchell had been stopping there nearly a month before that,
though both swear that they had not known each other before. The
singular part of it is, they both hail from Kansas, and from adjoining
counties in Kansas, both engaged in the same business, and both
working in this case for money. Brighton's story is a most incredible
one, out of all harmony with human experience; for that teaches us
that the first impulse of a man who commits a criminal or immoral act,
is to cover it from view—hide it—and even in many instances commit
other crimes, when he thinks it necessary to do so, in order to hide it.
But how different was the conduct of these boys, if Brighton and his
wife testified truly. Why, he says the second time he saw Ed was at
Mrs. Talbott’s house, on Monday, the day before the arrest. He says
when he arrived there Ed met him at the door, and after he had shaken
hands with him, he says to Brighton: “There is a man got to be
killed.” Brighton asked who, and he said: “Henry Wyatt.” He
asked why, and he replied that, “Wyatt knows all about us killing our
father,” and that “he must be killed or he will give us away.” Remem-
ber, gentleman, this all occurred (if at all) at the beginning of the
second conversation he had ever had with Ed, and while they were
95
comparative strangers to each other. Now, how does this accord with
your knowledge of mankind Do you believe that any such thing ever
occurred Why, you will be compelled to believe, if you believe it
did occur as he states it, that Ed is either irresponsibly foolish, or not
moved upon by the ordinary impulses of the human mind. Is he com-
posed of different material from the balance of us, do you think? Have
you seen anything in his conduct to indicate it? But equally unnatural
and strange is the subsequent interview detailed by Brighton and his
wife, which occurred the same evening at Brighton’s house with Bud.
Now, it seems, according to Brighton, that Bud makes the same identical
statement that evening that Ed made in the forenoon, and began the
statement in almost the identical language: “There has got to be a
man killed,” etc. You remember the testimony of Brighton. Just look
at it and think of it a moment. The boys have an awful secret that
must be kept from the world. They assassinated their father and but
one man knows it. That man is Wyatt. Now, I suppose you will
accredit the boys with ordinary sense, at least. Well, according to
Brighton and wife, these boys are afraid the awful secret will out;
that they are in great danger, and in order to save themselves and keep
the secret secure they go and tell Brighton and wife—two perfect
strangers in the neighborhood; that is to say, they engage to pay
Brighton fifty dollars to help them keep it, and to kill Wyatt into the
bargain, when they would have two secrets of the same kind to keep,
Gentlemen, there is no reason in it. No rational mind will receive such
testimony; in fact, the mind of man is so constituted as not to do so,
and, I suppose, for a good purpose. If men can be prevailed
upon to entertain and act upon such statements as detailed by
Brighton and wife, then none of us is safe in the same community
with such, for we know that he will make an effort to procure
the conviction of the guilty party, and his incentive is money;
and if he will fabricate and tell lies until he becomes known as
a notorious liar, as testified to by about twenty witnesses, taken from
where he operated in Kansas; then, I say, if he can fabricate a confes-
sion, and it shall be believed and acted upon by a jury of good men,
as the term is ordinarily used, notwithstanding howsoever unreasonable
and out of keeping with what we know from experience in life, and how
men act under similar circumstances, there can be no safety against the
machinations of such witnesses. Gentlemen, if I am permitted to judge
you in this regard, I would venture this: that from what I know of you
there is not a single man on the jury who would risk a dollar on any
venture or enterprise founded on the statement of Brighton or his wife,
if as unreasonable as their testimony in this case is, especially when you
are advised, as you have been, of the total lack of every quality of
honor, integrity and morality in these two witnesses. You would not
risk a dollar upon it. Then how can it be asked of you to found a ver-
dict in this case upon it, or even to weigh a feather's weight in forming
a verdict involving, not money, but the lives of these two young men.
Gentlemen of the jury, we next have to deal with Mitchell, another
detective, an uncle of these boys, who swears before you that he ex-
pected as his part of the reward for their conviction the sum of seven
hundred dollars. A reward is offered for the detection and conviction

96
he should make an effort, and a desperate one, to shift the burden and
pardon or commutation iſ afterwards convicted. I do not wish to abuse
trial, but under indictment as an accomplice in the murder of Dr. Tal-
of the guilty party, of some fifteen hundred dollars. The party offering
it is one party to the contract, and who are the other Brighton and
wife and Mitchell. They engaged to convict these defendants, and to
do it for hire. They furnish no evidence except themselves, and they
offer to swear the case through for hire. And Mitchell says that the
seven hundred dollars was what he was working for. It seems to me,
gentlemen of the jury, that when a witness, in a case like this, in which
the lives of these two boys are at stake, comes before you and admits
that he expects to be paid for procuring a conviction of them, that his
evidence should not be placed in the balance for any purpose whatever,
You can not safely do so and satisfy your consciences. Such testimony
in such a case is of too questionable a character to be taken into account.
It might be considered for what it was worth in a case where no higher
considerations than dollars and cents were involved; but in this case, I
say, it should not be entertained for a moment. Mitchell's testimony is
like that of Brighton, wholly out of joint with all reason. He tells you
that, on the Sunday evening before the arrest, Bud and Ed took him to
one side, and Bud said to Ed, “Shall we tell him?” Ed replied, “Yes.”
Bud then said, “ Mitchell, if you tell, off comes your head.” Then
Bud told him that they killed their father, and that Wyatt was about to
give them away, and that he was going to give them away. Mitchell
says that while Bud was making this statement he “kinder grinned.”
Here, if Mitchell is to be believed, these boys were going to kill Wyatt
because he knew their secreſ—going to give the secret away—and they
are revealing it themselves to Mitchell. Are these boys fools? Or is
Mitchell trying to impose on you gentlemen and this court? One or
the other is certainly true. The boys are not fools—and Mitchell has
lied; or, if fools, they should not be held responsible. -
Henry Wyatt is next introduced by the State. He is not now on
bott. He may be guilty, and if he is he knows all about it; but it is
not for us to say whether he is or not. If he is, it is not unnatural that
shield himself, if within the range of possibility. And if a conviction of
these defendants can be had, the battle will be half won, and he and
his counsel know it; for it is generally allowed that one jointly guilty
who will turn State's evidence, as it is termed, is entitled to and receives
Henry Wyatt for offering himself as a witness in this case, for I am
sure now, since he admits it, that he is guilty of this most foul
and unnatural murder, and has the blood of Dr. Talbott on his hands.
And he is in the clutches of the law. He will soon be
called upon to face a jury, as these young men now do; and
it is but natural that in view of such an awful fact he is anxious
to pave his way in order to lighten his burden as much as possible. His
incentive to testify is overwhelming at present, for now he has an oppor-
tunity to entitle himself to executive clemency, which will be forever
gone should he let this trial pass without availing himself of it. His
motion, which is great, is to shield himself and lighten the burden which
is pressing him down; and a witness under such stress of circumstances
will not hesitate to avail himself of any and every avenue of escape that


































97
presents itself, even by fastening it upon one entirely innocent. It mat-
ters not how innocent, he will swear it upon him, if by so doing it will
furnish a means of escaping the gallows himself. In this connection I
wish to speak of another thing, gentlemen of the jury. I wish to allude
to the fact that in ninty-nine cases out of a hundred where a prisoner is
called upon to face the ordeal that these young men have faced during
this trial, and listened to the damning testimony of Brighton and wife,
and Mitchell and Wyatt, will give way and break entirely down under
its pressure. Why, gentlemen, Wyatt has given up the fight thus early,
and while he is not even on trial, simply in anticipation of these same
facts being brought against him in the future some time. Now, you
have had these boys in your presence, where any yielding or giving way
under consciousness of guilt, if guilty, could not have escaped you;
and I appeal to each of you to say whether you have seen in their con-
duct or countenances anything but indications of conscious innocence 2
You have not; nor has any member of this court. Could they have
endured this ordeal, or could they now without manifesting some sign of
guilt, if they were really guilty? Could you, gentleman, were you in their
places, or could any man in this audience 2 * * * * Again,
Wyatt tells you that he had known for six weeks of their intention to
murder the doctor, and had seen preparations going forward for its con-
summation. Why, if he knew all this, did he not inform the doctor of
his impending danger? He tells you he was afraid of the boys. Could
he not have left the country. Did necessity compel him to stay here?
Gentlemen, there is nothing in such an excuse. It is a fabrication on
the theory that a poor excuse is better than none, but such an excuse on
such an occasion is worse than none, for it aids us in the study of the
animus of this man. He seeks to exculpate himself, or rather to lay a
foundation for his escape of the halter when his time comes. He says
again that Ed took the gun and went around to the north side of the
house, and while Bud was in the room holding up the window curtain,
and the doctor sitting on the side of the bed and Mrs. Talbott lying
upon the bed at the doctor's back, fired through the window at the doc-
tor. Now, gentlemen consider this part of Wyatt's statement. Do you
believe that even if the boys had intended to murder their father, and
in the terrible manner mentioned, they would have done so at the peril
also of murdering their mother These boys may be bad enough, but
when we consider that there never was any trouble between the mother
and them, and the natural affection existing between one of the parents
and the child, in case of differences existing between the other parent
and that child, it becomes too great a tax on our credulity to believe that
Ed would have fired such a missile as this shown you so that it would
pass within a very few inches of the body of his mother, in fact, gentle-
men, the ball, as you have been told, actually cut the flesh upon the
mother's leg between the knee and ankle. Don't you know, gentlemen,
that this statement will not do—that there is something rotten in the tes-
timony of this man? It is altogether unnatural and improbable. It is
also out of harmony with known experience. If this man has made
statements that cannot be believed, as I have shown you, what part of
his whole version of the murder are you going to believe : The court
furnishes you a rule in such cases. It tells you, “That if you believe
7

98
that any witness has willfully sworn falsely as to any material fact in the
case, you are at liberty to disregard the whole of his testimony.” “ . .
Gentlemen, it is said that “murder will out;" that it will manifest itself,
and has in this case with the most potent effect upon this witness, Henry
Wyatt... Poor man, did you not observe his hang-dog look; did you
not observe the terrible struggle going on with his conscience; did you
not observe that he came near fainting on the witness stand, so near
that the sheriff had to take him from this room in order to revive him,
so he could finish his immaterial narration. Murder can scarcely be
concealed, especially when brought within the focus of the scrutiny of a
trial like this, where all the rays of testimony are brought to fall directly
upon the person accused. These mere boys have been placed before
you and this court, while the full force of these witnesses, Brighton and
wife, and Mitchell and Wyatt, have done their best; have sworn before
you to the most astounding occurrences, confessions of these boys to
the murder of their father; and yet neither of them blanched or indicated
by act or expression that the terrible consciousness of guilt had been
aroused within, or was there present at all. I say, that if they are guilty
of this offense, they would have manifested it in some way or other; the
fact is, they could not have concealed it; men are not so constituted
that they can so perfectly conceal their feelings. These are the im-
probabilities of the case; and you must remember in this connection,
that the State must make a case against the defendants so satisfactory
to your minds as to render any other hypothesis than that they are guilty
of the crime unreasonable and improbable. If you can account for the
homicide of Dr. Talbott upon any other rational ground than that these
boys are guilty, the court tells you you must acquit. This rule is in-
tended for the protection of the jury and the accused; it applies in
such case as this with double force in consequence of the terrible effect
involved in a wrong verdict, for should you find these boys guilty, and
they should be executed upon the testimony of such witnesses as the
State has produced before you, and it should turn out hereafter that they
were not guilty, you would be guilty of a mistake, even if not criminal,
which would cause your consaiences to smite you till your dying day.
The winds would bear their requiem to your ears as it whistled through
the branches of the trees, and the forms of these boys would meet you
in your dreams to haunt and upbraid you for this day’s doings; hence
jurors are not required by the law to assume such an obligation, or to
place themselves in such a position as to render their future lives an
unhappy burden. Then, gentlemen, consider well this thing you are
asked by the State to do; consider the evidence that has been presented,
and the character thereof; also the quality of the fountains from which
it issued, and then answer, if you can, whether you are willing to risk
taking these boys' lives upon such evidence, and the future happiness
of your lives upon a foundation laid by such witnesses. If you convict,
it can only be justified upon the assumption that these four witnesses
were believed by you, and that too, notwithstanding we have held up the
character of each and bid you look. If you looked, you have seen but rot.
ten carcasses. Brighton, we are told, is of bad reputation for truth, morali-
ty and integrity, and he acknowledges that he is recently out of the
Kansas penitentiary, while his poor frail wife has been smirched all over

99
by a dozen good citizens of our own county. I shall add nothing
more against her than what these witnesses have already said. I deem
that entirely sufficient. Mitchell ought to share the same fate at your
hands. The State should be given to understand that if it wants you
to assume the responsibility of rendering a verdict that will send these
boys to the gallows, it must bring clean witnessess–cleaner than
Brighton and wife, or Wyatt, or Mitchell. As for Mitchell, I desire but
a minute. What has he been doing, and where has he been the last
several years? From his own mouth he has been wandering about the
country without visible means of support, a pauper and vagabond.
What has he been doing in this country of life and activity by which to
gain a livelihood ; stealing? Is he a vagrant? Part of the time in
Kansas living in a dug-out and part of the time sponging his bread and
meat from his relations. He admits that he has had no occupation for
the past several years. He finally wanders down here and lives off his
sister-in-law, Mrs. Talbott, in order to gain the confidence of her boys
—the accused here. What for Why in order to betray them and get
seven hundred dollars for it. Is there an avenging God in the universe?
And will he allow such a creature to escape his avenging hand? Gen-
tlemen of the jury, if there is a course of conduct that should render a
man more supremely contemptible and loathesome than another, this
man Mitchell, it seems to me, has struck upon it and followed it strictly
in this affair. And the State asks a verdict at your hands in this case
founded upon testimony coming from such creatures as these. The
State parades these four specimens as her chief support and reliance in
this case, and asks you to view them and give them credence in what
they swear. Detectives, following the avocation of Judas without the
conscience of Judas, for he hanged himself because of his conscience,
and I am sure that none of these will do as Judas did, and will die and
go to their places without leaving behind even as much as poor Judas
did to call forth our commiseration. * × * * *
Gentlemen, the State may be satisfied to rest this case upon the
testimony of these characters—but I should hesitate a long time before
I could give my consent to hang a good dog on the veracity of these
people. This, gentlemen, constitutes the head and front of the case
made against these young men. Without this testimony no conviction,
I submit, can be had. No case is left if this is excluded. Then what
will you do; or rather, what can and ought you to do under the circum-
stances. I have referred you to facts and statements made by these
witnesses that must certainly convince you beyond any question, that
you cannot safely convict upon it, and when you connot safely convict
in such a case you cannot be justified in convicting at all. * * *
Gentlemen of the jury, I have now spoken to you nearly three
hours, and know that all parties engaged are weary, and I shall, there-
fore, hasten to a conclusion of my task. I can say one thing and that is,
that I have dealt with nothing but the case in hand. In fact I was too
tired when I began to deal with platitudes or generalities. My business
has been with the case in hand, and I hope that I have at least called
your minds to dwell upon some of the phases of this case that should be
seriously considered by you.
Then, gentlemen, I have admonished you to be careful both for

IOO
your sakes and the sakes of these boys. I think I have dealt with you
fairly in view of the gravity and terrible consequences of the judgment
you are about to render. We can hardly comprehend it; life and death
hangs upon it. The State will insist upon a verdict of guilty and I ad-
monish you to beware that you make no mistake—for a mistake when
you have been forewarned may not find a period in this life but extend
to the one beyond this life. When you come to render an account
where no mistakes are made, and where a trial will be had that will be
final, and where, if the lives of these boys shall be unwarrantably sacri.
ficed, you may be called to meet both Edward and Albert—they as
witnesses and you as accused. Gentlemen, in the name of all that is
sacred, I admonish you to make no mistake in this matter, and thanking
you for the patient hearing you have given me, so far as I can do, I now
deliver into your hands to do with these defendants what in your con-
sciences and better judgment you ought to do, and invoke your mercy
upon them.
LA FAYETTE DAWSON'S CLOSING SPEECH
ON PART OF DEFENSE.
The closing speech for the defense was made by
La Fayette Dawson. Mr. Dawson was born in McLean
County, Ill., in the year 1839. He was admitted to the
bar in Maryville in 1866, and has always practiced in
that city. He is known throughout the northwest of the
State as one of the finest criminal lawyers in his section,
and has been engaged in all of the leading criminal cases
of the county. Mr. Dawson is also well known through-
out the State as a leading Democratic politician. As a
speaker he has no equal:
May it please the court, and you, gentlemen of the jury, under,
and by virtue of an arrangement between the counsel, it has fallen to
my lot, to close the argument in behalf of these unfortunate defendants.
And I can assure you gentlemen that I feel deeply the responsibility
resting on me in so doing. This is, perhaps, the most peculiar and im:
portant case ever tried in the northwest. The charge against the de-
fendants as preferred in the indictment is, that on the night of the 18th
of September,these defendants did willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly,
and of their malice aforethought, kill and murder Perry H. Talbott. This
charge is serious. It implies the existence of all the constituent elements
of murder. But when we reflect upon the fact that the charge as legally
preferred, as supplemented by the fact that, if true, the defendants are
guilty of patricide, the human mind shudders and shrinks from con-
templating its atrocity. The fearful criminality of the charge against
IOI
these defendants, the unnatural crime it implies, and the great interest
of society as here manifested, renders your duty as sworn jurors, one of
peculiar delicacy and responsibility. The result of this trial will be of
very great importance to every man, woman and child in the State of
Missouri. Although, out of a population of more than two million of
people, there may be thousands who have never heard of the Talbotts,
or of the commission of this fearful tragedy; still all are interested in
the result. Upon the due enforcement of the law, depends the pros-
perity and happiness of all of us. But, gentlemen, while you are an
important and an indispensable instrumentality in the hands of the law,
charged with the duty of pronouncing a verdict of guilty upon those
who are guilty, you are charged with another great duty and responsi-
bility. It is as much a part of your duty to shield and protect the in-
nocent, as it is to return a verdict against those who are shown to be
guilty. - -
When you jurors were examined as to your qualifications, each
one of you, under the solemn obligation of an oath, answered that you
were unbiased and unprejudiced against the defendants. That you
could enter upon the trial of this case, with your minds wholly free from
any impressions from outside sources, and try the case according to
the evidence on the trial, and the law, as declared by the court.
I allude to the character of your oath, for the purpose of reminding you
of your great responsibility to the law, to society and to your fellow men.
We, upon the part of the defendants, have been laboring under great
disadvantages. In fact there is, and has been great inequality in this
important contest. On one hand, it is a well organized prosecution,
backed by the great State of Missouri, with her State officers, her
Judiciary, her Sheriffs and Marshals and her trio of prosecutors, fierce in
their merciless and cruel cries for blood, and their efforts and anxiety
stimulated and inflamed by a morbid sentimentality on the part of the
public, who seem to think a victim must be offered up to the Moloch of
the gallows, for the purification of public morals.
Why is all this? It is indeed a lamentable fact that, because, on
the night of September 18th, when all was still, save perhaps theºrippling
of the waters, the rustling of the leaves, or the occasional chirping of the
lonely bird of night, when all nature was smiling down in nightly beauty
in exemplification of the Omniscient power and goodness of a Supreme
Being, Perry H. Talbott was laid low by an assassin. Because he
stepped out to meet the mutterings of an inexorable fate at the muzzle
of a shotgun, and because his soul is this day wandering through the
shoreless regions of Eternity, that there should be such a universal cry
for the blood of his children. I have observed since the beginning of
this remarkable trial in attendance here, self-styled christians, each one
of whom seem to have forgotten the great christian maxim, “charity for
all, malice toward none,” who believe themselves entitled to a cozy
position in Paradise, from where they can look down with fiendish
delight at these unhappy defendants, struggling, roasting and writhing,
in the red-hot lurid and glaring lava of Hell's molten ocean. While the
poor defendants appear to be without sympathy, without aid, save the
feeble efforts of their counsel, this morbid, lamentable, and public senti-
ment, leads its possessor to the belief that the only abode of these boys

I O2
on earth, should be a dreary dungeon; and that their future existence
should be in perpetual torment. Blood, blood, is their cry. Not satis-
fied with the usual merciless cry for blood, Mrs. Talbott is made the vic-
tim of official wrath, because she upon the witness stand, when describing
the tragedy that bereft her of the husband whose joys and sorrows she
had shared for more than a quarter of a century, became deeply affected
—because her eyes were suffused with tears—because she wept as if
her heart were waters—she is pointed at with scorn and derision. The
exclamation of Mr. Beech is : “Where are the mourners for Dr. Talbott?
The sympathy is all on the side of the defendants " Can there be
anything wrong in this 2 The great Architect of the universe, in the
creation of the human family, implanted in the female heart a silent,
invisible monitor and sentiment. We cannot see it, neither can we
hear it speak; still it does speak wonderfully impressive, and forbids
the mother to forsake her children. Like all general rules, this one has
its exception. A long career of crime and licentiousness sometimes
blunts the natural feelings of the female to such an extent that she will
disregard this divine admonition; but with the true mother, never. It
is to be regretted that Mr. Beech made the cruel remark alluded to,
because he is usually good-natured and kind-hearted; but I suppose
his long study of the dark side of life in connection with this case, and
his association with those who require blood as an appetizer, have so
perverted his nature and blunted his feelings that his benevolence and
humanity have, for the time at least, taken their flight.
This, gentleman, is the situation of this remarkable case. An
allegation of crime is easily made, but it is not always so easily proven.
The burden of proving the guilt of these defendants is on the prose-
cution. The defendants, under the beneficent provisions of our organic
law, sit here shielded and protected by the presumption of innocence,
and patiently await the developments on the part of the State. Before
you, as sworn jurors, can find them guilty of any degree of homicide,
you must believe from the evidence, and that, too, beyond a reasonable
doubt that they did at the time stated, and in the manner, and by the
means charged, slay their own father. You will observe, gentlemen,
that it is not claimed by the prosecution that any one witnessed the
killing in this case. Dr. Talbott was not assassinated in the brightness
of the morning, nor when the sun was at his fierce meridian ; but
the bloody and cruel deed was shrouded in the darkness of the
night, and you are therefore called upon by the prosecution to
presume guilt from the circumstances proven. This, gentlemen,
should put you on your guard, and warn you of the uncertainty
and of the danger of sacrificing human life on circumstantial evidence.
As much as we detest the commission of crime, much as we abhor the
commission of murder, of patricide or matricide, there is still one kind
of murder more dangerous, more abhorent than all others. Usually, in
cases of murder, those only immediately concerned are the sufferers.
But in a case of judicial murder, the court, the jury, the officers of the
court and society are all sufferers, because impliedly assenting and
therefore becoming, in morals at least, particeſ's criminis. The com:
munity, society, humanity and benevolence, and christianity, must all
go down in the vortex of a judicial mistake of this magnitude. There-























Io.3
fore, gentlemen, you must remember that you are treading on danger-
ous ground, and that a mistake on your part may be irrevocable and
result in the sacrifice of two young lives. Before you can find these
boys guilty, the circumstances in proof must be of such a nature, and
so intimately and accurately interwoven, as to absolutely exclude from
your minds every other reasonable hypothesis except that of their guilt.
Now, it is said, and generally accepted as true, that the great
object of intellectual research is the discovery of truth, which may with
propriety be defined to be the conformity of circumstances, words and
relations with the nature of the great and principal event undergoing
investigation. But the great trouble with the prosecutors in this case,
is that they attribute infinitely more importance to circumstantial evi-
dence than to direct evidence. Why, says Mr. Edwards, you cannot
impeach a circumstance, you cannot contradict it, whilst if we should
offer direct evidence of the facts of this case, the witnesses might be
impeached or contradicted by the defendants. He seems to have fallen
into the error of some of our late law writers and has adopted the
fallacious sophism of those who declare that circumstances are inflexible
proofs, that witnesses may be actuated by malice, or may be impure, or
mistaken, or corrupted, but things can be neither. He entirely overlooks
the great fundamental fact that a circumstance is simply a minor fact de-
pending for its truth or falsity upon direct evidence and that while circum-
stances cannot lie,those who undertake to narrate them may lie and may
do so wickedly and corruptly. These circumstances, therefore, upon
which the State must rely for a conviction in this case must be proven
by human testimony, and as you are told, in one of the instructions, by
credible and reliable witnesses. Now I desire you, gentlemen of the
jury, to bear in mind that the witness who testifies to but a single one
of the circumstances necessary to complete the chain in this case must
be trustworthy and creditable, because, if there is one spurious link, that
is, if any one of the circumstances necessary and essential to complete
the basis upon which the superstructure of guilt must rest, is spurious,
or comes from an unreliable source, then you cannot safely convict.
The most learned writers on the subject of evidence, both ancient and
modern, have concurred in treating circumstantial evidence as inferior
in effect and less satisfactory than direct evidence. This gentleman
brings us to an examination of these evidences, and the source or
sources from which it comes. It is an established rule—one, in fact,
established at the beginning of jurisprudence—that all witnesses who
are examined either upon a civil or criminal trial, must give their evi-
dence under the solemn obligation of an oath. This rule is laid down
by the first writers on jurisprudence, and has been adhered to, I believe,
in all cases except that of King James the First, who certified to the
chancellor a promise under his sign manual. What is an oath What
does it imply? A witness, when taking an oath, is understood to make
a special, a formal and solemn appeal to the auther of his being for the
truth of the evidence he is about to give, and further to imprecate the
vengence of the Divine being on his head if what, he shall say be false.
This gentleman necessarily implies that the witness has a conscience
upon which this solemnity can operate. True the forms of this oath are
multiform and vary as do customs and religious training. The great



Io.4
object is to reach the conscience, to impress upon the human heart the
supreme importance of telling the truth. We find that, in the history of
jurisprudence, Jews have been sworn in courts of justice on the Penta-
teuch with their heads uncovered, and that a Mahommedan has been
sworn upon the Koran, that the evidence of a Hindoo has been received
who had with his hand touched the foot of a Brahmin ; so, too, the evi-
dence of a Chinese who had gone through the operation of breaking a
saucer and then declaring that if he did not speak the truth his soul
would be cracked like the saucer. But in all the cases alluded to, the
great object was the same. The form of the oath is wholly immaterial.
It is an appeal to God calling upon him to witness what is said, to notice
the interest or motive of the witness, and invoking Divine vengeance if
what is said should be false.
Now, then, what is the character of the principal witness on the
part of the prosecution? Is there a mother's son of you who believes
Brighton has a conscience? That Mrs. Brighton, however pure she
may have been, has not been polluted and her refinement and chastity
chilled and destroyed by association with this human monster 2 Think
of it, gentlemen. A self-confessed liar, a man who approaches these
ignorant boys, these unsuspecting rural youths, with a lie in his mouth,
under an assumed name, inducing the belief on their part that his wife was
his sister, offering to give her up for the purpose of prostitution, if nec-
essary, to fasten around these defendants a chain of circumstances that
would ultimately result in their overthrow and conviction. And all this,
too, gentlemen, for the purpose of obtaining a prospective reward of five
hundred dollars. A man who was compelled to admit on the witness
stand that he had served a term of four years in the penitentiary of the
State of Kansas for the crime of grand larceny. And then, gentlemen,
look at the conduct of Mitchell and tell me if it comports with purity
or decency. Why, gentlemen, I believe if Brighton and Mitchell had
lived in those days they would have been the associates of and numbered
with the irrepressible and despicable Israelites who pelted the Saviour
with stones on the hills of Judea, and still it is on the evidence of such
wretches that you are asked to convict these defendants. Why, gentle-
men, think for a moment of the sickening details of Brighton and wife.
Let your minds revert back to the day when she was, as they say, con-
cealed in the closet, eavesdropping, with her eyes upturned as if in mute
appeal to the Omniscient being to send upon them a little of that fiery
exhalation which first startled and then filled the Twelve Apostles with
the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. What is her object? To
assist her husband, as she claims, to secure the reward. Are
they actuated by pure motive And what are the motives
of Mitchell ? Do they desire to avenge the death of Dr.
Talbott? Do they desire to vindicate the law? No, gentlemen, their
motives are as mercenary as the devil is wicked. And then to complete
the great judicial farce, the prosecution parades Henry Wyatt down the
aisle, and announces that it is a great surprise to them but they have
been informed that he desires to make a clean breast of it, and tell all
he knows of the assassination of Dr. Talbott, solemnly asseverating on
their official oath that they have not talked with him. He, you will
remember, gentlemen, is jointly indictedwith the Talbott boys, and has






















| ~
|-
H-
H-
|-©
cae
----
H=
…
O|-
|-|-©-
H=
cae
Lae
\º
\\}\\} →
.




Ioë
been imprisoned in the county jail of Andrew county. Yet when they
put him on the witness stand, they know precisely what points to press
him on and when to touch him lightly. Why you had as well try to
convince me that this great world in which we live, with its oceans and
seas, with its lakes and rivers, with its mountains and valleys, with its
beautiful landscapes and its rivulets, was created by molecular motion,
and that the silent invisible hand of an omniscient God had nothing to
do with it, as to convince me that this parading of Wyatt in the
manner it was done was not a part of the programme of the prosecution.
And who believes him? Who can believe him? Is there a person here
whose blood did not run chill in your veins when you looked upon the
hideous countenance of that wretched and loathsome malefactor as he
marched down the aisle of this hall? He looked as if he could eat and
relish human flesh, and yet they deemed it necessary to use this Godless
miscreant to prop and hold up the evidence of Brighton and wife and
Mitchell and Leighty. I will notice the evidence of Wyatt further along.
Let us therefore examine, gentlemen, the history of this class of
witnesses. You have, I apprehend, all read something about the trial
and condemnation of the Savior, and the character of the witness upon
whose testimony he was condemned to die on the cross. The Evange-
list, Luke, has left upon record in the Book of Books, the estimate which
he and his contemporaries placed on hired spies and informers. It is
admitted I believe by all impartial historians that the arrest and con-
demnation of the Great Messiah, was based upon the evidence of such
Godless and heartless wretches as the principal witness in this case.
With the single exception of the Jews, enlightened people of every
clime I believe have and do regard the crucifixion of Christ as a shock-
ing and cruel murder. The Evangelist Luke says in his narrative at
verse twenty, chapter twenty: “And they watched him and sent forth
spies which should feign themselves just men that they might take
hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and
authority of the Governor.”
Now, gentlemen, think of this case. Picture in your mind's eye
the scene of Brighton and Mitchell professing friendship to these boys;
of the allurements of Virginia Brighton; of her deceptive blandish-
ments; of the clandistine march of Leighty to the jail; of his persist-
ent efforts to engage Ed. in conversation, and all of them actuated by
mercenary motives, and tell me, gentlemen, if it does not remind you
of the conduct of the wicked, corrupt conscience grabbers, who did the
bidding of Pontius Pilate. -
Mr. Greenleaf, whose name and memory is dear to the heart of
every lawyer—one of the greatest minds America has ever produced–
a man not only versed in the law, but a man of great learning and re-
search generally, and a devout and consistent Christian—in his ripe
old age, after a lifetime of experience and research, wrote a book enti.
tled “The Testimony of the Evangelists, or Harmony of the Gospels,”
in which he reviews at length the very partial account of that remarka-
ble epoch in the world's history as given by the Jewish historian, Mr.
Salvador, in which he uses this forcible and pertinent language when
speaking of the character of the witnesses against the great Messiah:
“Who will not be surprised to find in this case the odious prac-

IoW
tice of employing hired informers? Branded with infamy as they are
in modern times, they will be still more so when we carry back their
origin to the trial of Christ. It will be seen presently whether I have
not properly characterized by the name of hired informers those emis-
saries whom the chief priests sent out to be about Jesus.”
Such, gentlemen, is the estimation in which such wretches have
been and will always, be held by decent people. Pause, jurors, and
think of the fearful consequences that must result to society if the
presumption of innocence which the court tells you surrounds the
unfortunate defendants, and protects them until it is broken down
is to be overcome by the testimony of these mercenary wretches. Will
their conduct and their statements bear the test of analysis? Surely not.
Take for instance the conduct of Mitchell. He admits that he was at
Dr. Talbott’s when Olivia was married in July last, and that he had a
conversation with Wyatt. He then returned to the State of Kansas, but
after learning of the assassination of the Doctor, he returned to this
county. Where did he go? To his former home? No; he went into
this unfortunate family; went there under the guise of friendship, and
he it was who called the attention of the boys to lights in the orchard at
night. He it was who urged on the shooting and participated in the
night shooting in October. He it was who was all this time correspond-
ing with Brighton in their black and damnable scheme to bring about
the ruin and undoing of these unsuspected boys. Does he not swear
that he expected seven hundred dollars as the reward for betraying his
nephews? Now gentlemen, let us trace Mitchell a little further. You will
remember that he and Brighton lived in adjoining counties in Kansas;
that both of them came here unbidden, and both for the same purpose,
namely; to make money out of the Talbott estate. Is Mitchell a pure
witness? Does his conduct comport with honesty Is it consistent with
innocence on his part, or does not his conduct in connection with co-
temporaneous and surrounding circumstances, induce the belief that he
is a guilty culprit, and that he was a party to the murder of Dr. Talbott,
though in another State at the time. Why did he go to Mr. Woolridge,
at Hopkins, to whom he had sent a postal order, and ask to see the date
of the letter in which he sent the postal order, and when learning that
the letter was dated on the 18th day of September, the very day Dr.
Talbott was assassinated, and postmarked “Pottawatamie, Kansas,"
exclaiº, “That lets me out. Bear me witness that that letter was dated
on the very day of the assassination, and therefore I could have known
nothing about it.” - - -
And bear in mind, gentlemen, that this was all done before any
person on the hemisphere of God, so far as we know, had accused Mit-
chell of complicity in the perpetration of the cowardly and diabolic deed
of murdering Dr. Talbott. Why all this concern ? Why this anxiety on
his part? If he is an innocent, disinterested party why does he build up
this cordon of innocence on his part Why does he anticipate that he
may be accused? He but illustrates the great truism that “the wicked
flee when no man pursueth.”
Gentlemen of the jury, when we consider the fact of Wyatt's con-
ſession, as they call it, and the fact that he and Mitchell were together
in July, and the wonderful anxiety of Mitchell to convict these defend-
-

Io&
ants, and the motive by which he has been and is actuated, and the
further fact that he would not in terms admit his signature to the letter
of August 20, addressed to Wyatt, we can arrive at but one conclusion.
And who have been his associates ? Brighton, Mrs. Brighton, Whit
Leighty and Dave Stotts. Now, let us test the bona ſides of Leighty.
Does he not admit on cross-examination that before he approached Ed
Talbott in the jail, that he had heard the evidence of Sheriff Toel, who
detailed a confession made to him by Wyatt, and that he had entered
into collusion with Mitchell and Stotts to fasten guilt upon these boys?
Does he not admit that he went to the jail with a knowledge of these
facts fresh in his mind; that he sought the conversation himself?
And is it not singular that instead of approaching Albert Talbott, who
is a man not only in stature but in years and in intellect, he should
approach this ignorant, credulous boy, whose feelings he could work
upon through the deceptive guise of friendship to the family, and extort
from him a confession? These gentlemen are circumstances you must
consider.
Leighty says that he was to receive a part of the money, that was
to be realized out of this transaction. And it seems that his evidence
corresponds exactly with that of Brighton and wife and Mitchell. Now
could this be unless there had been an arrangement between the parties.
What is it gentlemen, that gives force and generates belief in human
evidence? Is it because a number of witnesses narrate the same transac-
tion in the same way and in the same language? Why, not at all.
When this is done we at once have before us the indications that the
story has been agreed upon that each witness understands precisely what
he is to tell and how he must tell the story. What is it gentlemen that
generates a belief in the testimony of the four Evangelists with regard to
the resurrection of the Savior 2 Is it because they relate that trans-
action, and that most remarkable event in the world’s history alike :
No. It is because of the discrepancy in their narratives. The
Evangelist, St. Matthew says in speaking of the resurrection, “In the
Sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week came Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” St. Mark says,
“And when the Sabbath was passed Mary Magdalene and Mary the
mother of James and Salome had bought sweet spices that they might
come and annoint him.”
St. Luke says, “Now upon the first day of the week, very early in
the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which
they had prepared, and certain others with them.” While St. John says
“The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was
yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the
sepulchre.” -
Here, now, gentlemen, we have the evidence of four prominent
witnesses to the most remarkable event in all the long history of human
life, and yet you will observe that no two of them tellit alike. Still it is
the discrepancy in the details of their respective narratives that has con-
vinced the people of the world of the truth of their statements. There
was enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been nº
collusion or previous arrangement among them to fasten upon the world
a shameful falsehood.

Io9
But how different with an equal number of witnesses in this case.
Brighton, Mrs. Brighton, Mitchell and Wyatt. Who in God's name has
listened to their evidence, although they have been separated, that does
not know that they told the same story in the same way, and in the same
language and gave the same dates.
- What, gentlemen, does this indicate 2 Does it not show con-
clusively to every unbiassed mind that this story has been fixed, that it
has been talked about, and that each one of them has learned it by
heart, and determined to tellit the same way because the money de-
pends on the condemnation of the boys 2 But gentlemen, what is
murder as here charged what are the elements necessary to constitute
murder? Human life is sometimes taken when the act is looked upon
as an accident, a misfortune, and a calamity. But here is a case in
which you are called upon to find the defendants guilty from cir-
cumstances, you are asked to regard as inculpatory evidence all the
frivolities and boyish conduct of these defendants for years. The
prosecution ask you to do this for the purpose of discovering a motive
for the commission of the crime charged in the indictment. Gentlemen,
let us examine this question of motive. Motive, it is said, sustains the
same relation to the commission of crime that physical power does to
mechanics. Without physical power we would have no houses to pro-
tect and shelter us from the cold and pitiless storms of mid-winter, as
they spread desolation and ruin abroad in their path. No tin, shingle or
roof to protect and shelter us from the blinding and drenching rains as
they descend from heaven during the rainy season. Without physical
power, our continent would not be to-day tied and bound together with
bands of iron and steel all the way from the bleak shores of the northern
lakes to the sun-lit waters of the southern sea, or from the coast of At-
lantic, to where the wild waves of the Pacific lash their mad fury on the
shores of California. Without physical power the wilderness would never
have been reclaimed from a state of nature, and the virgin soil compelled
to yield up cereals, in response to honest toil. So too without motive,
there is no crime and can be none. - -
What possible motive could these boys have had for taking the life
of him from whose loins they sprung, from him who gave them being,
from him whose bounty they were enjoying, who had by his industry and
economy accumulated a fortune to be divided among his children, who
had dandled them on his knee and watched over and protected them in
their childhood? But says the prosecution we have proven family broils.
Why gentlemen, who is it that raises a family of ten or twelve children
that does not find it necessary at times to correct or even flog them for
disobedience? Has the time come in this country when courts of jus-
tice and juries will trace back the history of the accused to the cradle,
for the purpose of ascertaining a motive for the commission of crime?
God forbid it. I had rather, gentlemen, see a universal wreck of matter
and a crash of worlds, see everything pass out into black and dismal
night, than to see such a precedent established in this country. Think
gentlemen of the remoteness of this evidence, and of the idea of watch-
ing the mischievious pranks and disobedience of a child, long, long be-
fore it has arrived at the years of discretion, for the basis upon which to
build the superstructure of a motive years subsequent to childhood.



I IO
How absurd, how ridiculous and preposterous such a notion. These
prosecutors might with equal propriety assert that, because the father of
his country chopped down his father's cherry tree when a mere boy,
that that circumstance would have been ample and sufficient, and con-
clusive evidence to establish a motive for him to steal timber in his
old age. -
Let us examine the evidence with regard to family broils. It
comes principally from this long-haired Smith, “Hundred-and-two Bill”
I believe they call him for short. He tells you that four and a half
years ago he lived a little over a quarter of a mile north of Dr. Talbott,
about six hundred yards, I suppose, and that he and his wife during
that time frequently sat out of the house after supper, and could dis-
tinctly hear Dr. Talbott and his family making night hideous, and the
air redolent with their demoniacal curses at each other. Now, gentle-
men, is this reasonable? What does Mrs. Smith, who did not hear her
husband testify under the rule, tell you? Why she says it was not true;
that she never heard any disturbance in the Talbott family during that
time. Again, Smith tells you that on a certain Sunday night last spring,
he and his wife were passing the Talbott house, and thirty yards south
of the house, he going north in a wagon, he heard a quarrel going on
in the house, that he could hear distinctly what was said, and that when
he got opposite the house he stopped his team, and could see through
the window by the light of the lamp, and distinguish the parties. Yet
Mrs. Smith, who was occupying the same seat in the wagon, with equal
opportunities to see and hear, tells you that she could not hear what
was said, neither could she distinguish one person from another in the
house. Can it be possible, gentlemen, that you can find a motive on
the part of these defendants from such evidence as this 2 Oh! but
they say the confessions in addition is sufficient. But who is it that
swears to the alleged confessions? Brighton and wife, and Mitchell and
Leighty. Have we not shown you that by every known rule for weigh-
ing evidence, that every one of them is unworthy of belief?
The theory of the prosecution and the narrations of witnesses
must consist with reason. Is it to be supposed that these defendants
would make confessions to the very men whom they knew were trying
to ascertain who had assassinated their father—to the men who had told
them their business? Why, gentlemen, it is unreasonable.
Brighton amd wife and Mitchell have, I take it, been successfully
broken down and impeached so that their testimony cannot be relied
upon by the jury. But Leighty, say the prosecutors, is all right. He
received a cortfession from Ed. Talbott in the county jail. I trust,
gentlemen, that you will remember the circumstances of that conversa-
tion as related by Leighty himself. I may remark to you generally that
the rule is that a confession forced or extorted from the mind by the
flattery of hope or the torture of fear comes in so questionable a shape
when it is to be considered as evidence of guilt that no credit ought to
be given to it. This is the language of the books. Now it appears
that when Leighty approached Ed. in the jail, a mere boy, that he began
the conversation by telling him that Wyatt had made a confession to
Sheriff Toelin which, he, Ed. was implicated. Here, gentlemen, we must
have some regard for the infirmities of human nature. Such a conver-
III
-
sation between two men, standing on terms of perfect equality, might
have no evil effect. But here was a full grown man, a man in the
meridian of life and in the full enjoyment of freedom approaching a
mere boy in a dungeon, with iron bars staring him in the face, knowing
the terrible charge against him, hearing the statement of Leighty as to
Wyatt's confession implicating him in the murder of his father. Such
inequality and disparity ºf age and intellectual development, it seems
to me, was well calculated to excite in the bosom of the defendant,
terrible emotions of fear. Therefore, gentlemen, you ought to be
exceedingly careful about basing a conviction on the evidence of such
witnesses. Those who are accused of having committed such a
terrible crime, as that we are now considering, are often actuated by
motives and feelings for which we cannot account. The terrible dread
of punishment, the impulses of despair, resulting from the appearance
of a strong presumption of guilt, the dread of disgrace and the hope of
pardon and various other inducements often operate on the mind to
such an extent as to induce unfounded confessions of guilt. The
judicial annals of the world abound in warnings of the great danger of
placing implicit confidence in the confession of those accused of crime.
I will give you a case or two of this kind. Mr. Wills, in his book on
circumstantial evidence relates the following case:
“A very remarkable case of this nature was that of the two
Boorns convicted in the supreme court of Vermont, in September term
1819, of the murder of Russell Colvin, May . Io, 1812. It ap-
peared that Colvin, who was a brother-in-law of the prisoners,
was a person of a weak and not perfectly sound mind, that he
was considered burdensome to the family of the prisoners, who
were obliged to support him; that on the day of his disappear-
ance, being in a distant field where the prisoners were at work, a
violent quarrel broke out between them, and that one of them struck
him a violent blow on the back of the head with a club which felled
him to the ground. Some suspicions arose at that time that he was
murdered, which were increased by the finding of his hat in the same
field a few months afterward. These suspicions in process of time sub-
sided, but in 1819 one of the neighbors having repeatedly dreamed of
the murder with great minuteness of circumstances, both in regard to his
death and concealment of his remains, the prisoners were vehemently
accused and generally believed guilty of the murder. Upon strict search
the pocketknife of Covlin and a button of his clothes were found in an
old open cellarin the same field, and in a hollow stump not many rods from
it were discovered two nails and a number of bones believed to be those
of a man. Upon this evidence, together with the deliberate confession
of the fact of the murder and concealment of the body in those places,
they were convicted and sentenced to die. On the same day they ap-
plied to the Legislature for a commutation of the sentence of death to
that of perpetual imprisonment which as to only one was granted. The
confession being now withdrawn and contradicted and a reward offered
for the missing man, he was found in New Jersey and returned home in
time to prevent the execution. He fled for fear the prisoners would kill
him. The bones were those of an animal. The prisoners had been ad-
vised by misjudging friends that they would certainly be convicted upon


112
the circumstances, proved their only chance for life was commutation of
punishment, and that this depended on their making a penitential con-
fession and thereupon obtaining a recommendation for mercy.”
I might refer you to another case, gentlemen, narrated by Lord
Hale in his pleas of the crown, where the batchelor uncle undertook to
correct his niece, then a little girl, who was seen to run away and heard
to exclaim, “dear uncle, don't kill me.” When he was brought before
the court he was informed that unless he produced the niece by a cer.
tain time he would be executed, and in his great anxiety to live out his al-
lotted time, he was induced to resort to artifice. And he took into court
another little girl, but the fraud was detected and the uncle was con-
demned and executed. Afterwards, when it was learned that he died
without isssue, and that the truant niece had become an heir to his
property, she proved her consanguisity and that she ran away to another
county when he undertook to correct her.
I allude to these incidents and historical circumstances gentlemen
for the purpose of warning you of the danger of conviction on the evi-
dence in this case and on confessional self crimination.
I told you sometime ago that I would allude to Wyatt's evidence
further on in the argument, I desire now to notice it briefly. You will
remember that the prosecution introduced before you, the evidence of
the Shinnabarger boy, a boy of reasonable intelligence at least; and he
told you that it was about the middle of the week before the fair, that
he was at the Talbott place and that Ed and Albert were loading car-
tridges on the west side of the house, that they had moulded in an auger
hole in a block of wood, a bullet or slug of lead and that they shot at a
tree and that it went into the ground, struck a rock and was flattened
and that with a harrow tooth and hammer they put it in shape again,
fixed it away in an empty cartridge shell and that is all he knows about
it. On this evidence the prosecution claimed that they had shown the
necessary preparation. But when they concluded that Brighton and
wife and Mitchell and Lighty must be bolstered up by Wyatt and put
him on the stand, he tells you that the bullets or slugs has been pre-
pared for six weeks as well as the plot laid. Now if little Shinnabarger
told the truth, Wyatt told a falsehood. Which of them will you be-
lieve? Shinnabarger is wholly disinterested. There is no suspicion that
his hands are stained with the blood of Dr. Talbott. There is no motive
for him to blacken his soul with purjury, and if his statement is true the
action of these defendants at the time mentioned by him is perfectly
consistent with innocence. But the motives of Wyatt, when we remem-
ber the interview on the occasion of the marriage of Olivia in July with
Mitchell and subsequent developments, appear to be powerful. In fact
he admits guilty knowledge of the conspiracy to kill and murder Dr.
Talbott. Now gentlemen it is for you to say which one you will believe.
One of them a mere boy, too young to fabricate a story and wholly dis-
interested, the other a full grown man with the most wonderful motives
to shake from his own garments the guilty stain of having conspired
with Mitchellin July for the purpose of perpetrating the fiendish and cruel
deed that on the 18th of Septembershocked the moral sensibilities of the
entire northwest. And then gentlemen look at him. He reminds me of the
address of Mackbeth to the witch: “Avaunt; get thee from my sight. Let
II.3
the earth hide thee—thy bones are marrowless, thy blood is cold, thou
hast no speculation in those eyes thou starest with.” And of the follow-
ing lines from Pope : - -
“Vice is a monster of such hideous mein,
That to be hated, needs but to be seen.”
And yet it is deemed necessary by the proseeution to put him on
the stand. Gentlemen, it seems to me that human life ought not to be
sacrificed on the evidence of such witnesses. If these boys assassin-
ated their father, surely he knew it. Yet when he sent for Mr. More-
house, his confidential friend, to write his will, he made an equal distri-
bution of his property among all his children. Is it reasonable that he
would have done so if he knew that he had been slain by his own off-
spring 2 I have known Dr. Talbott for fourteen years. He was an
ambitious man, proud-spirited, very proficient in his profession, had
spent the best years of his life in healing the sick and ministering to the
wants of the afflicted, and surely had he known who sent the leaden
missile through his vitals, which unveiled to him eternity, he would have
made it known. But we find from the evidence that when all hope was
gone, when death was putting film in his eyes, he called to his bedside
all the members of his family, shook each one by the hand and bid
them a long farewell, these boys included. And yetyou are called upon
to furnish this community with the luxury of looking at these unfortu-
nate boys struggling in the agonizing throes of death with halters about
their necks on this evidence.
Gentlemen, will you do it? Can you conscientiously do it when
you reflect upon the fact that the evidence against them is from a
remarkably impure source; that it is circumstantial and unreliable?
Why, gentlemen, it seems to me that inanimate objects and dumb
beasts would rise up and protest against it. It seems to me that the night
winds would whistle a protest against it. Yes, gentlemen of the jury, it
seems to me that Dr. Talbott would break asunder the cerements of the
tomb, that he would shake off his bloody winding sheet and come forth,
and in tones of thunder would protest against the execution of his
children. -
If I possessed the power that Christ did with Lazarus, I would lift
him up from the grave, ... him and put him in motion, but, gen-
tlemen, I cannot do that. He must remain where tender hands in the
presence of a grief-stricken family have laid him until the shrill notes
of the golden trumpet shall call him forth on the morning of the resurrec-
tion. Look, gentleman, dispassionately at this case. It has been prose-
cuted with fierceness scarcely paralleled in the annals of jurisprudence.
You have been implicitly told that you must banish from your hearts
the divine attribute of mercy, and look upon these unhappy defendants
with a savage ferocity that belongs not to humanity. This trio of pros-
ecutors reminds me, in their thirst for blood, of the English baron, as
described by Shakespeare. The immortal bard says: “The lean,
long, hungry, cadaverous baron had sooner hang the guiltless and the
innocent than to cut his mutton cold.”
Yet gentlemen remember, notwitstanding these cruel appeals for
blood, that we are all hastening to the bar of a tribunal from whose



II.4.
decree there is no appeal. That we have been taught from childhood
in fact that it is the grand inspiring hope of enlightened humanity all
over the world—that when we appear before the omniscient bar our
shortcomings here shall be judged in a spirit of mercy and charity. I
appeal to you, jurors, I conjure you by all the ties of humanity, by all
you hold dear in this world, when you retire to your room to consider
this case, to judge of these unfortunate boys in that same spirit of
mercy and charity which we must all invoke in the last great final day.
Gentlemen, my duty is now ended; yours will soon begin. Gen.
tlemen, the head of this unfortunate family is gone, the heart of the
widow is broken, the sisters are sitting by with throbbing hearts and
streaming eyes. Can you, gentlemen, abridge this calamity by taking
the lives of these boys? Remember if you make a mistake in the in-
terest of the prosecution you can never correct it, and that you must go
through life with the disembodied spirits of these boys haunting you,
and pursuing you like shadows in your crowded walks—that their souls
will fit about your rooms at night like apparitions, to startle and torment
you. Be careful then, gentlemen, that you do not make a mistake.
Gentlemen, I have done. I thank you for your attention.
W. W. RAMSEY_CLOSING SPEECH FOR THE
PROSECUTION,
Upon the Prosecuting Attorney, W. W. Ramsey,
devolved the making of the closing speech for the State.
Mr. Ramsey is yet a young man, being born in the year
1850. He is a native of this State, being born near
Fillmore, Andrew county. He studied law with Dawson
and Edwards, Maryville, Mo., and was admitted to the
Bar in 1875. He was elected Prosecuting Attorney of
Nodaway county in 1878 and re-elected in 1880. He is
regarded as one of the most promising young lawyers in
his portion of the State. His management of the case
at issue has been regarded as magnificent throughout.
May if Please the Court, and you Gentlemen of the /u/y :
You will observe from the condition of my voice, that it will be
with great difficulty that I can speak to you, yet I ask that you will
listen attentively and patiently as you have done to the gentlemen who
have preceded me. In flights of eloquence and oratory, I may not be
able to follow some of them, still, I desire and hope to be able to discuss
dispassionately and fairly the important issues of this case and the
evidence bearing upon such issues.
You, each for himself, before we entered upon the trial of this cause:
answered under oath that you had never, in any way participated in a
II.5
trial of this kind, neither as a juror, witness or otherwise, hence I recognize
in you twelve men wholly inexperienced in such matters, I realize that
you are now called upon to perform a duty which always calls into requisi-
tion the most refined judgment and strongest resolutions of American
citizenship; my hope that you may perform that duty faithfully and fear-
lessly, is based upon the fact that your intelligence as members of a civil-
ized society will enable you to discern the truth, and that your own sense
of right, supplemented by the oath you have taken to impartially try
the cause, will constrain you to give full force and effect to the truth as
discovered. To prepare you for the further labors before you, I will
speak of your present situation, with the responsibilities surrounding it.
You are differently situated here from what you would be were you in a
political convention, a lecture room or church; at any of these places,
when speakers become tedious and tiresome and you become over-weary
from long listening, you can retire without serious rebuke, and without
the violation of any obligation save such as are imposed by good breed-
ing. But here it is quite different. For the time being, you are re-
strained of your liberty; placed in the custody of a sworn officer, and
kept together; not allowed to talk to any one except in the presence of
such officer; and, having sworn that you knew nothing of the facts of
this case, the Court has charged you at each adjournment not to talk
among yourselves concerning such facts, until the cause is finally sub-
mitted to you. You will, therefore, pardon me if I talk much of points
already fixed in your mind. I have a duty to perform, and, like you,
must perform that duty faithfully. Of course, all connected with this
trial are weary, and we may congratulate ourselves upon being so near
the end, as I believe, happily, we are. Realizing the character of the
great responsibility soon to rest alone upon your shoulders, I am glad to
talk to you last of the considerations which will soon meet you in your
council-room. If I may be able to use this opportunity to your aid in
arriving at a just verdict, I shall feel more than rewarded for all my
labors in the case.
The analytical review of the testimony, made by Mr. Beech and
Mr. Edwards in their argument for the State, renders a detailed recapit-
ulation of the facts on my part useless. I shall content myself in dis-
cussing the application of the law to the facts of the case; in answering
some of the positions taken by defendants’ counsel, and in calling your
attention once more to what I deem the most decisive points of the over-
whelming array of evidence introduced by the State. The law, which
must govern this case, is given you by the Court in the form of written
instructions, each of which is made applicable by some feature of the
testimony produced upon the trial. To you, gentlemen, alone belongs
the power to decide all disputed questions of fact upon which these in-
structions are based; but when the fact is ascertained and by you decided,
your power over it ceases, and the appropriate declarations of law must
govern the result of your decision, either in favor of or against the pris-
oners. In the eighth instruction given you on part of the State, your
line of duty in this regard will fully appear; in it you are told that it is
the duty of the Court to instruct you as to the law arising in the case,
and that it is your duty to respect the instructions of the Court as the
law of the case. You are further told, in the instructions, that you are to


116
find the defendents guilty or not guilty, according to the law thus
given you and the evidence as you received it from the witnesses
under the direction of the Court. You are further told not to permit
your feeling of sympathy to interfere with your duty whatever that
may be under the law and the evidence, nor upon the other hand
to allow any consideration of public policy or over anxiety to
enforce the law to influence you in the fair consideration and decision
of the case. A plainer statement of your whole duty could not well be
expressed in more simple language. This instruction is very appropriate
in any case where the consequences, which may follow a verdict of
guilty, have a tendency to arouse feelings of sympathy and mercy on
the part of jurors, in favor of the accused, and, on the other hand,
especially so, when the alleged offense is of such a diabolical character
as to cause general indignation, and turn public sentiment against a
prisoner. Should you surrender your decision to the host of merciful
influences which naturally play upon your minds, while you are medita-
ting upon the cause, the result would be feeble and inadequate. Upon
the other hand, should you pander to the clamors of an enraged public,
your action would be gross, unmanful and oppressive. But if you are
guided alone by the dictates of an unimpassioned judgment, and the
commands of a well defined duty, your verdict will be merited and
just. The principal instructions, I apprehend, need no extended ex-
planation; you will discover that murder in the first, and murder in the
second degree, are submitted to you. These degrees are fully and
accurately defined in the instructions themselves. The degrees differing
only in that the first degree requires one more aggravating element than
the second, that is deliberation. With what has been said by all counsel
who have addressed you, you will, doubtless, have no trouble in selecting
the degree, when once you have settled the question of the guilt or
innocence of the defendants. But, yet there are some instructions
designed to aid you in the disposition of certain portions of the testi-
mony, it will be well for you fully to understand, before you suffer
yourselves to pass upon the principal issue before you. The guilt or
innocence of the defendants.
You will remember, that in the indictment read to you, Charles
E. Talbott is charged with having fired the fatal shot, that Albert Talbott
and Henry Wyatt are charged with having been present, aiding, abetting
and assisting him in the murder. In the evidence introduced, some
controversy may well arise as to the existence of these exact facts.
Some of the testimony tends to show that Charles did the shooting,
while other testimony tends to show that Henry Wyatt fired the shot. I
apprehend that this question has frequently presented itself to you,
jurymen, during the trial of this cause, and I would not be surprised to
know that some of you have selected the one, and some the other, as the
party in fact who committed the terrible deed. That this state of facts
may not be in the way, or embarrass you in summing up the evidence
in your council room, I wish to state that such seeming contradiction
will make no difference with you. If these defendants were pre-
sent, aiding, assisting and comforting the party who did the shoot:
ing, they are equally guilty with the one who held the gun and
gave direction to this deadly missile, (holding up between finger

II 7
and thumb the bullet with which deceased was shot), which went
plunging through the vitals of Dr. Talbott, sending him to an
untimely grave. The court has not left:you in the dark to draw
your own conclusions upon this important point. In the seventh
instruction this question is set at rest. In it you are told that
it is not necessary for the State, in order to establish the guilt
of either of the defendants now on trial, to prove that either of them
actually held and discharged the gun which killed Perry H. Talbott, but
that if you believe that Henry Wyatt, or either of the defendants on
trial, fired the fatal shot, and that the other defendant was present, aid-
ing, abetting and assisting Wyatt, or the other defendant in the killing,
then such defendant is guilty equally with Wyatt or the one who did the
shooting. You can see by this instruction that if two parties are charged
with murder, in the language of the indictment in this case, the guilt of
one of such parties can be proven in two different ways. First, by
proving that he actually committed the murder. Second, by proving
that his co-defendant, in fact, committed the murder, then further prov-
ing that he was present aiding and assisting his co-defendant. The sit-
uation is the same where three parties are charged with murder, though
the investigation becomes somewhat complex, the methods of proving
guilt actually increase with the number charged. Nor does it matter
whether all charged are upon trial or not. In this case, though Henry
Wyatt is not on trial before you, if you should believe that he killed
Dr. Talbott, you are yet bound to find these defendants guilty, if you
believe that they assisted him in planning the murder, and aided and
counseled him in carrying it out. There is another circumstance con-
nected with this case it may be well to free from supposed difficulties.
You have listened to different witnesses testify to statements made by
defendants relative to the homicide of their father. Leighty, Brighton,
Mrs. Brighton and Mitchell all testify to such statements, yet no two of
these witnesses assume to narrate the same conversation exactly, and as a
consequence the fact, if any, established by the testimony of any one of
these witnesses is necessarily surrounded by different circumstances
from that established by another witness. For instance, Leighty testi-
fies to a conversation with Charles Talbott in the absence of Albert.
Brighton details a conversation with each defendant; at different times,
in the absence of each other, while Mitchell swears to two different
conversations which took place between himself and both defendants,
where the killing of Dr. Talbott was talked of That you may correctly
estimate this portion of the testimony, the court has given you the 5th
instruction on the part of the State. You will see in this instruction
that it is your duty to consider all that either defendant may have said
in any conversation proved by the State; that what was said by one of
the defendants cannot be used against the other defendant, unless the
same was assented to or acquiesced in by the other. Under this in-
struction you will consider the testimony of Leighty as applying to the
question of Ed’s guilt; the testimony of Brighton concerning these
statements must be, by you, applied only to the defendant whom you
may believe made such statements, while the testimony of Mitch-
ell on this point may be considered as involving both of the de-
fendants on trial. You must keep in mind, gentlemen, the fact
I 18 -
that the fifth and seventh instructions were not designed to cover
the whole case, or to be decisive of all issues involved.
When you have learned where to assign and what weight to
give the different phases of the testimony produced upon the trial, then
the great question remains to be by you decided, in the light of all the
circumstances in proof, and under all of the instructions of the court.
Did the defendants, or either of them, murder their own father, Perry H.
Talbott, on the night of the 18th of September last, by shooting him
down in his own bed-room 3 -
It is argued with some force by defendants’ counsel, that you
should be slow in deciding the defendants guilty of the murder of their
own father. It is claimed that such a crime on their part would be too
unnatural and extraordinary. Let us grant that it would seem so; yet
we must know that in all cases of this character, many unusual and un-
natural things do, in fact, transpire. It will not be doubted that Dr.
Talbott was shot to death in his own house, while in the act of retiring
to bed, by some one; yet, is not this fact very unusual and unnatural?
We are further satisfied that at the time he was shot a lamp was burning
in the room; that Albert, one of the defendants, was sitting in the room
within a few feet of the Doctor; that Mrs. Talbott was also in the room,
in full dress; that it was bright moonlight all around out-of-doors; not
far from the early hour of nine o'clock; that the family living on the
north of the Talbott house, less than one-fourth mile distant, were yet
up; that a grown work-hand, Wyatt, and Ed, the other defendant, were
about the house; that there were two shotguns, four revolvers and a
bowie-knife in the possession of the family; that it was a mile or more
in any direction from the house to timber, or any object which might
cover the approach or retreat of an assassin; that smooth fallow land,
stubble land and cultivated fields surrounded the house on all sides;
that but one road—a lane—ran close to these premises; that on both
sides of the house, along the lane, were dwelling-houses, in which
families lived, and were up at the time; that no one, unless on foot,
could approach the Talbott house without going up or down this lane;
that no one was seen, by any one, thus traveling at or near the time;
that after a diligent search made by the sheriff and neighbors next day,
not a single trace could be discovered which indicated the approach or
retreat of a footman. -
Now, gentlemen, if we are to believe in the face of all these
existing circumstances that some stranger to the family approached the
house, committed this dark deed, then vanished into thin air and left no
trace behind, would not that fact, also, be strange, unnatural and very
extraordinary 2 Admitting that it is unusual and unnatural for sons
to murder their parents, can we be surprised, when we know the
surroundings, that grave suspicion pointed her finger toward the house-
hold where the Doctor was killed, and whispered: “There lurk the
murderers?” We are told suspicions will not do; that nothing short
of absolute certainty is safe to act upon in trial of cases like this.
So thought the public when this tragedy was first generally known.
You have heard it detailed by many witnesses, what search was made
by the officers and citizens of your county to discover the trace of
some daring assassin, who had ventured at an early hour of that






















II9
bright moonlight night to the northwest window of that house, and
while three members of the family were yet up, deliberately fired
through the window to kill the head of the family. The ground for a great
distance in all directions was minutely examined Diligent inquiry was
made to ascertainif any suspicious stranger had been seen in the neighbor-
hood, and every energy and precaution that detective skill might call
into use, was brought to bear upon the case. In fact, the public was
slow to accuse the members of that unhappy household with the murder.
Yet, was it not the duty of those in search of the assassin to scrutinize
and prove to the bottom all seemingly well founded suspicions? Let
me call your attention to the acts of these defendants, while this great
effort was being made to ferret out the guilty party. In less than thirty
minutes after the shooting, we learn from the testimony that Albert went
to Arkoe, distant three-quarters of a mile, after some wine; that he called
at the house of William G. Turner, a man somewhat related to the Tal-
bott family, and an acquaintance of sixteen years standing; that he
hallooed and asked for wine; that Mr. Turner asked what was up, and
stated that he had no wine; that Albert answered as he started off,
“Pap's shot,” and left without further explanation; made no request
for help; aroused no one, and spoke to no one about the man whom he
afterwards claimed to have seen running through the orchard.
What kind of action was this for an innocent son who, but a few
short minutes before, had seen his father shot down in his presence, and
who according to his own statements afterwards made, had seen the
assassin leave on foot, unarmed, and traveling in the very direction of
this man Turner's. Certainly this would not be pronounced the ordi-
nary, natural line of action of grown sons. Again, what was the char-
acter of the defendant’s actions next day, when the whole neighborhood
was aroused and attracted to the spot in consequence of this terrible
murder? Here we find that neither of these young men engage in the
search for tracks; they have no suggestions to make to the sheriff or
those endeavoring to find traces of the assassin. Is this the usual, nat-
ural actions of innocent sons? From that day forward we discover
no attempts whatever on the part of the defendants to institute a search,
or to adopt means to ferret out the murder of their father. On the con-
trary, we find them telling on different occasions, about miraculous bat-
ties which nightly occur around their house, where armed men invade
the sancity of their bedchambers, through up-stair windows, where volly,
after volly of shot are discharged; yet no one gets injured. Gentlemen,
was not all of this carried on by the defendants, for the purpose of di-
verting that very suspicion which we are now told is unreliable and too
uncertain to act upon? It is not now claimed that there is any truth
in these miraculous stories which defendants put into circulation; and
you will remember that when the sheriff proffered to guard their house
and apprehend these night mauraders who were perforating the walls
of the Talbott house with shells and shot, and thus rendering the night
fearful with war-like attacks, these defendents declined his official as-
sistance. Well, if these nightly demonstrations were absolutely false and
deceptive, were they not well calculated to deepen the suspicion that
these defendants were guilty? Counsel for the defense complain bit-
terly because detectives lent their aid to the State; it is argued in tones




I 20
of indignation that men, who were working for rewards, wormed them.
selves into the confidence of these defendants for the purpose of betray.
ing them. Should this be thought strange, under the circumstances?
We have no inclination to deny that such means were adopted, but only
wonder that gentlemen should think it a cause of complaint.
Was it not the duty of the State, to bend every energy to discover
the perpetrator of this foul deed? Will gentlemen claim that the officers
and citizens of this county, overstepped the line of strict duty, in ex-
pending both time and money in honest endeavors to throw light upon
this shocking tragedy? Surely not. What followed in the wake of this
cowardly assassination, might well have been expected. Law-abiding
communities will not lull to sleep over such terrible deeds. The search-
ing glances of all eyes are brought to bear upon the circumstances
connected with, and following the catastrophe; all suspicions are recorded
and probed to the bottom; possibilities give way to probabilities; proba-
bilities settle into deep rooted convictions; all criminating circumstances
have a homeward tendency; and soon the abiding conviction of all
minds rest with intensity upon the guilty culprit, who, vainly thinks his
secret is too deeply burried for human resurrection. Gentlemen,was the
State right in pushing this investigation to an ultimate discovery? Is
there a principle of duty or morals which forbids the betrayal of a
murderer's conſidence? Is his guilty knowledge, so sacred, that it should
find a harbor in confidential breasts, and there rest without exposure ?
By what law human or divine is such principles taught? Yes, gentle-
men, men were employed to watch the movements of these unfortunate
defendants, their confidence was sought, that it might be betrayed, if
counsel see fit to so term it. You have listened to the statements of
Brighton, Mrs. Brighton and Mitchell upon the witness stand. You
have likewise heard the respective characters of these witnesses discuss-
ed. Many witnesses were introduced by the defense to impeach the
character of Brighton and Mrs. Brighton, for truth and morality. All of
this was proper on their part. You will remember, that, in stating the
case to you, ten days ago, your attention was called, by the State, to
this very consideration; you were then told, that it would be a part of
your duty to pass upon the credibility of witnesses; it is always urged
with more or less force and effect, that the evidence of those, who play
the role of detective, should be received with great caution. The law
draws no such distinction, but leaves the question, of the credibility of
such witness, solely with the jury. You are to test the truth or falsity
of what these witnesses tell you, by the rule given you in the court's in:
structions, consider the reasonableness and unreasonableness of what
they say: compare what they tell you, with other established or undis.
puted circumstances of the case; consider their motives in voluntarily
connecting themselves with the cause; but you must not forget, gentle.
men, that this class of testimony constitutes but a small division of the
entire testimony introduced, by the State. You doubtless have noticed
that defendants’ counsel level their batteries, almost exclusively, at
these detectives; other damaging features of the testimony have been
passed by unnoticed and untouched by these adroit advocates; perhaps
they would have you believe that the issue involved, must turn upon the
testimony of these detectives alone; be that as it may; we commend
CHAS. E. TALBOTT


I 2.2
them for their tactics and skill; but must invite your attention to some
other important phases of the evidence. Let us now scrutinize the
actions of this unhappy family, and see if it were possible, that these
defendants so far forgot themselves, as to shed the blood of their own
father. We have all noticed what seeming unimportance defendants'
counsel attach to the quarrels proved by the State to have occurred in
this household. William Smith told us, that on divers occasions he had
heard these quarrels between defendants and their father, the distance
of one fourth mile; now, on one occasion, while passing the Doctor's
residence, he witnessed the quarrel in the sitting-room, and there heard
such language as—“I’ll shoot your damned brains out;" “I’ll cut your
damned heart out;" “I’ll knock your damned brains out.” Mrs. Smith,
though not quite so explicit, testified to similar facts. Another Mr.
Smith spoke of a difficulty between the Doctor and Ed., one of these
defendants, when the Dºctor knocked Ed. down; Ed. Sprang to his
feet and cursed his father in a violent manner; the Doctor told him to
leave his home; that his example was ruining the rest of the children:
Ed. answered with an oath “Give me ten dollars and I will leave.”
You will remember what this witness said, concerning Ed.’s talk in the
field, a few days after this difficulty, when Ed., in speaking of the diffi-
culty with his father, said to this witness: “If I had had my revolver
I would have shot the God damned son of a bitch.” Mr. Griffith told
us of difficulties equally disreputable and violent, which he saw take
place between the defendants and their father. Mr. Forrest gave you
a graphic description of what he saw and heard one Sunday morning
while passing the Talbott house; I shall not repeat his evidence, but I
can not refrain from calling your attention to the actions of Albert and
Mrs. Talbott at the gate, where Forrest was, while this difficulty, as
detailed by the witness, took place. This witness stated that, while Ed.
and his father were quarreling, a bland smile covered the face of Albert,
while Mrs. Talbott remarked to witness that he need not be in a hurry;
that the Doctor usually preached a sermon of a morning, and that
they would have prayers in a few minutes. Under some circumstances,
and between some parties, such remarks might be thought insignificant;
but when we consider what had already transpired in that family; that
it was the mother of these defendants thus sarcastically speaking of the
trouble existing between the Doctor and his own child, and that to
passers-by, and in the presence of another son. What presentments
might not have been predicated upon such conduct? After all
this, were you surprised to hear Mrs. Hoshor detail her conversa-
tion with Mrs. Talbott, in which the mother of the defendants, on the
very day her youngest child was buried, spoke of a serious difficulty
which had taken place between herself and the Doctor, and said: “ If
mind, he is ready for him the next time”! Where, in all of this broad
land, can another family be found in which so many cross-purposes:
violent tempers and dangerous tendencies exist? You must not think
the recital of these matters gives me pleasure. It surely does not.
Still, it is meet and proper that I should discuss these things, and that
you should well consider them. In all cases where one member of a
family is charged with the homicide of another member. it becomes
º
Bud had had his pistol, he would have let him have it then; but never

I23
relevant and highly proper to show the state of feelings which exists
between the members of that family, as bearing directly upon the
question of motive. Usually we find strong cords of affection binding
the father to his sons, while reverentialties secure the child to its parent.
But alas ! how different in the case at bar. What a consolation and
shield 'twould have been to these young defendants, had this investi-
gation shown a fond attachment and fervent affection for their father.
Bright, GLORIOUS jewels designed for the human heart! When fostered
and protected, how safe their possessors are When neglected and
forgotten, how abandoned and reckless we become!
- To parry the effect of this deplorable state of feelings, shown to
have existed between Dr. Talbott and his sons, the Doctor's will is
brought into court and read to you. Young “Tumpy” is placed upon
the stand to tell you that his father, just before he died, called the mem-
bers of his family around him—these defendants with the rest—and bade
them all a last farewell. What a sorrowful scene that must have been :
The proud, haughty, ambitious man lies stretched upon his last couch.
The life-blood keeps gushing from a ghastly wound through his body.
For sixteen long hours his brave, unyielding will has been waging a
terrible war with the grim monster. Ever and anon he asks his attend-
ing physician: “How goes the battle.” But his moments are numbered.
His pulse is growing weaker fast, and his voice is sinking into a whisper.
In my imagination I can see those wild gray eyes of his roving around
that death-chamber to catch one last glance at the different members of
his family. Many strangers and neighbors meet his vision, but some of
his family are not there. One last effort is made. He whispers to a
messenger to go and call the defendants to his bedside, that he may say
to them good-bye. What nobler act could the dying do? Why were
not these defendants at the bedside with their father during all of those
long last hours of his In vain did we listen to the story of poor little
“Tump” to learn that one fear of regret fell from the eyes of these
defendants.
“When Friendship or Love
Our sympathies move,
When Truth in a glance should appear;
The lips may beguile
With a dimple or smile,
But the test of affection 's a Tear.”
Not one word of consolation to the dying was spoken by either of
these defendants on that awful eccasion. The conduct of defendants
since that day been fully detailed to you. You will remember that
when the sheriff was called upon to make the arrest, he found the
defendants at their own home, in broad daylight, fully equipped for
desperate acts. We are told that from one was taken a navy revolver,
a pocket revolver and a bowie-knife. From the other, two revolvers
were taken. Do such circumstances indicate innocence 2 Now, let us
examine their conduct since the arrest. What kind of pastime do we
find them engaged in while confined in the jail of Andrew county
We are told by defendants' counsel that life has a value that should not
be sacrificed without proof of guilt amounting to absolute certainty.
This may be so. But we must not forget that the life of one is about



I 24
as dear as the life of another. The testimony shows that in this
jail the defendants, in order to effect their escape and set the
law at defiance, armed themselves with these clubs (here the
speaker handed to the jury two large clubs made from the
top of a walnut bench used in the jail) and, in company with four
other prisoners, attempted their escape, and seemed determined to effect
it, even at the cost of the Sheriff's life; that it was by the exercise of the
greatest presence of mind and resolution on part of Sheriff Starr,
that his life was saved and defendants’ escape prevented. This is not
all. A few days later when these defendants were placed in line with
others in the same jail the Sheriff found upon the person of one of these
defendants, these articles, (here the speakers exhibited a leaden billy, a
cartridge and a false jail key) by examination you will see, gentlemen,
that this instrument (alluding to the billy) has been taken by some
means from the stone wall of the jail where the iron rods are drilled into
the stone and fastened by pouring lead around them; just how it was
done, we are not informed; but we can well imagine for what purpose
it was in the possession of these defendants. Were evidences of guilt
ever more constantly appearing in an investigation? We are told by
Judge Johnston, in his able argument that it is better that ninety and
nine guilty men should go free than one innocent man should suffer; he
borrowed this thought from some moral code; it certainly never found
footing in pages of law; yet, should we think it best to govern our
actions by such a principle, must we not conclude, that the ninety-nine
guilty ones have already escaped 2 that we are after the one hundredth
man It never was claimed, even by a moral code that the whole hun-
dred, should go scot free. There is one other portion of the testimony,
which seemed to furnish “the last straw, to break the camel's back.” I
will now speak of that. I refer to the testimony of Henry Wyatt, the
confederate of these defendants. You remember the guilty culprit as
he appeared here on the witness stand. He had not been subpoenaed.
but came into court of his own accord, to narrate in detail to you gentle-
men, the blood-curdling incidents of this dark and mysterious murder.
Without revealing what his evidence would be, he takes the stand, under
indictment himself for murder in the first degree, charged with the very
crime which he was revealing, with his life, as it were, dancing in the
balance; he commences, “I want to tell all I know about it.” And
while we all with bated breath listened, he detailed the facts connected
with the homicide of Dr. Talbott. I wish you gentlemen to scrutinize
his statement well, and criticise it by every test known to human reason:
for if it is true, as by him detailed, it alone, is sufficient to convict both
of these defendants of one of the most shocking crimes ever tried in a
court of justice. Counsel in their arguments have ventured the sugges-
tion that Wyatt might have been tampered with before giving in his
testimony. It will be well for us to notice the influences with which he
has been surrounded since his arrest, and, if possible ascertain whether
corrupt influences, on part of the State have been brought to bear upon
him. Wyatt stated, while upon the witness stand, that, at the prelimin-
ary trial, shortly after the arrest, in the presence of the court then hear
ing the cause, and in the presence of these defendants, and in the pres:
ence of two of these gentlemen, (pointing to Messrs. Johnston and













I 25
Moran, counsel of defense) now representing the defense, that he took
the Sheriff of this county to the corner of the room, and there told to him
all of the facts connected with the homicide. It is also in evidence before
you, that the Sheriff was then called as a witness, and there testified
to what Wyatt had told him; that the Sheriff’s evidence on that
occasion was reduced to writing. Now, gentlemen, may we not infer
that Wyatt's statements were the same on both these occasions 2 else
why did not the defense introduce the Sheriff, who has been in daily
attendance upon this court, to contradict him? Since the preliminary
trial referred to, Wyatt has been in the charge of Sheriff Toel of this,
and Sheriff Starr, of Andrew country. Are we to believe while in the
custody of these gentlemen, bad designing men, who were bent upon
manufacturing testimony against these defendants, would have been
suffered to do so? Both Sheriff Toel and Sheriff Starr are in attendance
upon this court. They have each been twice honored by an election to
responsible trusts in their respective counties, and their moral standing
is sufficient to give the libel to any such accusation. Wyatt himself tells
you that no one has induced him to tell this story; that neither Leighty,
Mitchell nor Brighton has talked to him about the matter; indeed, he
states that he was not even acquainted with the witness Brighton or his
wife. All of this must be true, else why was it not shown to be untrue.
Wyatt does state, however, that on one occasion he made different state-
ments to one detective Broyles—but when asked what induced him to do
so, he pointed over to the aunt of these defendants, and said: “That
woman saw me but a few moments before and told me what to tell
Broyles.” You remember, gentlemen, that as I was examining Wyatt
upon this point, this same lady, (pointing to Mrs. West, the lady referred
to by Wyatt,) spoke up and said: “Don’t put words in the mouth of
the witness.” Wise suggestion that. My only purpose in that re-ex-
amination was to see if words had not ſeen put in the mouth of ſhe
witness. You are doubtless aware that this Mrs. West is identified with
the defense, and that detective Broyles has been in her employ. Thus
we find, that without any opportunity for any one to talk with him on
part of the State, Wyatt comes upon the stand, and writhing under his
load of guilt, in the presence of these defendants, and in the presence
of the very parties who have been trying to induce him to tella different
story, unbosoms himself to you with the greatest particularity of detail.
His manner certainly indicates his guilty knowledge of the facts he nar-
rated. Having found that Wyatt has been so situated that no bad in-
fluence on part of the State has been brought about him; keeping this
in view we will listen to the story he has to tell and then test his evidence
by the strongest ordeal known to practical jurisprudence—a rigid cross-
examination. Truth has one distinguishing peculiarity; it is sometimes
stranger than fiction, yet it is always consistent with itself and with every
other truth surrounding it. Hence it is found to be well nigh impossible
to tell a falsehood and undergo a rigid cross-examination without dis-
covery. To illustrate: We will take this example. This gentleman
(pointing to a juror) narrates on direct examination a trip from this city
to a point ten miles west; states that he met “A” just west of the city;
that a few miles beyond he met “B,” some distance further on he fell:
into company with “C;” and so on with the incidents of his journey,


126
He is cross-examined; gentlemen, ask him what time in the day it
was when he met “A.” He answers 2 p. m. He is asked to give
the exact time he met “B.” He answers 2:20 p. m., and so on to
each inquiry, giving an answer which will dove-tail with his direct
narrative, simply because he is telling the truth and dealing with
facts. But how different with one who assumes to tell a lie. We
will take another example. This gentleman, (pointing to another
juror) assumes to narrate a journey from the city to a given point
in this county. As in the other instance, he tells of incidents noted
upon his journey in order. He is cross-examined, but upon his
cross-examination he soon gets his objects mixed; his time will not cor-
respond with his facts. At each approach of the cross-examiner, he
finds himself surrounded with new difficulties, until the utter unfruſh-
ſu/ness of his story is transparent to all. We listened to the cross-exam-
ination of Wyatt. Did he manifest any of the indications of unfruſh-
ſººness shown in these examples? Did he tell a single contradictory
story? What greater degree of caution should be adopted in the con-
sideration of this testimoney : Many things tend to establish the truth-
fulness of what he said, while nothing appears to contradict it. First,
he was in a situation to know all which he has disclosed. Second, he
is fully corroborated by all undenied circumstances; and surely the tes-
timony of all these detectives is in perfect harmoney with what he tells
you. Third, he tells many things not necessary to tell, in order to
convict defendants. For instance, he told you that about six weeks
before the killing of Doctor Talbott, the defendants moulded these
bullets; told you exactly how it was done; described particularly the
cutting of the rifles on one of them; how they were first secreted in an
auger hole in a post at the barn; about their discovery by these two small
boys, brothers of the defendants; that the bullets were then taken and
secreted under the mattress of their bed. He also told of several plots
made by the boys to destroy their father's life; how on one occasion
they proposed to decoy him up to the water trough, and there kill him
with a club; that, at another time, they were to conceal themselves
under his bed, and shoot him from that place; another plan was to slip
a rope around his neck while he was in bed, and take him out and hang
him ; still another plan was for Albert to way-lay his father when he
was on his way home from town; and to secure a deadly aim, a paper
was to be laid in the road for the purpose of stopping the mules which
the Doctor usually drove. All of this, you observe, was unnecessary for
a simple conviction. Why would he, if he was not dealing in facts, lay
himself open in so many ways to contradiction and to discoveries on
cross-examination? He also described, with the utmost particularity,
the killing of Doctor Talbott. He says that Ed. did the shooting, then
ran around the house and laid the gun on the front walk, and then
ran into the kitchen; that Albert then went out of the house, picked
up the gun, removed the empty shell from the barrel that had been dis-
charged, and threw it away; then took the shell from the other barrel,
and discharged it from the same barrel out of which the other shot had
been fired, thus giving the gun the appearence of having only been dis-
charged once. All of this, he says, was in pursuance of a previously
laid plan. What would have induced Wyatt to give such details if it
I27 -
were not the truth he was telling? If all this is false, is it not strange,
indeed, and even incomprehensible, that Ed should tell to Whit Leighty,
in their jail conversation, the same system of facts precisely . The only
difference in the two versions is as to the party who actually fired the
fatal shot. You well remember, gentlemen, Wyatt's description of the
bullet with which the Doctor was killed, its preparation, the rifles cut by
Bud, with his knife, all are minutely described. This bullet has not been
seen by Wyatt since it was taken from the wall of the house; you will re-
member his description of it was all told before the bullet was shown him;
that he recognized it as the one prepared by Albert and Ed. Talbott to
kill their father with. Gentlemen, I want you to examine this ball by
daylight. (Here the speaker handed the bullet to the jury.) If Wyatt
had no knowledge concerning its previous preparation, how could he so
accurately describe it? Does not the testimony of young Shinnebarger
also thoroughly corroborate all Wyatt says about the bullet, its prepara-
tion and the defendants’ experiments with it? Have you any doubt,
gentlemen, about that being the bullet which killed Dr. Talbott?
Under all the evidence, surely not. Have you any doubt as to this
being the gun from which it was fired 2 (holding up a double-barreled
breech-loading shotgun shown by the evidence to have been the gun
used on the night of the homicide.) No gun, save an old unused shot-
gun, has ever been found around the premises except this one. Re-
volvers were found, but surely no one will claim that this bullet was shot
from a revolver. The ball itself is almost one inch in diameter, larger
than the bore of any rifle in existence.
Gentlemen, from all the circumstances, and by all tests, does not
Wyatt's statement seem to import absolute verity? Standing alone
would not his evidence support a conviction ? It has been a debatable
question with courts of last resort, whether the unsupported testimony
of self-convicted felons—confederates in the crime on trial—was suffi-
cient to base a conviction upon; courts of our State, however, have
hesitatingly decided this question in the affirmative. Yet, with us,
juries are instructed to weigh such testimony with great caution. I have
tried to discuss Wyatt's evidence with respect to this rule of law as
though it were not corroborated from beginning to end by a volume of
testimony derived from unquestionable sources.
Now, gentlemen, taking all these facts and circumstances together,
have you still a doubt remaining as to the guilt of these defendants
And if you have not, can you hesitate a moment in the performance of
your duty 2 If you believe them innocent, in heaven's name turn them
free, but if you believe them guilty, in the name of justice return a
verdict of guilty, that the law may be vindicated. If a jury are satis-
fied beyond doubt of the guilt of a defendant, yet have not the man-
hood to so state in their verdict, they are undeserving of the respect of
an enlightened community. I am using strong language, but I con-
sider it my duty to do so. Sheriffs may arrest and retain criminals at a
risk of their lives. Witnesses may appear and give evidence against
them; courts may, with a strong sense of duty, correctly declare the
law in such cases. But remember, gentlemen, that after all this, under
our system of laws, no man, however guilty he may be, can be pun-
ished except upon the verdict of a jury. Upon your shoulders soon
-


- 128
the grave responsibility of this case will rest. You are representing the
people ef this great State. This sea of faces (the speaker turns toward
the throng of people attending the trial) which have greeted you at
each session of your ten day's labor, is but a faint symbol of the great
interests you are called upon to represent. The lives of these defend-
ants demand that you guard well their innocence, if such you can do
under the evidence. The demands of society and the law to which we
all pay tribute, calls upon you, if you are sure they are guilty, to lift the
sword of justice and let it fall upon their unfortunate heads. What a
sad, sad duty you have to perform. Yet it will soon be over. In my
imagination I see you, jurymen, when your labors are over and your
thoughts revert to those homes over which the majesty of the law has
stood sentinel while you were gone; I see you enter that home where
you are met by your wives and little ones. Your child, perhaps a little
daughter, has wondered much at long delay, and seated upon your lap
she inquires what kept you so long. I can hear your answer. It is,
that you were one of the chosen twelve to try a great criminal case, that
for days and nights you were deprived of your liberty. Kept in the
charge of an officer that you might listen impartially to the details of a
horrible murder. I can see the excitement and surprise of your child
as you proceed with your narrative. It asks you all about this great
murder. You tell your child that there was a family residing seven
miles south of this city. The father was a Doctor, a literary and am-
bitious man; that he had two sons; that for years past this family had
had the most terrible difficulties; sometimes well nigh approaching the
use of deadly weapons upon each other; that one bright moonlight
night the Doctor was shot down in his own room; that his two sons, a
hired hand, and the rest of the family were there; that after this no effort
was made by his family to ascertain who the assassin was; that suspicion
settled upon this unhappy household; that on different occasions after
the homicide, this family gave out the report that night marauders were
attacking them, and unreasonable battles were being fought about their
house; finally, the sons of the murdered man were arrested; that they
were loaded down with revolvers and Bowie knives; that on four differ-
ent occasions these unfortunate sons told of their guilty participation
in this dark and dastardly deed; that, after their arrest, they, with four
armed men, attempted to kill the sheriff in order to effect their escape:
that in the midst of the trial, Henry Wyatt, the confederate of these
boys, was led into the court room, and, while quivering under the pangs
of a guilty conscience, he there narrated the blood curdling incidents of
the diabolical crime. In my imagination I can see your child spring
from your lap, and with flushed face and flashing eyes, demand of you
what your verdict was, Oh! what shall your verdict be? Gentlemen,
I am unable to speak further. Once more I ask you to act cautiously.
dispassionately, yet fairly, and may God be with you in your delibera-
tions.










I29
CHAPTER IV.
THE VERDICT AND THE SENTENCE,
It was nearly four o'clock Friday afternoon when
Mr. Ramsey closed his argument.
The Judge gave the jury his charge, and the twelve
on whose verdict two young lives depended, slowly and
solemnly filed from the room. How anxiously the looks
of those two boys followed them The suspense of im-
pending danger is dreadful; but what must have been
the suspense of these brothers waiting for the verdict.
They did not have long to wait. At half part six the
Sheriff was informed they had agreed as to a verdict.
At 6:45 court was called, and the jury, once more, and
for the last time, filed into their accustomed places.
At 7 o'clock the defendants were brought into court,
and took their seats in a cool, and collected manner, but
wearing a more serious look than heretofore.
Judge Howell then asked: Gentlemen have you a
verdict 2 The foreman answered that they had, and
handed the court their written verdict, which the Court
in a trembling voice, read as follows:
“We ſhe jury find the defendant Charles E. Zaſłott
and the defendant A/6erſ P. Zalăoff, guilty of murder in
the first degree.”
It was an awful moment. Men looked into each
others faces as if afraid to speak or move. Then came
a murmur, not of surprise, for every one expected the
verdict, but of pent up feeling. The prisoners did not
seem to realize the full meaning of the words. To them
it must have been like some horrible dream.
Hon. Lafe Dawson for the defense, then asked that
the jury be polled, when each juror answered in a decided


9

I3o
manner that it was his verdict. Mr. Dawson then asked
till II A. M., on the coming day in which to file a motion
in arrest of judgment, and a new trial, which was
granted. Court then adjourned till that time.
As soon as the doors of the hall were thrown open
on the next morning, the crowd began to rapidly fill the
empty seats so that at the appointed time the court room
was filled to overflowing. At 11:20 the prisoners filed in
under the escort of the Sheriff and his deputies accom-
panied by their mother, two sisters, the affianced of
Albert, and their aunt, Mrs. West. The faces of the de-
fendants bore traces of suffering, and were more seri-
ous, if possible than ever before.
At 1 1.25 the clerk Mr. L. J. Growney read the min-
utes of the proceedings of court on yesterday, after
which they were signed by the Judge. Mr. T. J. John-
ston then arose and filed a motion for a new trial.
The following is the full text of the bill of excep-
tions and motion for a new trial: -
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.
In the AVodaway County Circuit Court.
STATE OF MISSOURI, -
Øy. ." -
CHARLEs E. TALBOTT, Motion for a New Trial.
ALBERT P. TALBOTT. J -
Come now the defendants and move the court for a new trial in
the above entitled cause and for reason state:
1. The court committed error in giving to the jury instructions
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and ſo on behalf of the State against the
objections of defendants.
2. The court committed error in refusing to give the jury in-
structions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 as prayed by defendants.
The court erred in refusing to allow the defendants to read
extracts from the evidence of the witness, Jonas Brighton, taken on the
preliminary trial of this case and reduced to writing and signed by said
Brighton, and after the same had been shown to him and his signature
thereto admitted to be genuine by him, if he did not state the facts con-
tained in such extracts read to him in such preliminary trial, except
º
I31
upon the condition that the State be permitted to read to the jury the
whole of such written examination, whether relevant or irrelevant.
4. The court erred in refusing to allow defendants to ask said
witness, Jonas V. Brighton, if he did not know that at the time he was
married to his wife, Virginia Brighton, she had another husband living
from whom she had not been divorced.
The court erred in refusing to permit the defendants to prove
that the said Brighton in the town of Junction City, Kansas, in order to
obtain a marriage license, swore before the Probate Judge of Davis
county, Kansas, that there was no legal impediment to the marriage of
himself and said Virginia Brighton. -
6. The court erred in refusing to allow the defendants to prove
by the witness, Virginia Brighton, on cross examination, that she had
had a conversation prior to her marriage with said Jonas V. Brighton,
in which she told him she had a husband living from whom she was not
divorced, said conversation being had at the residence of one Agnes
Hodge, in Junction City, Kansas.
The court erred in refusing to permit defendants to ask the
witness, Mitchell, whether he had not stated on the preliminary trial of
this case, that he and Brighton had had an agreement by which they
were to divide the reward offered in the case, except upon the condition
that the State should read the whole of such witness’ testimony pertain-
ing to the whole of such agreement.
8. The court erred in not permitting defendants to read to the
jury the letter dated August 20, 1886, at Pottowattomie, Kansas, pur-
porting to be written by said witness, Mitchell, to Henry Wyatt, upon
the proof of its genuineness by said Mitchell himself, by admitting that
it did look like his signature thereto, and other facts in proof.
9. The court erred in allowing against the objections of the de-
fendants, the witness, Leighty, to testify to the jury to a conversation he
had with the defendant, Charles E. Talbott, while confined in jail, and
just after Henry Toel had testified upon said preliminary trial to a con-
fession that Henry Wyatt had made to him, while said examination was
in progress, by which the said Charles E. Talbott was charged by said
Wyatt with doing the shooting, and which conversation between said
Leighty and said Charles E. Talbott was brought about by said Leighty
going into the jail where said Charles E. Talbott was confined, and had
with said Charles E. Talbott while the confession was being talked
about by said Leighty to said Charles E. Talbott. -
ro. The court erred in permitting against objection of defend-
ants the witness, Anna Hosher, to testify to a conversation between
such witnesses and Mrs. Belle Talbott in the absence of the defendants.
II. The court erred in allowing evidence to go to the jury of
shooting taking place at the late residence of said P. H. Talbott subse-
quent to the homicide. -
DAWSON, JOHNSTON & MORAN,
Attorneys for Defendants.

-
I32
It was late in the afternoon when the counsel con-
cluded their arguments for and against a new trial.
Judge. Howell remained in silent thought for a
moment and then said:
“Counsel are right in saying that courts in cases of this magnitude
should have opportunity to review the proceedings, and if any wrong
has been done they should not hesitate to grant a new trial that such
wrong might be corrected ; to my mind the argument of counsel fails
to show that any material error has been committed, and I will there-
fore over-rule this motion. I take consolation in the reflection that there
is a higher tribunal to which these defendants may appeal, and I should
not wish the defendants to lose their life upon my decision except such
decision shall be approved by this higher tribunal.”
His Honor then proceeded to sentence the defend-
ants as follows: -
THE SENTENCE.
In the necessary preliminary steps, and in the trial of the cause
we have now spent almost two weeks. On last evening about seven
o'clock the case reached a crisis full of solemn and impressive interest.
The jury returned a verdict of murder in the first degree against the
defendants, and it is now my duty to pronounce the judgment of the
law in pursuance thereof. -
Upon such occasions it is perhaps customary to review briefly the
history of the trial. This I deem unnecessary under the circumstances
of this case. Many in this community attended this trial and know
the history, and by means of the telegraph many abroad also know
it. One thing, however, I feel that I must say in reference to the
attorneys in the case. Both the State and these defendants have been
well and ably represented, and if the issue has gone against them it
was not from want of faithfulness or lack of eloquence, ability and
skill in their behalf on the part of those who appeared in their behalf.
Besides reviewing the history of the case, it is also sometimes
customary to strongly animadvert on the conduct of the defendants.
That example Ishall not follow except to say that if the defendants are
guilty it is a most wicked, dastardly, ungrateful and atrocious crime-
almost unparalleled in the annals of crime. But in my judgment this
is no time for speech, but rather for solemn thought and melancholy
reflection. No doubt the defendants are sufficiently impressed with the
gravity of the situation. If they are guilty—and they know whether
they are or not—I can only recommend to them that they heartily
repent of their crime, and have washed from their souls the foul stain
produced by this awful violation of human and divine law.
He then asked each of the defendants respectively if they had any
legal reason why the judgment of the court should not be pronounced
against them, to which each responded: “I have; I am not guilty of
the charge.” His Honor continued:
“The jury says you are guilty, and therefore it is considered and
adjudged by the court that you be taken hence to the county jail of

















I 33
Nodaway county, and confined therein till the 25th day of March, 1881,
and that on that day you be taken thence by the Sheriff to the place of
execution, and that you be hanged by the neck till you be dead, and
God have mercy on your souls ſº
No pen can write, no tongue can tell the awful scene
as these words were uttered. The Judge broke down,
covered his face with his hands, and quivered with
emotion ; strong men wept, women shrieked. The vast
multitude present were shaken as if by a tempest. The
agony of the mother and relatives of the condemned
were terrible. Mrs. Talbott clung to her boys as if she
would not have them torn from her. Albert's calmness
forsook him. His mother, his affianced, both must be
bidden farewell, ah! it was terrible. He wept like an
infant. Charles was moved, but possessed to a great
extent his wonderful composure. His fortitude is won-
derful. Nothing like it, in one so young, we have ever
before witnessed. At last way was made through the
packed mass of humanity, and the prisoners were con-
veyed to the jail, followed by hundreds of curious
spectators.
CHAPTER V.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SUPREME COURT.
Although beaten at all points, the attorneys for the
defense abated none of their zeal, but prepared for the
final conflict before the Supreme Court.
The case was first set for a hearing on the 22d of
March, but was at that time postponed until the 27th of
April, and stay of execution granted until May 4th.
On the day mentioned above, the case came up for
final hearing before a full bench. Messrs. Dawson and

I34
Johnston appeared for the defense and W. W. Ramsey
for the prosecution. The case was thoroughly and ably
argued by these advocates, the whole ground being care-
fully gone over. The Supreme Court took the matter
under advisement until Saturday, May 11th, when the
Judges rendered their decision, affirming without a dis-
senting voice the verdict of the lower court. The follow-
ing is the full text of the decision :
THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondents,
WS.
CHARLEs E. AND ALBERT P. TALBOTT, Appellants.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
At the November term, 1880, of the Nodaway Circuit Court, the
defendants and Henry Wyatt were jointly indicted for the murder of
Dr. Perry H. Talbott. At the same term, on motion of Wyatt, a
severance was granted him, and these defendants were arraigned and
pleaded not guilty, and the cause was continued to an adjourned term
of said court, held if January, 1881, at which a trial was had, resulting
in their conviction of murder in the first degree, and from the judgment
thereon they have appealed.
Except proof of admission and statements made by defendants,
the evidence was circumstantial; but we are not prepared to say that it
did not authorize the verdict, and shall, therefore, proceed to examine
the questions upon which the court is alleged to have committed error
in the progress of the trial. -
The evidence proved that Dr. Talbott was assassinated while sitting
in a room of his residence with members of his family, on the night of the
18th of September, 1880. He was shot by some one without the house
about eleven o’clock at night, and lived until about four o'clock P. M.
next day. He made no statement with respect to the tragedy, although
rational and conscious that he could live but a short time. The day
after he was shot he made his last will and testament, by which he dis-
posed of all his property, a considerable estate, to his wife and children,
including the defendants.
Each of the defendants made statements implicating himself in
the murder, and the testimony of Wyatt was to the effect that they had
previously planned the murder of their father, and communicated the
fact to witness; and that on the night in question Edward took the
shotgun up-stairs, and when the Doctor returned from visiting a sick
child in the neighborhood, Albert took the mule the Doctor had ridden,
to the stable, and Ed went down-stairs, and about a minute after Ed
went down, Albert having returned into the house, witness heard the
shot, and they both told him that Ed did the shooting. There was
evidence of frequent quarrels between the Doctor and defendants, and

















I35
of a want of affection and respect on their part for him. The court
gave the following instructions for the State, against the objections of
defendants: -
[For instructions, see proceedings of trial, page 53.]
The 5th, 6th and 8th for the state are complained of the 5th be-
cause a comment on certain parts of the evidence and calculated to
mislead the jury to the prejudice of the defendants. The sixth because
a mere abstraction, and because it ignores the necessity of proving de-
liberation and premeditation and tells the jury, in substance, that from
the unlawful use of a gun they must presume the other ingredients of
murder, and because it “tells the jury that qualifying facts necessary to
extenuate the crime of murder must be shown by the defendants,” and
the 8th “because a mere abstraction.”
The 5th instruction is not a comment on parts of the evidence,
but a proper enunciation of the law in relation to statements made by
defendants, and has been repeatedly held by this court. State vs. Hal-
lenstriet, 61 Mo. 302; State vs. Hays, 23 Mo. 287; State vs. West, 69
Mo. 401; State vs. Curtis, 70 Mo. 594. -
The 6th instruction, so far from being open to the criticism made
upon it, expressly recognizes the doctrine that it devolves upon the state
to prove the willfulness, premeditation and malace necessary to consti-
tute the crime of murder of the first degree, and in stating these ele-
ments need not be proved by direct evidence, but may be deduced
from the facts and circumstances attending the homicide, is in harmony
with numerous decisions of this court. State vs. Holmes, 54 Mo. 153;
State vs. Hays, supra; State vs. Hallenstreit, supra; State vs. Starr, 38
Mo. 27 of State vs. Hoster, 61 Mo. 549; State vs. Underwood, 57 Mo.
4o; State vs. Lane, 64 Mo. 320.
The meaning of the instruction taken in connection with those
preceding it, clearly is that from the facts it found that defendants killed
Dr. Talbott by shooting him in a vital part with a shot gun, charged with
powder and leaden ball, with a manifest design to use such weapon upon
him, with sufficent time to deliberate and form the purpose to kill, and
without sufficient cause or extenuation, such killing was murder in the
first degree, and that the willfulness, malice and premeditation necessary
to constitute that crime, might be inferred from all the established facts
attending the homicide. In other words, that although the State must
prove malice, premeditation and willfulness, it is not required to furnish
direct evidence establishing them, if the facts attending the homicide
would authorize the jury to infer their existence.
Malice is a condition, and premeditation and willfulness are acts or
operations of the mind and can only be established by proof of physical
facts indicating that such mental condition existed and that such mental
operations had occurred. Hence to require direct evidence of either
would render a conviction impossible where they are constituent
elements of a crime.
The 8th instruction might have been omitted, but it correctly
states the duty of the jury, and a state of public feeling may have
existed which made it proper to declare to them their duty, and we can-


136
not see how, in any event, it could possibly have prejudiced the
defendants. -
The instructions asked by defendants and refused, assert no legal
proposition not embraced in those given. The 9th, in substance, re-
quested the court to declare a distinction between direct and circum-
stantial evidence not recognized by law. -
The 3d instruction for the State and the first for the defense con-
tain an error which is immaterial in this cause and is only noticed for
fear its sanction might be inferred from our silence.
It declares deliberation to mean “done in a cool state of blood
that is, not in a heated state of the blood caused by a lawful provoca-
tion” thus declaring, in effect, every willful homicide, for which there is
no excuse or justification, to be murder of the first degree, unless com-
mitted in heat of blood caused by lawful provocation. -
- This is in direct conflict with the doctrine announced by this court
in the cases of Weiners, 66 Mo.; Curtis, 70 Mo.; Cooper, 71 Mo.,
and Edmunds, decided at the last term, and we can but express our
surprise that such an instruction should have been given by the court,
and especially that it should have been asked for the defense.
The 4th instruction for the State was wholly unauthorized by the
evidence, which had no tendency to prove any crime, except murder in
the 1st degree. It was that or nothing. The person or persons who
shot the deceased either did it accidentally or in the perpetration of as
cold blooded a murder as has ever been committed in the State, no
instruction with respect to murder in the second degree should have
been given: State vs. Hopper, 71 Mo., 425.
Defendants were found guilty of murder in the first degree and the
4th instruction could not, therefore, have operated unfavorably against
them.
The defendants asked Brighton, a witness for the State, if he did
not make a certain statement in his testimony on a preliminary trial, to
which the State's attorney objected and the court overruled the objec-
tion, but announced that if he answered the State would have the right
to read the whole of the written testimony of the witness on that occa-
sion; and, thereupon, defendant withdrew the question. In the brief of
counsel it is stated that the court declared that the State would be per-
mitted to read the whole of that written testimony, both relevant and
irrelevant. The record, however, contains no such statement and the
language of the court cannot be construed to mean what counsel asserts
the court declared. -
(The State vs. Phillips & Ross, 24 Mo., 485) is cited by appellants'
counsel as sustaining the position that the State could only read such
portions of the testimony of the witness at the preliminary trial as were
connected with the statement to which his attention was called or rela-
ted to the same subject. -
That case is an authority directly to the contrary. (See also Pre-
witt vs. Martin, Adm'x, 59 Mo., 333). There is a distinction in this
respect between all statements’ by which it is sought to impeach a wit .
ness, and documentary evidence. The section of Mr. Greenleaf's evi-











I37
dence (sec. 467) cited by appellants' counsel in support of their view
. to oral statements. The distinction is recognized in all the
OOKS. -
But even if the doctrine announced by the court were incorrect
the defendants should have pressed their inquiry and made their ob-
jections when the State offered to read portions of the testimony which
did not relate to the subject matter of the question propounded with a
view to discredit the witness.
The witness was asked if he did not know at the time he was
married to his wife that she then had another husband living from whom
she had not been divorced, to which an objection by the State was sus-
tained. - - -
Mrs. Brighton was asked if she had not a husband living from
whom she had not been divorced when she married the witness, Brigh-
ton, and the court on an objection made by the State told the witness
she might answer or not as she pleased and she declined to answer.
She was also asked if she had not, before she and Brighton were
married, communicated to Brighton the fact that she had such husband
living, and the court sustained the State’s objection to any answer by
the witness.
The witness could not be compelled to answer these questions.
The answer might, and if affirmative, would have exposed them to pros-
ecution and punishment for bigamy.
“When the answer which the witness may give will not directly and
certain/y show his infamy, but will only ſend to disgrace him, he may
be compelled to answer. [Greenlf. Ev. Section 456.] “When the answer
will have a tendency to expose the witness to a penal liability, or to
any kind of punishment, or to a criminal charge, the witness is not
bound to answer.” [i.º. Sec. 451, Crandall vs. Pratt, 1 M. and Walk.
IoS.
- ls. was there any error in admitting the testimony of Leighty,
detailing a conversation he had with Charles E. Talbott, at which Albert
Was not present. - -
They were jointly indicted, and what Charles said after the homi-
cide was certainly evidence against him, although not against Albert;
and this the court declared in the fifth instruction for the State.
If they had severed, what Charles said to Leighty would have
been inadmissable on trial of Albert, but they were tried jointly, and
that fact did not deprive the State of the right to introduce Charles'
statements as evidence against him, notwithstanding they also implicated
Albert, and the court could not otherwise break their force against Albert
than by an instruction such as was given.
Mrs. Belle Talbott, widow of the deceased, was introduced as a
witness for the defense and testified that her husband and the defend-
ants were on good terms, contradicting the State's evidence on that
point. - -
She was asked if, on the 27th day of June, 1880, at her residence,
she did not tell Mrs. Hoshor of a difficulty between herself and her
husband on a certain occasion, and say to Mrs. Hosher that “if Bud


138
(Albert) had had a pistol he would have shot him, but never mind he is
prepared for him now 2°
She said she had not, and Mrs. Hoshor was introduced, and,
against defendants’ objection, permitted to testify that such a conversa.
tion occurred, and that Mrs. Talbott made that statement.
The state of feeling on the part of the defendants towards their
father was a legitimate subject of inquiry.
Mrs. Talbott was offered to show that it was such as should be
entertained by children for parents, thereby contradicting the evidence
for the State on that point, and evidence impeaching her in that respect
was competent.
A witness (Mitchell) introduced by the State testified to admis-
sions of their guilt made by defendants to him.
A letter purporting to have been written by Mitchell to Wyatt
before the murder of Dr. Talbott, proposing to Wyatt the assassination
of the doctor was shown to the witness and he denied that he wrote it.
It was proven by the defense that it was found in the pocket of
an old coat which had been worn by Wyatt. No other evidence what-
ever was introduced to prove that it was written by Mitchell, and the
court properly excluded it from the jury.
Even if proven to have been written by Mitchell, its admissibility
as evidence is questioned by highly respectable courts. [Munshoner vs.
State, recently decided by the supreme court of Maryland and not yet
reported, except the syllabus, which is given in No. 16, vol. II, Law
Report.]
But, without passing upon that question, it is very clear that until
proven to have been written by Mitchell, the defense had no more right
to introduce it than if it had been proven to have been written by another
person. As there was no evidence of its authenticity against Mitchell,
the court did right in not submitting that question to the jury.
We have considered all the questions presented by the record,
and have failed to discover that any error was committed on the trial of
the defendants which would warrant a reversal of the judgment against
them, and it is therefore affirmed. All concur.
JNO. W. HENRY.
AFTER THE TRIAL.
The brothers were in jail at Savannah when the
decision of the Supreme Court was communicated to
them. They did not seem to fully comprehend its fearful
meaning, and it made but little impression on their spirits.
After the trial they were taken to St. Joseph and
placed in the Buchanan County jail for safe keeping







TALBOTT.
DR. PERRY H









140
They had been there but a few weeks when Sheriff
Thomas became convinced that something unusual was
on foot among his prisoners. The AEvening News, of
March 9th, reported the sensation as follows:
This morning Sheriff Henry Toel removed the Talbott brothers
from the St. Joseph jail to the one in Andrew county, for greater secu-
rity, as evidences led to suspicious plotting for their rescue. The bail-
ing out of Pope Wells just after Mrs. Belle Talbott had been to visit
her boys in the jall, and the passing of money from Wells on the inside,
to parties on the outside of the jail, led to the opinion that Mrs. Talbott
was furnishing money to carry on a plot for the release of her committed
boys. The manoeuvering of Wells, after he was bailed out; his trip to
Nodaway county and there telling parties that when he got fine horses,
everything would be completed, all of which was made known to Sheriff
Thomas and enabled that officer to be on his guard, and prepare for
any emergency. It is well known that Pope Wells, before Mrs. Talbott's
visit to the jail, did not have a dollar, and that in order to go his bail
Col. Saxton was reimbursed. Hence it is easy to divine where the
money came from. Wells and O’Rorke are old pals; the latter is held
charged with train robbery. Whatever plans Wells was trying to put
into execution was more for the release of O’Rorke than the Talbotts.
O’Rorke nor Wells had any money; this Mrs. Tabott could furnish.
The first thing was to get Wells out, then he would and did become
active in the conspiracy for the release of the others. The plot has been
detected, and as a result the interested parties separated by the taking
of the Talbotts to Savannah this morning. This conspiracy for a
jail delivery will not help the Talbotts, and if their mother was anxious
to hurry them to the scaffold she could not help the matter along any
better or faster than she has. Sheriff Thomas, by his vigilance, has
frustrated the plans, and is entitled to the confidence and respect of the
community.” - -
There is no doubt there was some scheme on foot
to liberate the boys, but just what it was, or who was at its
head, we do not know.
Sheriff Toel went down to St. Joseph, consulted with
the sheriff there, and came to the conclusion that it would
be better to move the prisoners back to Savannah, which
was done. Here they remained until the middle of May,
when they were taken to Maryville and placed under a
strong guard both night and day. They bear up won-
derfully under their impending fate, and still have hopes
of executive clemency. -
When they were removed to Maryville, Sheriff Lin-
coln, of Andrew county, found two ingeniously made









14 I
keys concealed in their cell. These keys were made of
hard wood, and "would readily open their cell doors.
Since they have been in Maryville the eye of their guard
is always upon them and they have no opportunity for
forming plots of escape.
When we consider the age of the boys—Albert is
not yet twenty-two and Charles was only seventeen the
eighteenth of May—the coolness and fortitude they show
is wonderful.
Charles has more nerve than his brother, and is said
to be more tactiturn, yet when we conversed with them
he appeared to be as ready to talk as his brother. Both
are now anxious to have their sentence commuted to
imprisonment for life. At the time of this writing
neither of the boys has confessed to killing their father.
But Charles, before the trial, as shown by the testimony
of Leighty, confessed that Wyatt killed him ; and we
have the best authority for stating that since the trial,
Albert has declared the same thing. But if either of
these confessions are true, the boys had knowledge of
the crime and made no effort to have the guilty one pun-
ished. In Nodaway county, ninety-nine out of every hun-
dred believe the boys guilty, but there are many, who,
owing to the extreme youth of the convicted, and to the
training they received at home, are willing their sentence
should be commuted to imprisonment for life. “
THE WAR AMONG THE AT TORNEYS.
-
We have often been asked, what of the quarrel
among the attorneys for the defense It has also been
vehemently charged by a St. Joseph paper, that the case
was grossly mismanaged. Those, who read this history
of the trial, will see how incorrect that statement is ; but
a few words regarding the difficulty among the attorneys
will not be amiss. At the preliminary trial, Mrs. Talbott
employed Messrs. Johnston and Moran, as her attorneys,
and they were the only lawyers for the defense at that


I42
trial. During the time between the preliminary exam-
ination and the session of court in November, Mrs. Tal-
bott negotiated with both Mr. Johnston and Mr. Dawson
as to defending the boys, but no definite bargain was
made. At the commencement of the circuit court in
November, and while the case was yet before the Grand
Jury, Frank M. Wolf went to see Mrs. Talbott at the
Arlington hotel, and there told her that Judge Johnston
and Judge Kelley were not on friendly terms, and it
might be poor policy for her to employ Johnston as an
attorney for this reason. Mrs. Talbott came to that con-
clusion, and the conference ended by her employing
Wolf as her counsel. But some outside parties and
friends of Mrs. Talbott interfered, and told her she had
made a great mistake, and she should by all means se-
cure Messrs. Dawson and Johnston as her counsel.
Whereupon she sent a note to these gentlemen request-
ing to see them on the subject. Mr. Johnston sent back
word he could have nothing to do with the case as long
as Mr. Wolf was in it. Messrs. Dawson and Johnston
held a consultation, and sent word to Mrs. Talbott that
if she would revoke the authority of Mr. Wolf as her
attorney, they would take the case, but not otherwise.
This Mrs. Talbott consented to do, and a revocation was
written out and handed to Mr. Wolf, and Messrs. Daw-
son, Johnston and Moran were employed as her attorneys.
Shortly after this a brother of Dr. Talbott appeared
on the scene, and for some reason not known to us, pro-
cured a power of attorney from Albert to act for him,
not only as far as the case was concerned, but also in
the disposition of his property. . Mr. Wolf went down
to Savannah where the boys were in jail, saw Albert and
persuaded him to erase the name of his uncle from the
power of attorney and have his own name (Wolf's) sub-
stituted. This made Mr. Wolf master of the situation
as far as the case of Albert was concerned. Under his
authority Mr. Wolf could hire or discharge any attorney
he chose. Of course this brought things to a climax,
and Albert was at once seen. He claimed he had been
deceived so far as giving the power of attorney to Wolf
was concerned. He thought he had only revoked the

I43
authority he had given his uncle. Wolf's power of
attorney was at once revoked, and this left things as
they were.
Mrs. West, a sister of Doctor Talbott, then took
upon herself the authority to engage Mr. Wolf as one of
the attorneys, and at the commencement of the trial he,
(Wolf) asked to be enrolled as such. It was then that
the accused gave Judge Howell a paper stating that
Messrs. Dawson, Johnston and Moran were their only
authorized attorneys. This settled the difficulty, and
Mr. Wolf stepped down and out.
But it is not supposed that Wolf had the kindest of
feelings towards those to whom he owed his dismissal,
and there is no doubt but that he threw the whole of his
influence against the defense.
Being the attorney for Wyatt, he controlled his
movements more or less, and, as far as Wyatt was con-
cerned, he did the best thing for himself that he could
when he turned State's evidence.
But the heaviest weight the defense had to carry
was this Mrs. West, spoken of before. She made her
appearance shortly after the arrest of the boys, and from
that time until after this trial took a prominent part in the
affairs of the family, outranking Mrs. Talbott herself.
From the first she was a vigorous defender of the boys,
and became one of their most active allies. She knew
every movement connected with the defense. Not one
of the family said or did a thing that did not come to her
knowledge. The consequence was she knew all that the
attorneys for the defense knew, and they could not make
a move but that the prosecution knew all about it in
twenty-four hours afterward. Not that Mrs. West was
unfaithful to her side, by any means; yet she might as
well have been, so far as results were concerned. She
considered it her especial duty to never advise with the
attorneys for the defense, but to choose her own advisors,
and she was continually given away. She was a
large woman, with considerable of the virago about
her, and was one of the prominent features of the trial.
I44
The lawyers feared her tongue as much as the devil does
holy water. Her interest in the boys was remarkable.
All through the trial she was by their side. She walked
beside them to and from the jail, and cheered them in
every possible way. After the conviction she returned
to her home in Indiana, and the last thing she did, as she
stood on the platform of the cars, was to deliver a
phillipic against the attorneys for the defense and against
the community at large. Poor Mrs. West Wise in her
own opinion, she did more harm than good, and it would
have been better for the boys had she never seen Mis-
SOU11ſ 1.
DETECTIVE JONAS V. BRIGHTON.
It is a common opinion abroad that it was owing
solely to the agency of Jonas V. Brighton and wife that
the Talbott boys were detected and arrested, and that it
was their testimony more than that of any one else that
convicted them. The character of Mr. and Mrs. Brighton
received such a ventilation at the trial, that if their testi-
mony had not been sustained by other and unimpeach-
able witnesses, the Talbott boys would never have been
convicted. -
Before Brighton came, Sheriff Toel had evidence of
such a nature in his hands that he had consulted with the
Prosecuting Attorney about their arrest; but it was
thought best to wait to get all evidence possible. But
Brighton sprung his trap and the arrests were made.
David Stotts, of Savannah, one of the shrewdest
detectives in the northwest, was working up the case for
Mr. Toel, and it is to these gentlemen more than to any
one else that the people are indebted for the successful
working up of the case. If it had not been for the evi-
dence of Whit. Leighty and Willford Mitchell, the testi:
mony of Brighton would have amounted to little, and
been of no account. His character was badly against
him. But Mitchell's testimony was fully as conclusive as













I45
Brighton's, and Mitchell's testimony stood unimpeached.
The part Brighton took has been greatly overesti-
mated by the press outside of Nodaway county. When
the arrests were first made, it was thought by every one
that his would be the principal testimony; but when his
character became known, it was evident the prosecution
must rely on other evidence. Neither is Brighton as
sharp as he has been given credit for. He talks alto-
gether too much for a good detective. He was also
mixed up with the notorious Frank Lane, of Clark
county, this State. Lane, it will be remembered, was
the leader of the mob that hanged Bill Young.
As near as we can learn, Lane came to Nodaway
county after the arrest and preliminary trial of the boys.
Brighton asserts that he came here with a brother
of Dr. Talbott, that the first intimation he had of Lane's
connection with the case, was a telegram from him wish-
ing to see him (Brighton) at Shenandoah, Ia. that he
met him there and Lane, in behalf of the Talbotts,
offered him $1,000 if he would skip the country and not
appear against the boys. Of the truth of this we have
only Brighton's word, but it is known he was called to
Shenandoah about the time he states; that he did.inform
the counsel for the prosecution that attempts were being
made to bribe him, and was told to stand fast.
But if these things were true, they did not prevent
him from getting on intimate terms with Lane, or Morton
as he was called, for Lane went under half a dozen dif-
ferent names while he was in the county. So intimate
did Lane and Brighton become that he gave Brighton
orders to get and open his mail, and this fact, in the end,
got Brighton into trouble. Lane came to Maryville, took
the name of Kennet and staid through and after the
trial. As near as we can learn, he worked with Brighton
and against the boys during the trial. After the trial,
Lane entered into a most diabolical plot against a lady,
against whom he was to procure evidence for a divorce,
followed her to Harrison county, got drunk and lost
papers that revealed the plot and—exit Lane from our
knowledge.
IO -
I 46
Brighton remained in Maryville, said he wanted to
retrieve the past and be an honest man. He went to
work manfully, but was arrested in May on the charge of
opening letters belonging to one, Robert Morgan.
The following is the testimony in the case:
“Case of United States against Jonas W. Brighton, charged on affi-
davit of David Stotts with opening a letter addressed to E. George, at
Elmo, in Nodaway county, came up for hearing before J. M. Stewart,
United States Commissioner, on last Saturday. This complaint was
dismissed, there being no proof to sustain it. Thereupon Stotts im-
mediately filed another complaint before Stewart, charging Brighton
with opening two letters directed to Robert Morgan, at Elmo. Wit-
nesses for the U. S. were Robert Morgan, Eliphus George and F. E.
James. F. E. James testified on preliminary examination that some
time in January last, a letter came to the post office at Elmo,
where he was acting as deputy postmaster under T. F. Scott,
addressed as he at first supposed to Richard Morton. It was
put in “M” box at postoffice, where all persons letters, whose
last name began with M were deposited. Shortly after Jonas V. Brigh-
ton, who had authority to get mail for Richard Morton, called and in-
quired for letters for himself and Morton. Mr. James handed him out
this letter, supposing it was addressed to Morton, the superscription
being badly written. Brighton immediately on receiving the letter, in
presence of Mr. James, tore it open at the side, took out the letter,
glanced at it, but as witness stated, did not read it, and remarking that
it was not for him, gave it back to Mr. James, who replaced it in “M”
box. Witness did not know R. Morgan at this time. He said on giv-
ing the letter to Brighton he acted purely by mistake, and had no de-
sign whatever to pry into, orinterrupt the correspondence of R. Morgan.
A few days after this Eliphus George called and got the letter in ques-
tion for Mr. Morgan. Mr. George testified that Mr. Morgan came to
his place some time in October, 1880, and was engaged in feeding to
his cattle some corn he had purchased from him (George). When he
received the letter from the postmaster it appeared to have been torn
open at the side. The name on it was plainly written. A short time
after he got the letter from James he accosted Brighton in Elmö, and
asked him how that matter was getting along over there, (pointing to the
postoffice). Brighton answered, “O, I will make that all right.” R.
Morgan testified that he came from Ray county to E. George's place in
October, 1880, and remained until after January, 1881. He gave Mr.
George authority to get his mail at Elmo, when he received the letter
in controversy from Mr. George, it was torn open at the side. It was
addressed to him, although part of the contents were addressed to Mr.
George. His name was plainly written on the envelope.
The commissioner held that some evidence ought to be given by
some body to explain how Mr. Brighton opened a letter addressed to R.
Morgan. He held prisoner to bail in the sum of $250 for his appear-
ance before the grand jury at session of U. S. court to be held in Kansas












I47
City in October next, in default of which, defendant was committed.
The defendant was ably represented by Mr. Pratt, of St. Joe, and John
Edwards, of Maryville.”
The above evidence certainly looks weak, very weak,
to hold a man on, but then we may not know. Being
friendless, without money and character, the out-look for
Brighton is not bright. -
CLOSING REMARKS.
As this book is written some three weeks before the
fatal 24th of June, the day appointed for the Talbott
boys to swing into eternity, we cannot give the last pos-
sible scene, if the Governor does not commute the sen-
tence. It is not for us to say whether the Talbott broth-
ers are guilty of the awful crime charged against them or
not. Many papers say it is impossible; children never
become so brutal as to slay a parent in cold blood. But
sons have killed parents in times past, and will, in all
probability, in times to come.
The Talbott family is a peculiar one. That there is a
want of affection is painfully evident to all who know
them. The picture we have drawn of the family is
faintly, instead of highly colored. Said one who was
intimately acquainted with the family: “Dr. Talbott was
not only a tyrant, but he wanted every one, including his
family, to look up to him as a god. When angry his
abuse of them was terrible.”
Henry Clay Dean, in a private letter to Hon. Laſe.
Dawson, says: “I cannot resist the impression, if the
Talbott boys killed their father, they were insane. I was
well acquainted with Dr. Talbott. He was a ſamatic of
the insane type, upon whom reason was utterly power/ess
against his enthusiasm or his whims.” -
Henry Clay Dean's estimate of the man is correct.
We spoke in our brief sketch of his life of the restless,






148
insane look of his eye when excited. Dean may also be
right in his theory that his insanity descended to his sons
but it is a kind of insanity that needs, at least, close
watching.
There are two theories of the murder advanced by
those who believe the boys guilty. The first theory is
that Wyatt told the truth; that Charles did the shooting
through the window, and that the situation of the parties
inside the room and the circumstances were substantially
the same as testified to by Mrs. Talbott.
The other theory is that Dr. Talbott was shot in the
house during a row that he knew who did it, that he
felt he was as much to blame as any one, and died with
the terrible secret locked in his breast, and tried to make
amends by his will; and that the story of the shooting
through the window was made up by the family as the
most probable one to be believed.
It is thought by many, that the only hope of an exec-
utive pardon is for the boys to make a full confession
how the deed was committed, and what induced them to
do it. Whether this would have any effect or not, is
doubtful, though it might. But it looks now as if the
boys would pay the penalty of their crimes with their
lives.
--> º º --
149.
LOOKING INTO ETERNITY,
The stirring events which have happened in the Talbott
case since the preceding chapters of this book were written,
render it necessary for us to continue our narrative.
Almost against hope, the counsel for the defense, made
herculean efforts to obtain a commutation of sentence, or at
least a respite for the condemned boys. An editorial ap-
peared in the St. Joseph Herald strongly advocating a com-
mutation of their sentence to life imprisonment. This edito-
rial was copied with approval in nine-tenths of the papers in
Northwest Missouri. -
The St. Joseph Gazette suddenly becomes a violent cham-
pion of the boys, claiming they had been convicted by unre-
liable and perjured testimony, and strongly hinting that
Mitchell and Wyatt were the real murderers, and that the
boys were the victims of a hellish conspiracy.
In the meantime, the boys had been removed to Mary-
ville, and were closely guarded day and night. Their time
grew fearfully short, and yet the Governor showed no signs
of speaking the word that would save their being launched
into eternity on the day appointed by the Supreme Court.
We left Brighton in jail at St. Joseph, charged with tam-
pering with the U. S. mails. Brighton was soon released on
his own recognizance, but not before he had written the fol-
lowing letter to Lafe Dawson, senior counsel for the defense:
ST. Jose PH, Mo., June 10, 1881.
CoL. LA FE DAwson–
Dear Sir : The object of this letter is to say I am ready to make
affidavit to the following facts: In the first place I always gave the
boys whisky or other intoxicating liquors. Second, I always told
them I had killed several persons, and that I was an expert in bank
robbing. Probably the inducements I held out to them caused them
to make false statements to me in regard to the killing of Dr. Talbott,
as they told me of several persons they had killed, and on investiga-
tion since the trial, I have found in every instance to be false, there-
fore I am not satisfied to have the boys executed on my evidence,
until I have the time and chance to further investigate, for I am sat-
isfied in my own mind of Mitchell and Wyatt's guilt, and I am also
satisfied that if I had the chance I can bring proof sufficient to estab-
lish these facts before the courts. Mitchell told me all he found out
was from Wyatt, and he swore falsely when he said he got it from
the boys. Mitchell got drunk the evening before the trial, and told
me afterwards that he got drunk on purpose and wanted to make out
as though he was poisoned so as to keep off the stand. Mitchell told
me, for God’s sake not to say anything about that letter for it might
get him into trouble, and told me he would take $200 and skip out of
the country, for he was only working for money. I would have ex-
posed him at that time, but those depositions from Kansas made me
feel that I had lost my influence, and for that reason. I kept still.
Wyatt told me that Doc. Mozingo told him to swear against the boys










- 150.
and save his life. Now, Mr. Dawson, if you think this statement will
affect anything, come and see me, me and my wife will make affida.
vit to this and other facts equally as important. -
Yours Respectfully, J. V. BRIGHTox.
This letter, true or false, shows Brighton to be a consu.
mate villian, and the writer's estimate of him, in a preceding
chapter, correct. - - -
On Monday, June 20th, Messrs. Dawson and Morehouse,
of Maryville, and the Hon. Dave Rea, of Savannah, accompa
nied by Mrs. Talbott, went to Jefferson City to make the last
appeal to the Governor. -
º, They had Brighton's letter and petitions signed by hun.
dreds of the citizens of Northwest Missouri. -
In the meantime events were at work in Maryville. Frank
Griffin, a lawyer of that city, got Wyatt to choose him to de
fend him. He then obtained an interview with the Talbott
boys, and told them he could help them.
The following letter to the Governor and statement of
Wyatt will tell our readers what he accomplished:
MARyvrillº, Mo., June 21, 1881.
To His fºrcellency, governor Crittenden, Jefferson City, Mo.
The foregoing statement was reduced to writing by me in the
jail at Maryville, to-day, taken from lips of Wyatt. The Talbott
case is so completely enveloped in mystery and so many new phases
being brought to light, that we are forced to conclude that the inte-
rest of society and public justice would be fully subserved by a stay
of execution and a further inquiry into the circumstances surround-
ing this remarkable case. Respectfully, FRANK GRIFFIN.
WYATT'S STATEMENT.
I am an unfortunate man. For many years I have been subject
to fits, and at times I feel as if some great calamity would befall me
My mind is fearfully disturbed, and I find it difficult to fix º
me, and when I try to think my head hurts me and I seem to sº
forms of beings who wish to injure me. Dr. Talbott was always kin.
to me, and it made me have ſits very often when I thought that th
Doctor was going to be killed. They had so many guns and pistols
always around the house, and they talked so much about shooting
that my mind was constantly filled with thoughts of shooting, and
when Doctor Talbott was killed, my mind at once pictured the boys
as the ones who done the shooting. At the coroner's inquest (held
on Dr. Talbotts body). I testified that I knew nothing of the matter,
but when the sheriff took me and told me that I was charged wit
killing the Doctor, I tried to fix my mind on all I saw and heard a
the home of the Talbott's. It was impossible for me to do it, bu
what I thought was true I told, and when they put me on the wi
ness stand I was so overcome that I had a fit and the sheriff took me
out of the court room, and after I was brought back I thought the
Talbott boys were trying to put me in their place and have me killed
too. My mind caused me to look upon the boys as my most deadly
enemies, and I wanted them killed, because I thought they wanted
to do injury to me. I may have been mistaken in what I told th
sheriff and what I swore to on the trial. I cannot think the boys



















151.
would do anything so cruel, and since there has been so much talk
about my testimony and about how the Doctor was killed, I have be-
come bewildered oyer the whole thing, and I fear that I have made
some statements about the matter that may do myself or some other
innocent person great harm, and I make this statement to show the
condition of my mind at times and to say that when the fit takes me
I do not know what I am doing, and an unconscious of everything
around me. I would be sorry to do or say anything that would bring
injury to any one, and, if I have, I hope that my sickness will bring
me the forgiveness my misfortunes entitle me to.
Signed in Maryville jail this 21st day of June, 1881. -
- HENRY WYATT.
In presence of George Dearing, guard. -
Meanwhile Governor Crittenden seemed to turn a deaf ear
to all those who were entreating him to spare the lives of the
boys. - -
On Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Dawson telegraphed as follows
to the sheriff: º - - -
JEFFERson CITY, June 21, 1881.
To Henry Tool, sheriff-eprepare for the worst, the last
hope is gone. The governor says the exécution takes place
Friday.” LAFE DAWSON.
Sheriff Toel immediately saw the boys, and read them the
telegram. - --
“This is bad,” was the only remark made by the boys, but
their eyes filled with tears, and they were considerably affected,
but they seemed yet to cling to a hope that the Governor would
do something for them - - - - -
At two o'clock Wednesday we interviewed the boys. They
both said they had nothing new to offer. They were innocent
of the crime charged, that prejudice was strong against them,
and they had little to hope for, that the newspapers had mis-
represented them from the first. - -
in answer to a direct question: Do you know who killed
your father they both said: “We do not. We never told any
one that Wyatt shot him, and we knew it. We believe we are
the victims of a conspiracy, and if we had time we could prove
it, but we have only circumstantial evidence.”
On Wednesday evening Messrs. Dawson, Morehouse, and
Mrs. Talbott returned from Jefferson City, leaving the Hon.
David Rea there, still to intercede with the governor.
On Wednesday the news came that the governor was wa-
vering, and a commutation might still be granted. But the
last word received by Sheriff Toel from the governor was that
the execution would take place, and during the darkness of
Thursday night a gallows had been erected, and everything
made ready. -
- The friends of the prisoners were not idle. Telegram after
telegram was sent the governor, imploring him to stop the
execution, - -
Mitchell, the main witness, was in Maryville, and he made

152.
a statement that efforts were being made to try and get him to
contradict his testimony on the trial. He also made the follow.
statement for publication refative to the letter of Brighton's :
“I have read a letter of Jonas V. Brighton to Col. Lafe Dawson,
concerning the Talbott case, and declare the whole thing relating to
myself, an infamous falsehood. I never had any such conversation
with him as related by him. Never told him Wyatt nor the boys
had been my informants concerning the case ; never told him I
would take $200 and skip the country. In fact his entire statements
concerning me are fabrications.”
Great excitement prevailed in Maryville and the surround.
ing country, and the coming execution was the only thing
thought of.
There were whispers still of a commutation of sentence.
Mr. Dawson, late Thursday night, received the following dis.
patch from Dave Rea, dated Kansas City, 10:00 P. M.:
“Do not believe the Talbott boys will hang to-morrow.”
The following extract from the Maryville Republican will
tell of the stirring Scenes that took place Thursday and Friday:
On Thursday Mrs. Talbott visited her sons early in the morning.
She appeared calm and composed, but upon returning to her room,
was completely prostrated by grief, and remained so during the
entire day.
Mr. Dawson, their counsel, visited them both morning and eve-
ming. They both said they had nothing further to say regarding
their case. They were innocent of the crime. charged. In the
evening he found no change. Albert said he had no fear of the
future, that he would walk to the scaffold with a firm tread. The
only thing he hated was to be taken out and hanged like a dog, in
public. He would find no worse place than he was in.
The excitement, as night approached, increased. Even the
crowds from the surrounding country commenced pouring in at that
hour. The evening trains were loaded with those coming to witness
the execution.
The boys ate a light supper, not having eaten much dinner.
About eight o'clock their spiritual advisers departed, and their
mother and Mrs. Maggie (or Rel.) Maxey, the betrothed of Albert,
were admitted. They pleaded hard to stay with the boys all night,
but were permitted to stay only till 11 o'clocks
The parting was extremely affecting. Albert again broke com-
pletely down.
A little before twelve o'clock the boys lay down to rest. They
seemed to rest qmietly, and slept quite soundly for three or four hours.
They arose between seven and eight. Albert had gained his
wonted composure and was quite cheerful, laughing and talking with
his guard, and those who called on him. Charles appeared uneasy
and did not have much to say.
Early in the morning the crowd began surging in. Not only
was there a living stream of humanity pouring through the streets,
but down at the place of execution thousands had assembled.
The scaffold was erected on a commanding eminence, three
fourths of a mile east of the court house, and about one-fourth
of a mile northwest of the Kansas City, St. Joe & C. B. R. R. It was
made of white pine. The uprights were 8x8 timber, across which
the beam was securely bolted. From the ground to the top of the
beam, it was about 18 feet. The platform was about 8x12, in the cen:

















153.
tre of which the trap, 4x6 feet, was hung upon hinges. The trap was
arranged to drop, by pulling a lever. The steps were built on the
West side, and the whole was enclosed by a rope stretched at a
distance of about fifty feet on all sides.
The bºys had made due preparation for death, having been bap-
tizeſ into the Catholic church by Fathers Anselim and Becker.
About half-past nine we noticed an immense commotion among
the officers. -
The commotion was caused by the following telegrams:
JEFFRRson CITY, June 24, 1881.
Henry Toei, Sheriff of Nodaway County:
“The executiºn of Albert and Charles E. Talbott is hereby postponed until Fri-
day, July 22d. I will send written instructions at once, Answer immediately.”
THOMAs T. CRITTENDEN, Governor.
Upon the receipt of this telegram the following was dispatched to
the governor by the sheriff and prosecuting attorney :
MARY v1.1, LE, Mo., June 24, 1881.
To Governor Crittenden, Jefferson City :
“Your telºgram stopping the execution till the 22d received. Will you repeat it
to us or affirm it.” HENRY Toei,
W. W. RAMsay.
To this the following answer of the governor was promptly re-
ceived, it being filed in the Maryville office at 10:16: -
Jerrºrsos CITY, June 24, issi.
Henry Toel and W. W. Ramsay : - - - - -
“I re-affirm my prior telegram. Obey it.”
THOS. T. CRITTENDEN, Governor.
The sheriff acted promptly and quickly. Guards were quietly
but quickly brought to the court house. Soon a company filed out
and formed a line around the jail. They were heavily armed, and
composed of our best citizens. The crowd grew denser and denser
around the yard.
It was half-past ten when Attorney Ramsay entered this vast
throng and announced that Governor Crittenden had granted a re-
spite to the boys until July 22d. Mr. Ramsay exhorted all present to
respect the law, assist in preserving order, and see that the good
name of the county did not suffer. -
Mr. Ramsay’s speech was received in silence. No wild shouts of
joy over the snatching of two human beings from eternity. A mur-
mur of disapproval swept through the vast throng like the moan of a
distant ocean. The crowd began to toss to and fro. Curses began to
be heard : anxiety began to be depicted on the faces of the law-
abiding citizens. The crowd only seemed to want a bold leader to be-
come a raging mob. But better counsels prevailed. The law-abiding
citizens exerted themselves, and soon a better state of feeling
prevailed. -
But much surprise was felt that the Governor would wait until
solate before acting. Only the day before, the Sheriff had received
orders that the execution would go on. - -
He had allowed the town to fill up with excited thousands,
endangering the life and property of our citizens, and at the last mo-
ment had stayed the execution. -
Why could he not have acted before? was the question asked
by every one.
.***
154.
The respite was granted, undoubtedly, on the representation of
the friends of the boys, that if given more time, they will be able
to produce evidence either establishing their innocence or else so
modify their crime as to lessen their punishment.
The boys received the news of the respite with great joy, Albert
saying he felt it was coming all the time. -
During the night a heavy guard was kept around the jail, and
early Saturday morning the Sheriff romoved them to St. Joseph for
safekeeping.
In an interview with a Herald reporter, the boys still stoutly
maintaining their enture innocence, Albert saying in reply to a ques-
tion as to whom murdered his father : “I do not know who they
are, but I have sufficient faith in the eternal justice of Him who
doeth all things well, to believe that two innocent men will not
be made to answer for a crime they did not commit.”
CONIE"Ess][ONs.
If confessions, good or bad, are “good for the soul,” the
spiritual condition of the actors in the Talbott case must be in
fine order. In fact if the accused had kept a close tongue, con
viction would have been almost impossible. It will be remem:
bered that Brighton swore that the boys told him they killed
their father, that Mitchell swore they told him, that Wyatt did
the killing.
The first confession after the arrest was from Wyatt, made
to Sheriff Toel. This confession was substantially the same as
sworn to by Wyatt at the trial. -
It was the more important as it was not solicited by the
Sheriff.
Neither had Wyatt conferred with counsel, and thus con:
cocted a story to clear himself. In view of so many conflicting
stories since told by Wyatt, this first confession becomes very
important.
The next confession comes from Charles Edward, who,
when told that Wyatt had told the whole thing, declared to
Leighty that Wyatt was the one who did the shooting.
Until the last confession made by the boys, they have
stoutly and persistently declared their innocence, even as they
were about to step on the scaffold.









155.
The whole effort of the boys and their friends seemed to be
to throw the murder on Wyatt and Mitchell.
This trying to implicate and hang innocent parties, is one
of the darkest chapters in the history of the whole trial.
After the decision of the supreme court, affirming the ver.
dict of the lower court, the boys were visited in jail at Savan-
nah by two gentlemen prominently connected in the effort to
secure a commutation, at which time the following conversation
took place:
“Well, Albert, all recourse by law is at an end. It will now do
no hurt for you to tell us the exact truth, so we can labor understand-
ingly for a commutation of sentence. Do you know who killed
your father 2" -
Yes, I do, and I will tell you about it. It was a conspiracy be-
tween Mitchell, Wyatt, and Whit Leighty. Wyatt shot him through
the window, the circumstances being the same as I swore to. I
caught the gun and ran out, and saw Wyatt running away. I fired
both barrels at him, but the d–d rascal had drawn the balls. I then
remembered I had my five-shooter, and I took after him and caught
him in the orchard, and threw him down, when he exclaimed :
“For God's sake, Bud, don't kill me! and I will tell you all
about it.” So I let him up and he told me the whole story.
“Why didn't you kill him right there?” -
“Oh I didn't know but I might get into trouble.”
“Why didn't you have him arrested?”,
“I would, if we hadn't been arrested so soon.”
It is such stories as these that those defending them have had to
deal with, told with the most solemn assertions of the truth. In fact
the counsel for the defense knew not what to do, or which way to turn
for they might map out a line of defense, only to have it kicked over
by the boys in a moment. Those not acquainted with the inner
working of the case, have blamed them entirely without cause.
The utter absurdity of the above story of Albert will be readily
seen by all of our readers, but yet he told it with death staring him
in the face, and was very angry when told of its thinness.
But the impression that the murder was committed by Wyatt,
instigated by Mitchell, was kept up until Wyatt was interviewed by
Griffin, when the boys suddenly came to the conclusion that they
didn't know who did it. And both of them assured the writer with
the most solemn protestations, that they never said Wyatt did the
shooting, and this on the Wednesday when they were to have hanged
on Friday. Knowing what we did, is it any wonder we turned away
from them with a sad heart, giving them up as incorrigible liars?
On Friday, up to the very moment, the respite eame, they de-
clared their entire innocence, as well as did their mother. They were
still injured, persecuted beings. -
But the respite came. What next?
The next came on the fifth of July in the following shape:
CONFESSION OF CHARLEs EDWARD TAL BOTT.
I have concluded to tell all about the killing of Dr. Perry H. Tal-
bott on the night of the 18th of September last. I fired the fatal shot
that sent him to his death. I did it under the following circum-
stances: Dr. Talbott returned from the fair at Maryville, about dusk
on the evening of the 18th of September, 1880. He came in a car-
riage with the children. Mrs. Talbott, my mother, came to Arkoe on
the train, which is our home. I have heard that Dr. Talbott and



156.
Mrs. Talbott had a quarrel on the fair grounds before starting, but of
this I know nothing personally. When the Doctor arrived at home
there was a call for him to go to Leighty's to attend a sick child. He
ordered the boys (as he called us) to put up his team and bring out
his saddle mule. This we did and he rode away. About nine o'clock
P. M., as they say, he returned. I and Henry Wyatt had retired to
bed in an up stairs room. Shortly we heard mother crying for help,
and we ran down stairs and entered the room where they were. The
sight that I then beheld appalled me. Mother was lying on the floor
in front of the bed and father was kicking her. How they got down
I cannot tell, but when Henry Wyatt and I entered the room father
called for his revolver which was lying on the bureau near by, and I
grabbed the shotgun and shot him in the back. Just after firing the
shot, my brother Albert P. came in from the barn where he had been,
as they say, to put away the mule and he assisted him to the bed.
Dr. Talbott then called us to the bed and told us the shot was fatal
and that he must soon die, that he wanted to forgive and be forgiven.
He briefly recounted the family troubles, and told us that we naust
deny all. He wanted the public to think that the National banks
and public corporations had hired an assassin to kill him because of
his denunciation of them in some of his speeches. He urged us to
obey his instruction and keep suspicion off of the family. This course
we have pursued until death stared us in the face. He urged us to
deny all and stand upon our denial, assuring us that it would carr
us through, that to make our defense sure, he would make his will
and make all equal distributees of his property, and make mother the
executrix of his will. Father was at times very cruel to mother and
us children, and was a man of desperate temper with whom no one
could reason. I have withheld his statement, willing to undergo any
punishment rather than expose the faults of my father, or let the
world know that I killed him to protect my mother. Suspicion soon
rested upon the family, and we were arrested upon the oath of J. V.
Brighton. Much has been said and the censure of the public was
terrible. What my brother and I have said has been magnified and
constructed against us. Mitchell and Brighton have falsified from
the beginning. If I must go to my grave at the hand of the execu-
tioner, I shall die declaring that both of them have committed perju-
ry. enry Wyatt was so frightened by being arrested that he knew
not what to do and swore, 1 suppose, to what his attorney told him.
He is weak minded and not responsible. Sherman Shinnabarger told
the truth. He was at our house when Albert and I were moulding
slugs of lead in an auger hole, and saw us shoot one of them at a tree.
This, hower, was a common occurrence. Father's house had been,
and was for years an arsenal. We had been taught to shoot from
early childhood, and learned how to mould slugs of lead for that pur-
posé. The fence posts and boards about the home place are perfor-
ated with lead, which is the result of us and father shooting at times
at a mark. I did not hear father tell Albert to take the gun and run
out of the house and shoot as though he saw some one running away,
but Albert has always told me he did. I have now told all I know
about this sad homicide, which has blighted the future of the child-
ren of Dr. Talbott, and brought ruin and disgrace upon me, and if
what I did is murder, I am guilty.
(Signed)
CHARLEs EDw ARD TALBott,
Subscribed aud sworn to before me, in the jail of Buchanan coun-
ty, Missouri, this 5th day of July, 1881.
S. D. Cow AN.
Clerk Buchanan Circuit Court.
Witness: Oliver M. Spencer, Henry M. Ramey.

157.
CONFESSION OF ALBERT. P. T.A.L.Borſt.
- I have carefully examined the statemont or confession of my
brother, Charles, Edward Talbott. As to what occurred in the house
on the night of the 18th of September, during my absence, I, of course
do not know, only as Edward has told me. I do know, however,
what father said. He wanted suspicion kept from the family, and he
told me after I had assisted him to the bed, to take the gun and run
out and shoot at anyone I could see about the premises, and to shoot
anyway. I obeyed his order. He then talked over the family troub-
les and told us to deny any knowledge of how he was shot, except
that he was shot by an assassin through the window. I have denied
everything for my brother Edward's sake, and even swore before the
coroner's inquest and committing magistrate to what I knew to be
false. I was willing to do anything to help him out, and to even die
with him so long as he preferred to keep the secret, but he has con-
cluded to confess, and all that part of his statement of which I have
personal knowledge is true. The window glass where it has been
claimed the shot came through was knocked out by me, with the
breech of the shot gun in the presence of my father, and by his diree-
tion. (Signed)
ALBERT. P. TALBott.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, in the jail of Buchanan
county, this 5th day of July, 1881.
S. D. CowAN,
Clerk Buchanan county Circuit Court.
Witnesses: Oliver M. Spencer, Henry M. Ramey.
The confession created a great deal of excitement and a di-
versity of opinion. By many it was claimed the bottom facts
of the case had been reached, that it was the true story, and
that they had all the while thought Dr. Talbott had been killed-
in a family row. From the first there had been a dispute
whether Dr. Talbott was struck in the back or breast. Drs. T.
J. and S. M. Dunn holding at the coroner's inquest that he was
struck in the breast, while Dr. S. V. Campbell, of this city, held
just as strongly that he was shot in the back. This difference
has never been satisfactorily settled.
But with the mass of the people the confession was re-
ceived with incredibility, it being thought the last resort to
save the condemned from the scaffold.
Many others believed the confession partly true, but that
the half had not been told, and that it was drawn up to shield
the boys as much as possible. The row part could be readily
believed, but why the boys should walk so near death's door
when the truth told at the first would have saved them, is hard
to conjecture. Why Wyatt told the story he did when the
truth would have served him better, is harder yet to sur-
mise.
The confessions were duly sent to the Governor, backed by
a number of affidavits as to the truths of the matters therein.
Wyatt was again destined to appear upon the scene.
Armed with the statement of the Talbott boys, Hurley, editor
of the Savannah Democrat, sought an interview with Wyatt.
The following are the essential portions: -
*****
158.
After reading the statement of both the boys to Wyatt and when
he had finished he remarked, “That is the true story of the whole at-
fair and I am glad that the boys have acknowledged it.” -
l Wyatt, had you and Ed gone to bed before the shooting took
plaCe -
Yes; Ed and me went up stairs, undressed and went to bed.
Trump the youngsst boy, was also sleeping in the same room and
were all in different beds. I fell asleep and was awakened by Mrs.
Talbott crying for help. Ed and me jumped out of bed about the
same time, put on our pants and rushed down stairs and when we got
into the room found Mrs. Talbott lying on the floor by the bed and
the doctor kicking her. The doctor had his back to the door and as
we went into the room the doctor called for his pistol, which was on
the bureau not far from the bed. I then saw Ed grab the gun, which
was in the corner near the foot of the bed. I became frightened and
ran out in the kitchen, which adjoins the room, and then heard the
report of the gun. I did not see Ed shoot. I then heard the doctor
ask for me, and Mrs. Talbott called, and when I went into the room
the doctor asked me to go to Maryville and tell Dr. Dunn to come at
once. I started at once for Maryville, which is seven miles from the
doctor's, and don't know what was done during my absence.”
Did the doctor also request you not to tell who shot him?
“No; Mrs. Talbott and the boys begged me not to tell. But as the
doctol had his back to the door that I went in and out, I don't think
he knew that I was in the room, or knew anything about the shoot-
111g.
Do you think the other children knew that Ed had killed their
father?
“I don't think that any but the doctor, Mrs. Talbott, Ed, Bud and
myself knew anything about it.”
How is that you swore to a different statement on the trial, and
that your testimony was so straightforward that the defendant's at-
torneys could not confuse you on cross examination?
“Well, I'll tell you all about it, but I don't want you to publish
anything I say until I first consult my attorneys. At the prelimin-
ary examination I got frightened and told Sheriff Toel that Ed had
killed his father. Wolf my lawyer, was also one of the lawyers the
boys had employed, but before the trial Wolf was out of the case and
bitter against the Taibotts. He knew hºw the doctor was killed. He
came to see me here in Savannah jail, and wrote down the evidence
he wanted me to swear to and gave me the paper. I studied it in jail,
and after I had committed it to memory I tore the paper up and threw
it away, and when I was placed on the stand I swore to what Wolf
had written down for me and told me to swear to.”
Wyatt, whilst you were living with the family did you ever hear
the doctor and Mrs. Talbott quarrelling?
“Yes; frequently. I have seen the doctor draw out of his pocket
a large dirk knife and run after his wife swearing that he would eut
her heart out. She would run and keep out of his way. The doctor
quarreled a great deal with his family, but was very kind to hired
help.”
The publishing of this interview brought out a letter from
Wyatt, directed to the St. Joseph Herald, totally denying the
authenticity of the interview. He closes by saying:
“I testified in the trial at Maryville to the truth without commit-
ting anything to memory. I only testified to what I saw and knew.
HENRY WYATT.
Mr. Hurley answered, by publishing a letter in the St. Jo:













159.
seph Gazette, affirming the truth of his interview, supporting
his statement by the testimony of Dr. Furgeson.
The next interview with Wyatt was by King, of the St. Jo.
seph Democrat, and it presented the comedy of the drama be.
ing enacted.
In it. Wyatt denounces Hurley and Dr. Furgeson as the
basest falsifiers, as being in the part of Talbotts, and as being
too mean for anything. In fact he was afraid of them, as na-
ture had stamped their faces with their innate wickedness.
No doubt Mt. Hurley told the truth in his account of the
interview.
But the statement of Wyatt's is of no value for the position
of the parties could not have been as he said, or the ball would
have struck in the opposite side of the room from where it did.
His mind must have become weak again, while talking with
Hurley. Wyatt may be a fool, but he knows how to interest
reporters, and then go back on what he said.
As the fatal 22d draws near, all thoughts were turned
to Jefferson City. What would the Governor do º At length
the silence was broken. The Governor declined to interfere.
His reasons for so doing, are given in the following inter.
view published in the St. Louis Republican of July 18th :
Rep. When is the day on which the Talbott boys are sentenced
to be executed? -
Gov. July 22. It is approaching rapidly.
Rep. You interposed once, will you do so again?
Gov. No, sir. I did it before under the belief and assurance that
developments of a mitigating character would be made sufficient
within themselves to satisfy the community in which the murder was
committed that it was done by some unknown person or persons,
which would fully exonerate the condemned boys from the foul crime.
Instead of that being done, Charles E. Talbott, the youth under
eighteen years of age, confesses that he killed his father, saying “The
night of the 18th of September last, I fired the fatal shot that sent
him to his death,” and undertakes to justify it by a statement of “cir-
cumstances, which if true when the confession was made, was true when
the trial was had; and if considered of sufficient importance now to
secure executive interference, it certainly was of that importance then
upon which to base a defence, or to present to the trial court as a suf-
ficient cause for a new trial. It was of that importance, it seems to
me, that they should have communicated it to their attorneys, and
knowing them as I do to be lawyers of splendid ability, of singular
energy, industry and skill in the management of such cases, I feel as-
sured that they would have used this “latter-day truth” with great
force before the court, jury and community. I think it has been con-
cocted too late, and is unworthy of serious consideration. The case
from the beginning has been surrounded by suspicious circumstances,
by strange movements upon the part of the suspected members of the
family, and by a stolidity of action that surpasses my comprehension,
if viewed as an innocent family. My impression is the confession is
false, and conceived for the purpose of clearing Albert altogether as
there can be no accessories before the fact in cases of manslaughter,
and in this case none after, as Albert is a brother of Charles, and is
specially excepted from such an association by section 1,650, page 294
of the Revised Statutes. Had the matters and things as set up in this

160.
confession been imparted to their attorney in due time, both would
in my opinion, have stood an equal chance for acquittal -
Or, if convicted at all, would have been only of one of the degrees ºf
manslaughter. They deceived their lawyers, and if the confession is
true, forced them into trial upon a falsehood–forced them to appear
before the supreme court on a falsehood–forced them to appeal to me
for clemency on a falsehood—and after having failed—before all these
tribunals—then in the recesses of an unrelenting prison this confession
is produced as the true history of the crime. In the language of the
confessor—“I have concluded to tell all about the killing of Dr. Tal-
dott”–and this, more than six months after they had hazarded their
lives—if the confession is true—upon one of the basest defences that
was ever presented in court—and they alone are responsible for it.
The defence was wrong—or the confession is wrong. They elected the
theory on which the defence was made, and it is too late now to say it
was a falsehood and the confession is the truth ; that mercy should be
extended to them at this perilous hour because they did adopt a false-
hood. I will not be a party to such compromises with crime, and have
ing our courts and lawyers made the sport of bad men. They have
made their beds and must lie in them; they have sown the wind and
must reap the whirlwind. Crime must have its reward, however se-
were, in order to give society repose and protection.
Rep. Why does not the mother corroborate the confession if it is
. * she is charged of having been present when the killing was
One :
Gov. I cannot say. Her silence at this time is as marvelous
as when she sat in court and heard her sons convicted upon a falsehood
(if the confession is true), as when she saw them appeal to the supreme
court on a falsehood, as when she saw and heard their attorneys make
the appeal to me on a falsehood, knowing that the whole procedure
was without truth, and still she with hushed voice and stified feelings,
if any she had, sat in the face of all of it without a protest or a murmur.
If it were all a “cooked defence”—and she must have known it; if the
confession is true, she, if possessing the love of a true mother, of an
honest woman, would have spoken the truth at some time during the
“appeals” regardless of lawyers, courts or prisoners. A mother will
always tell the truth for her children when its assertion will relieve
them from trouble; never a falsehood when it hazards life and liberty.
Her instincts always teach her truth and love. The silence of Mrs.
Talbott regarding the confession convinces me of its falsehood. Did
she indorse the “confession,” she could never be convicted of perjury
for having sworn to a different defence, as no jury would ever convicta
mother of perjury for standing by her children when they were being
tried for their lives for a crime committed in her defence. Her love out-
weighs the law—never weakens it. Considering all the circumstances
surrounding the case, I think the confession was gotten up for the occa-
sion, and unworthy of serious reflection. Dr. Talbott was murdered in
cold blood; the court and jury have said who did it, and the law will
be enforced. Had the defendants shown the same regard for their
father while alive, the same regard for his living declarations, as they
now pretend to show for his dying ones, them society would have a
greater respect for them at this time. The sentiment of affection is
too late in its development and personal in its reward to be above
suspicion. I regret the necessity of the execution, but the law de-
mands it—and it must be done.
The above put an end to all hope. Until this time friends
and counsel flattered themselves the Governor would reprieve.
Now the bitter end was realized in all of its horror. The final
chapter alone remains to be written.

161
PREPAIRATIONs. Folº TELE END.
If the interview of the Governor in the St. Louis Republican
left any doubt in the minds of our people, it was all dispelled
by the Sheriff receiving the following letter from the Gover.
Ilor:
- - - JEFFERSox CITY, July 18, 1881.
Henry Toei, Slºriff of Nodaway County, Mo.; -
Sir-You will make the necessary preparation for carrying into
effect the sentence of the court against Charles E. and Ālbert P.
Talbott, whose execution was postponed by my order until Friday,
July 22, as there will be no further interference with that sentence.
Let your preparations be as therough in detail as they were before.
Summon a sufficient number of guards to preserve the peace and
insure prompt observance of all your plans. I trust that the mor-
bid curiosity of the people has sufficiently abated to lessen the
crowd of spectators, but this hope should not prevent ample prep-
arations for any emergency.
Very respectfully,
THoMAS T. CRITTENDEN.
Mr. Toel started for St. Joseph Tuesday night for the
prisoners, but before he left, he took the following cheering let-
ter out of the postoffice.
MR. TopL-Dear Friend—I write, you this to inform you that
there is Deathly plan laid to kill you if you hang the Talbott Boys.
the party has got the trap reddy for you. They are going to shoot
you if you do the hanging, this is the God fact. I write this to
you so you will no what your fate will Be if you should hang them.
the party Consists of three men they are just waiting to see if you
are going to do the hanging or not. Now Mr. Tole I am your frien
and a live one. You may think that this is written to scare you But
you will find it to come true if you hang the Talbott Boys.
My name I Can not write to you but my advice to you is to re-
sign your office.
There was then written on a separate piece of paper-
“RESIGN YOUR OFFICE FOR GOD SAKE.”
The letter was written on the blank leaf of some old book
from which it had been torn. Its effect did not seem to be very
serious on our worthy sheriff.
The boys were informed Tuesday evening there was no
hope for them. -
The St. Joseph Gazette, says: . . . -
“When the news was received yesterday that Gov. Critten-
den refused to commute the sentence passed upon the Talbott
boys, excitement ran discernably high and many visited the
boys for the purpose of speaking words of condolenge and
comfort. Many of the ministers, with members of their con-
gregations, called in and sung, and prayed. Later in the evening
when a Gazette reporter called on them he found them in a
separate cell from the other prisoners. They were very much
excited and evidently deeply affected by the praying. They
seemed to have been forsaken by all hope. Sadness had taken
its place. They were not in any humor to talk and walked
nervously and unsteadily about their apartments.”

162
All day Wednesday the boys labored under considerable
excitement. As night approached they sent for R. N. Travers
of the Herald, and Albert told him he wanted to make a last
and true confession. Preparations were immediately made and
for five long hours did Albert pour forth what he called the
ºr retric sºoººººoººººº; cºrvº.
It was a wierd sight in that jail. The anxious listening,
spectators, the ghostly lights, and the pale face of Albert as he
talked on confident that when this story came to the Governor it
would be received with credence. While giving it, he picked
nervously at the blankets of the bed on which he sat, and his
eyes shone with an unearthly lustre, contrasting strangely with
his pale face. The statement was given in a rambling manner,
and the speaker was occasionally prompted by his brother
Charles, who was an attentive listener and watcher. The con-
ſession made six closely printed columns in the St. Joseph pa-
pers and then they did not print all of it. We will greatly
condense it, but preserve every point made.
A Lººs Goºssroºs.
I, Albert Perry Talbott, want to tell the true facts in this case.
In the first place, to start on, neither of us had anything to do with
killing our father, and what we swore to before the coroner's jury
was true. Wilford Mitchell, planned the murder of my father.
He was angry at father, and had threatened to kill him several
times. Some four years ago, Mitchell’s wife was at our house being
doctored, and she and father quarreled, and father ordered her off
the place. She had consumption. She took cold going home to
Hopkins and died shortly after. Mitchell was terribly angry, and
got his gun to go and shoot him, but was prevented. After this
he wanted to marry my sister Ollie and father and I broke it off,
and that made him mad. He was at our home when Ollie was mar-
ried, and it was then he conspired with Wyatt to kill father. I went
out one evening to call them to supper; that was the evening of the
wedding of my sister, and I heard Wyatt say that he would kill him
if he would pay him the money, and I asked him what it was he was
going to kill. He said it didn't make much difference. I would
soon know. Shortly after my father was shot, we began to mis
trust Wyatt, the way he acted, and Ed and I watched him. There
now follows a long account of what happened after the shooting
of which the following is a sample. It rained the first night we
watched him, and along about 12 o'clock I heard somebody on the
walk in the front yard. I was sleeping in the north part of the
house in a front room up stairs, and my brother Edward here was
with me. We got up when we heard the noise on the walk, and went
up-stairs in the kitºhen, to see if Wyatt was up-stairs to bed. He
wasn’t up there. I went down stairs then and went through the
front door, and some one jumped off the potico on the south side.
and I told my brother Edward to go through to the kitchen and
watchin there and see if Wyatt came in, and he came in and went up
stairs to bed, and he got up in the morning and said he heard sºmeº
-body around the house last night. So we watched Wyatt all the
next night, and he got up about 2 o'clock, went down stairs at about
3 o'clock, went around to the north side of the house, and he climb-
ed in at the window there—there was a glass knocked out where my
father was shot through—and he tore up many things in the room.
-

- 16:3
and made considerable noise, and he came up stairs into the hall,
and I knew he was in there. I told my oldest sister Olivia, who
was in the room, to throw the door open and let me into the hall, as
I heard somebody out there. When I stepped out into the hall, I
told her to close the door and get back behind a big heavy trunk in
the corneº, so, she wouldn't get shot in case there was any shooting
done. After I got into the hall Wyatt was on the upper part of the
steps on the platform. He crouchéd down in the corner, and I just
concluded I would shoot him right where he was. When he heard
the click of the revolver, he jumped the banisters and down stairs
he went, and run into the kitchen upstairs, and holoed out of the
window and asked me what was the matter. I told him I didn't
know. I thºught there had been a man upstairs. He said he had
heard a terrible noise and it waked him up. I told him I guessed it
must have been a cat. In a night or two after that I was on guard
watching. I heard a voice up stairs in the kitchen, and in a few
minutes I looked, out of the north window, and I saw some one
crawling around the house, and I got up and went down stairs and
Wyatt was gone... I took the revolver with me and went out, and
crawled around the house after him; when I got out into the front
yard I got behind a tree. Wyatt crawled around the front yard on
his belly and hands and knees; he had a pair of my father's shoes,
one on each hand, and he was taking pains to make prints on the
ground with them shoes. In about half an hour he got up and went
up stairs to bed, and so did I. The next night, (Saturday night) I
told Wyatt that we had better stand on guard, that I believed that
there were men running around there trying to kill us all. I put
him down stairs in the hall in the closet, and ſtold him to shoot the
first man that came into the door. He said he would. I gave him a
No. 32 revolver, fiye shots each, and about half past eight that night
down came the tin and hand-saw against the door. I was on the
bed in the north room up stairs. I had my revolver under my head
and coat and vest off, and had on a white shirt, and when I heard
the noise I put on my coat and vest, and buttoned it up so my white
shirt couldn't be seen, and with my revolver in my left hand, pick-
ed up a double-barrelled shot-gun that was sitting in the corner,
and told my oldest sister to open the door, and as Islipped out into
the hall, somebody commenced shooting from down stairs up at me
standing about half way up the steps. -
|Here follows an agcount of quite a battle; how he, Albert, had
two bullets put through his clothes, and an investigation next day,
found the shooting had been done with a No. 32 revolver, the same
he had given Wyatt. Mitchell he says, appeared about fifteen min-
utes after the shooting was over, and he thinks Mitchell helped do
it. Albert then goes on to say how he and Ed. plotted to hear what
Mitchell and Wyatt talked about. Here is the success they had.
I went into the gorn pen over head and laid down. Ed was to
stay with Wyatt and Mitchell and keep them up at the house until
I got to the pasture and back and hid up in the loft, and then he
was to send Wyatt down to feed the mules. They came down, and
after the mules were fed they sat down on a big round log which lay
near, and Wyatt said to Mitchell, “what in hell are we going to do
about this thing. I believe Bud has taken a tumble to it.” Mitchell
replied, “What in hell did you do with the gun?" Wyatt replied,
“I put it in the river up at Forrest ford.” Mitchell asked, “Do you
think it will ever be found out?” Wyatt replied, “I don’t believe
it ever will.” Mitchell said, “Do you think Bud knows it was you
he shot at that night?” Wyatt said no, “he didn’t believe he did.”
Mitchell asked Wyatt, “How did you manage it?” Wyatt said he
loaded his gun and put it under the kitchen walk that goes out to the
well and waited till the old man came home, when he, Wyatt, got
up and went down stairs after I (Albert) had got into the house, and
took the gun and went to the window; he said the window curtain
ºf

164
was down, but there was a split in it just big enough for him to see
through, he just raised his old gun and plugged the old fellow
through, and ran around on the east side of the house and slipped
the gun under the kitchen walk, ran around to the front side of the
house, and as I was coming out of the middle door and had the shot-
gun, he made tracks for the orchard, and that I ran out and shot
at him, when he was about thirty-fivewº ahead. Mitchell said,
“how did it come he didn't hit you?” Wyatt replied, “I pulled the
shot out of the gun the day before.” Mitchell asked, “how did you
#. back into the kiteken then without any of them knowing it?”
e replied, “I just flew around there, took a short turn around the
smoke house, and ran up stairs and woke Ed. up, at that ma came
out and called for the boys.” -
The next evening they were down there to feed again, and I
was up overhead as before, when Mitchell said, “Look here, Wyatt,
there has got to be something done now.” Wyatt asked, “How had
we better manage it?” Mitchell said, “I will write to an old friend
of mine in Kansas,” and Mitchell said, “That is the best thing we
ºan do.” Wyatt said, “If we can do any good we better be doing
it; we’ve got to save ourselves, that's certain.” Mitchell said, “Ibe-
lieve Bud has taken a tumble to it all and we’ve either got to kill
him or run him in, one or the other. Wyatt said, “We’ve got to
have some one to do that.” Mitchell said, ‘I’ve got a man in Kansas
who is just the man we want. I’ve talked with him. He will be
here next week.” “What in hellis his name?” asked Wyatt. Mitch-
ell replied, “His name is Jonas V. Brighton. He's a detective, and
a good one too; it won't take long for him to get in with the boys.”
[So Brighton was written for and came in about three days, and
was introduced to them, and Bud overheard, Mitchell tell Wyatt
that was the man, and also heard them to make an arrangement to
meet at an old house that night. Albert and Ed was on hand. Al-
bert said:] -
It is an old box house, and there was weeds about twelve feet
high. I would call them headquarters. The house is about two
feet above the ground and I and Ed crawled under the house. We
watched them along the fence. They met Brighton over at the cor-
ner, a half mile south of the house, and they stood and talked a lit-
tle while, and Mitchell says: “Let’s go over to the old house, for the
boys may be watching us. I guess they have nºt taken, a tumble:
yet.” Mitchell says, “Let’s go over and get into the old house and
talk the matter over. There must be something done at this stage
of the game or we will be caught up.” Well, they all went and
climbed in at the window and we crawled under the house. They
sat down in the middle of the floor, and then held a council of war.
Talked of what each one had to d6 and what each one had to swear.
to after they made the arrest. . . . ." -
[Bud then detailed a long conversation which toºk place be:
tween the conspirators, how they would have them. Bud and Ed.
arrested. Brighton arranging the whole plan as follows:
“Now,” Brighton says, “I will tell you, Wyatt, what you have
of to swear tº You have got to swear that the boys, ####". this
hing two grithree weeks before hand.” Wyatt says, “Hell, I won't
swear to that; they will have me into it.” And they had a quarrel
then and almost ºf:ght. Brighton and Mitchell was trying tº stick
it on to Wyatt. Brightºn says, “They cannot do anything with Yoº
if you will swear tº that, you have things your own way, ºnd I
don’t know of any better way than you must swear that you knº
all about this thing, and that they toid you if you told it they would
kill you. If you will do that, we can manage the case, and we can
carry things high.” -
(Albert then goes on to say how they, the conspiritors deter:
mined to consult with Whit Leighty, how Mitchell said he was ºn
old friend, and had let him have the gun which Wyatt used to
165
shoot the dºgtor. Bud then goes on and narrates two or three more
ºneetings of the conspirators which he overheard, and which were
of the same, import as the one narrated. Bud then goes on to tell
how he tried to lººp them by getting them in a contract to rob.
Says I..."I will fell you what we will do. We will go into a con-
tract together. We will draw one up in writing, and if you will go
in, we will go up and rob the Hopkins bank.” Mitchell and Wyatt
says, “all right, I will go,” I am just your oyster, exact-
ly. I will stay with, you as long as any of you will. But you have
got to lead us, I believe you are the bravest man in the crowd.”
I told them all right, I would lead them, and every man had to
do just as I told. - -
... [They then drew up the contract, and after much effort got Whit
Leighty to sign it, with them, Brighton told them of the bloody deeds
he had committed in Kansas, and Albert then goes on to say..] We
got some *. and each fellow drew up a contract to suit him-
self, Ed and I and Hudson, as he gave his name then. We took my
contract and Brighton's and put them both together, and I told him
there was one fellow in our gang, one of my men that I had, that
we would have to get away with before we could do anything. He
said he would kill him for $50. Isaid if we got into a tight place he
might squeal. He said he would kill him. I told him I would guar-
antee him the money. He asked me when he should kill him, I
told him most any time, that I would see him again. We all signed
the contract. He signed himself as Frank Hudson.
(Of the confessiºn made and sworn to that Ed killed his father
in a row, and which Hurly says Wyatt corroborated and which
thousands believed to be the true version of the affair, Albert said:
I have took Dawson's advice. Dawson got up my previous con-
fession, and urged me to sign it. Not a word of Charles' or my pre-
vious confession was true, no more than that father was shot. But
he was not shot inside of the house, Dawson said he would guar-
antee me not over two years, and Ed, not over five, and I have
taken his advice right along, and we have not had our own way
about it. And we think a commutation of our sentence would be
no more than just and right. But if I must die, I want the people
to know just how it is. My attorneys planned my defense for me,
and rushed me into trial when I did not want to go, in: I was not
put upon the stand, and of course did not testify. Whether I live or
die, this is true. I told Dawson so this morning. I sent for him
twice, and he refused to come or at least did not come. He urged
us to sign the confessions that we had never seen before, promising
Rºs much, but by this we have gained nothing, and if he cannot
do better than-this, he had better never make another confession.
I think it necessary and right that the people should know the facts
in the case. I have told the truth. . . - - - - - -
[He then goes on to say Wyatt promised #. in jail to tell how it
was, but went back on it. #. and Ed tried to recover the gun by
diving for it, but failed. He then told about the bullet.]
- We used to have balls on the place there one and, one-half
inches long, and my father used to hunt deer. These bullets were
different from the one that my father was # with. They were
different in this respect, they were a little larger. This, one was
ºut down by ºil ºre he gºt it there aſſe hundreds more I
*. to-day. -
--- ---- - - - - - -
Jºere ºre rifles on the bullets we used to ºut them on the lºng
Juliets, and we had a thing a purpose for rifling them. Father
learned us how to do it years ago. Wyatt says himself that it was
one he picked up in the yard that he shot father with. It had been
shot through a plank. He eut it down a little, and fixedit up to suit
himself, and he says Mitchell gave him instructions to dº that; that
people would all believe it on the boys quicker than if he was shot
with any other. - -
ºr "

166
. Now when Mitchell before, this, shooting he wrote a letter to
Wyatt telling him to garry out his plans the way he had instructed
him at the wedding heretofore mentioned. And after he was ar.
rested that letter was found, and we tried to produce it as testimo-
ny, but it was ruled out. And this ends the case.
It was midnight before the confession was finished. Al-
bert told it without intermission or break, and the 'Gazette said
in such a manner as to carry the impression to those who heard
it, of its truth. Early Thursday morning they were told to
prepare to come to Maryville, they begged to stay in St. Joseph
one day longer, hoping to hear from the Governor.
An insane rumor gained ground that Pope Wells was to
attempt a rescue, and after the train left it was reported to have
been thrown from the track before it reached Amazonia.
As the boys were leaving St. Joseph a morning paper con-
taining Albert's confession was placed in his hand. He busied
himself until he reached Savannah reading it. He appeared
perfectly satisfied with it, said it was strictly true, and seemed
to think that every body would believe it, and that the Gover-
nor would grant a commutation as soon as he saw it. As the
train passed through the Talbott homestead the boys pointed
out familiar objects and appeared delighted to see their old
home once more.
Nothing was known in Maryville of Albert’s last confession
until their arrival, and with them the morning papers from St.
Joseph.
Many of our best citizens had stood by the boys in their
sworn confession that Charles had killed his father while beat-
ing Mrs. Talbott, believing it to be strictly true. Their aston:
ishment at this new confession was unbounded. They turned
away in sorrow and disgust, and from that time until their exe:
cution we heard little sympathy. -
The brothers were visited by numerous persons during the
day and kept in good spirits. Towards evening they sent for
Mr. W. W. Ramsay, the Prosecuting Attorney. He imme
diately obeyed the request and told them he was at their ser
vice. - - -
“Have you read my last statement?” asked Albert.
“I have” was the answer. - -
“Well,” answered Albert, “It is strictly true, those are the
bottom facts, and I want you to arrest Wyatt, Mitchell, and
Whit Leighty, at once, for murder, and Brighton for perjury."
Mr. Ramsey told him that Wyatt was already under arrest.
and as for the others it was idle to talk about such a thing, and
for him not to build any hopes on any such foundation.
“Well,” said Albert, “The statement is true, it must be
true, for it is the last I will make, and the people have got to
believe it.” -
At supper time the writer was in to see them. They are
quite heartily and with relish, talking and laughing during the
entire meal.

167
Both of them assured us that the last statement was the
true, ºne, that they only swore to the other in hopes that they
would get off with imprisonment. -
We answered. When you were to be executed before, under
the Very shadow of the gallows, you assured us, that you nev-
er said Wyatt did it, that you did not know who did it.
They both hesitated, and then Charles said slowly. “Did
I say that?”
Albert then said, “Yes I told you that for I wanted to keep
the good side of Wyatt that day. He had promised us to teil
all about it, and would have done so, if his attorney, Griffin,
had not prevented him.” He then added sadly, “You may not
believe me now, but this last is true.”
We shook hands with the boys, and bid them goodbye. It
was our last interview. - -
Mrs. Talbott and Miss Lewis, went in and staid with the boys
until nine o'clock. They pleaded hard to stay all night, but
were refused. - - -
Fathers Anselm and Ignatius were then admitted, and
remained until nearly midnight, after which the boys lay down
and slept peacefully. - -
Their last day on earth had arrived. They still protested
#. innocence, and declared that Wyatt had killed their fa-
ther :
‘’I do not fear death” said Albert, “but I hate to die for a crime I
did not commit. I still feel that a respite is coming. The Gover-
morgan't let two innocent men hang just to please a mob.” -
Again he said: “We went up to the last moment the other
time and was respited, and I believe he will respite us this
time.” - - - - -
At 9 o'clock A. M., the boys wrote out the following written
statements, for the St. Joseph Evening News. They are valua-
ble as the last written statements of the condemned:
July 22d, 1881–Have mercy on me for my dear old mother's sake,
for I am punished innocent, and have got to die. My mother has
spent her money, and she is now left alone in the world to die.
- - - Yours truly,
- - CHARLEs. TALBoſtº.
Dear Fººds:– I have been in custody for a long time, and all
the officers have been very kind to me, one in particular, George
Dearing, He is one of the finest gentlemen'ſ ever met.
-- - - ALBERT P. TALBoºr.
ed and misjudged from the beginning. And I am innocent of the
crime I have to suffer for, but then people have to have their mis-
fortunes in this world, and have to put up with them the best ſhev
can. All I hate in this world, there is no one to care for my mother.
and she is without anyone to protect her. And I must say some
day the true facts will come to light in this case, and then I hope
capital punishment will be abolished. ALBERT P. TALBoſtºn.
Shortly after this was written, Albert stood at the window,
and Dawson went up to it, and had quite a conversation. Al-
I am in a bad situation at present, and have been misrepresent-



168
bert told Dawson he was sorry he had spoken of him as
he did in bis last confession. Mr. Dawson was deeply moved,
and told him he hoped his Maker would forgive him as freely
as he did, for the wrong he had done him. The Herald re-
porter says:
After this last interview between counsel and client, Dawson
walked over to the court house and sat in the shade full half an hour,
gazing in a listless manner over at that window in the jail, from which
the white face had disappeared. It is doubtful if a single human
being suffered more in Maryville yesterday than Col. Dawson. He
º º every power to obtain a commutation for his clients
allºt talled. -
A little before ten o’clock a change of clothes were brought
to the boys. A neat black suit had been selected for each one,
with complete outfit, including shoes and hat. Charles objected
to either being shaved or changing his clothes.
*What do I want with new clothes?” he said. “The ones
I have are good enough for the job I have to do in them.”
Miss Ida Merrill, of Quincy, Illinois, was again on the
scene, but was not permitted to see the boys. She was greatly
excited, and trembled violently and sent the most piteous tele.
grams to the Governor to respite the boys again. She declared
if she was a man she would defy the Governor and the laws.
She said the spirit of Dr. Talbott was by her side asking her to
save his sons. She was terribly in earnest, and her zeal is to
be commended, whatever we think of her judgment.
When the boys had been carefully dressed, their weeping
mother, the sisters, and the betrothed of Albert were admitted.
The stricken mother threw her arms around Albert's neck and
moaned, “My God! My God!” Albert stood the ordeal nobly.
Miss Lewis, his intended wife then came in. She was com:
pletely prostrated with grief, and moaned and sobbed convuls:
ively.
The parting of the mother with Charles was more terrible
to bear yet, for he broke completely down. ."Why was he to
be hanged when he was so young?” It was half past twelve
before the women came from the jail. Mrs. Talbott as she
came from the jail, turned to the crowd and said bitterly. “I
hope you will be satisfied when you have killed my boys." All
around the court house yard by this time there were assembled
thousands clinging to the fences, standing in wagons, almost
climbing on each others shoulders, trying to catch a glimpse of
what was going on around the jail. -
At 12:30, Sheriff Toel read the death warrant to them. It
was a solemn looking document, bordered in black, and with
black silk bows at top.
The following is the document in full:
169
THE DEATHL WARRANT.
In the Nodawaii County Circuit Court, November Adjourned Term,
4. P., 1880. Saturday, the 29th day ºf January, A. D. 1881. State
of Missouri, plaintiff, vs. Charles E. Talbott and Albert P. Taj-
bott, defendants, Murder First Degree. -
Now at this day comes W. W. Ramsay, Prosecuting Attor.
ney for the State, and also comes the defendants, Charles E.
Talbott and Albert P. Talbott, in their own proper persons
and in the presence of their attorneys, and in charge of the
sheriff of Nodaway County, and in open court, and thereupon
all and singular the premises being seen and by the Court
fully understood, it is considered and adjudged by the Court
that said defendant, Albert P. Talbott, be safely confined in
jail and there safely kept until the 25th day of March, A. D.,
1881, and that on said day he be taken thence to the place of
execution by the sheriff of this county and there be hanged by
the neek until he be dead. And, it is further considered and ad-
judged by the court that the said defendant, Charles E. Tal-
bott, be safely confined in jail and there safely kept until the
25th day of March, A. D., 1881, and that on said day he be
taken thence to the place of execution by the sheriff of said
county, and there be hanged by the neck until he be dead.
And thereupon the defendants, Albert P. Talbott and
Charles E. Talbott, appealed from the judgment and sentence
of this court to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri,
and the Supreme Court, by its order entered of record, stayed
the execution of sentence here with recited, until the 13th day
of May, A.D., 1881, And on the 20th day of April, A. D., 1881,
the cause coming on for hearing in said Supreme Court, the
same was considered and adjudged by said Supreme Court
that the judgment of this court, rendered aforesaid, in form
aforesaid, be in all things affirmed, and stand in full force and
effect. It was further considered and adjudged by said Su-
preme Court, that the judgment and sentence of this court
passed upon said Charles E. Talbott and Albert P. Talbott,
as aforesaid, and stayed by said Supreme Court as aforesaid,
be staid until the 24th day of June, A. D., 1881, and be in all
things executed by the sheriff of Nodaway county, on the 24th
day of June, A. D. 1881. - -
The State of Missouri, to the Sheriff of Nodaway County, Greet.
Žižg -
We command you to carry into execution the sentence of death
pronounced upon Albert P. and Charles E. Talbott, by the Noda-
way county Circuit Court, in manner and form as above set forthlin
the judgment of said court, of which the foregoing is a full, true, and
complete copy, and as affirmed and sta § by the Supreme Court.
- - 1tneSS :
LAWRENCE J. G.Row NEY,
. . Clerk of said Court.
L. S.] with seal hereto affixed at office in Maryville, this 21st day
- , D., 1881.
of June, A LAWRENCE J. G. Row NEY, Clerk.


| 70
s' tº AY OF EX ºctºro N.
The State of Missouri to all who shall see these presents, Greeling:
Know ye, that by virtue of authority in me vested by law, and for
good and sufficient reasons appearing, I, Thomas T. Crittenden,
Governor of the State of Missouri, do hereby suspend the execul
tion of Charles E. and Albert P. Talbott until Friday, the 22d day
ºf July, 1881, who were by the circuit court of Nodaway county, at
its, November 1880, adjourned term held in January 1881, sentenced
to be hanged, and you, the sheriff of said Nodaway county, are here.
by directed and commanded to carry out and execute the said judg-
ment and sentence of said circuit court upon the said Charies i.
Talbott and Albert P. Talbott on the said 22d day of July, 1881, in
manner and form as therein set forth, in every and all respects as
you would, and should have done if this suspension had not been
made and this extension of time given. -
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused
to be affixed the great seal of the State of Missouri. Done at the
city of Jefferson, the 24th day of June, in the year of our Lord 1881.
ºf the independence of the United States 105, and of the State of
Missouri 61st. - - Thos. T. Cºmmºnprºx.
By the Governor. - -
M. K. McGRATH, Secretary of State.
ºr its Bºx ECUTION.
All was ready. The last sacraments of the church had been
given, the stern mandates of the law read, when Charles sud-
denly asked for something to eat. This was furnished by the
sheriff, and some time consumed. There is no doubt but the
boys yet hoped for some news from the Governor. Their last
meal was eaten, and they were told it was time to go. They
left the jail leaning on the arms of Fathers Anselm and Igna-
tius. Both walked steadily, and were smoking cigars, but
were deadly pale. - -
They went north to Fourth street, where the bus Phoenix
awaited. Into this bus, the condemned, the sheriff and the
deputies, the Catholic Fathers, and Drs. Koch and Campbell
entered. It was a ride none of them will ever forget. After
the bus came those who held tickets on foot. The streets, the
sidewalks were thronged with a crowding, pushing, excited
mass of humanity. Through dust and heat, they went, intent
only on one thing, that of seeing two human beings launched
into eternity. -
The Holy Fathers tried to keep the minds of the boys on
the future. Albert listened intently, and said little, but Chas.
was restless. He wanted them to “drive slow,” moments to
him then, were as years. “Sheriff” he said, “you have been so
kind to me, you won’t hang me, will you? Please resign your
office.” When the bus reached the top of the hill over-
looking the grounds, and the mass of people, his eyes filled with
tears, and he was greatly effected. Albert appeared to be
afraid he would break down or divulge something, and reach-
ing over and placing his hand on Charles' knee said. “Ed.,

| 7 |
bear up like a man. Remember I am with you to the end.”
The ground was reached, the bus drove into the enclos.
ure, and now comes a scene that beggars description.
Some two or three hundred men, inflamed with drink and
wild with excitement, crowded in among the reporters and
those having tickets and attempted to pass into the inclosure.
For two or three minutes pandemonium reigned. But the
guards succeeded in beating them back, and something like
order was restored. - -
In the meantime the prisoners had alighted from their
conveyance, and in advance of priest and guards ascended
the scaffold with firin steps. - -
They and Fathers Anselm and Ignatius immediately
knelt in religious exercises. - -
- They then arose and glanced over the vast assemblage.
And what a sight met their eyes. Acres on acres of seeth-
'ing, excited humanity. The aged, tottering on the verge of
the tomb were there. Women, bent and wrinkled with time,
were there. Mothers, holding in their arms prattling babes,
were there. Innocent childhood was there, looking on the
strange scene with wonder gazing eyes. Fair maidens and
strong youths were there dressed as if for a fete. Helpless
humanity was there hobbling on erutches. The rich and the
poor, the good and the bad–all were there mingled in one
confused mass. - -
Hundreds gazed on that scene with unpitying eye, and
may be with horridiest, who if they had had their just deserts
wºuld be standing by their side, or immured within the walls
of some strong prison. Oh, humanity! humanity! If thouwert
ever fashioned in the image of thy Maker how hast thou
fallen! - - - -
It was a dazed, a strange, longing look with which the boys
gazed. They moved as if in a dream–a horrid dream from
which they were struggling to awake.
The last, awful preparations began. The boys were told
to stand. Albert arose quite firm, but Charles tottering and
weak. Their limbs were bound. So low were the words on
the scaffold that those standing nearest could not hear a
sound. But there was talk. All the time, the Fathers
poured into the ears of the two boys, trembling on the thresh-
hold of eternity, religious consolation. Charles wanted a lit-
tle more time, he wanted to shake hands with some friends.
With tearful pleading eyes he asked those around him if they
could hang him. The strong men around them grew pale as
the trembling culprits. It was a terrible task, the law com-
pels them to do." Have you anything to say” asked the Sher-
iff. Both said “nothing.” Hands were shaken, the last good
by said. The boys turned to each other and clasped hands.
Tears filled their eyes. The last farewell on earth was said.
Quickly were the black caps pulled over their faces, and

172
the cruel ropes adjusted. Before those gazing had time for
thought, before the condemned, shut out from the light of
heaven, had time to realize,_the drop fell. Where they stood
was vacancy---below were seen two suspended motionless figures.
For a moment the crowd stood as if transfixed, awed into silence
by the awful scene; then, as if swept by some mighty impulse,
they surged toward the stand, and was with difficulty kept back.
What was there so horribly fascinating in those two bound, sus-
pended figures? Was it the occasional heave of the breast that
told of life still there? Just before the drop fell, Charles was
heard to murmur, “kiss me.” Fate was merciful to him. His
neck was broken by the fall. A slight shrugging of the should-
ers, a few faint respirations, a wild fluttering of the heart—and
all was over. In twelve minutes he was pronounced stone
dead. So deathly was the shock, that there was not the slight-
est contraction of the extremities. A handkerchief he held in
his hand, still rested lightly on his fingers.
Before the execution Albert had said “a fall of four feet
will never break my neck.” His words proved too true, though
he fell five feet. The rope was not drawn quite tight enough,
and the fall failed to break his neck. He hung twenty-eight
minutes and ten seconds, before his pulse ceased to beat. But
there was a complete paralysis of the spinal chord, and he was
as dead to suffering as his brother. One report says “he
struggled terribly.” This is a clear mistake. There was not a
single struggle, not the slightest movement of the hands or legs.
But the spasmodic rising of the shoulders, the heavy res-
pirations of three to the minute, told the spirit still lingered in
its tenement of clay. What weary waiting was that. And all
this time that mass of humanity were surging and swelling like
the waves of the ocean around that dying form, eager, anx-
ious, almost ravenous to catch one glance. *
Albert hung some ten minutes after all signs of life had
left, and then the bodies were cut down and delivered to the
undertaker, who brought them to the residence of the strick-
en mother. -
The tragedy was over. The stern mandates of the law
had been obeyed. Innocent or guilty, they had paid the ex-
treme penalty. In the hands of Him who knoweth all things,
we leave them. -
The morning after the execution was unusually quiet.
After the bodies had been prepared for the tomb, the family
took their last farewell. All traces of their violent death had
left their faces, and they looked as white as sculptured
marble.
The funeral procession left Maryville at 9:00 A.M. The
boys had expressed a wish to be buried in the family ourying
ground, at the feet of their father, and in the sºme coffin.
This was found impracticable, but they were placed side by
side in the same grave.
173 tº
It was a sad procession that left Maryville for the Talbott
farm, seven miles distant. The procession halted at the
Catholic church, where prayers were said, and the coffins
sprinkled with holy water. -
It was eleven o'clock before the farm was reached, and
one o'clock before the sad rites were over. Mrs. Talbott re-
turned completely prostrated, and this perhaps is what gave
rise to the sensational rumor that she had committed suicide.
In fact the public had shown itself very credulous ever since
the murder of Dr. Talbott, no matter how senseless or bad
a story might be, it only had to be started in order to find
plenty of willing believers.
OPINION's OF THE PREss.
Generally the press had very little to say throughout the
State. Most of the papers commended Gov. Crittenden for
his firmness in refusing to commute, and thought the boys
were executed righteously. If Albert had never made his last
confession, there would have been much more doubt of their
guilt. No doubt the boys did as much by their talk to put
the halter around their necks as all other causes combined.
The Saturday Democrat, of St. Joseph, thought the execu-
tion a terrible mistake. But the Herald and Gazette said but
little, but both would have been better satisfied with a com-
- mutation.
The Council Bluffs Nonpareil, in speaking of the last two
confessions says: º - -
... ." As to which confession was true, or if either were true, only
God himself knows. But it certainly seems strange that, standing al-
most in the presence of their Maker, both boys should cling to this
statement when it seems very improbable. Certainly no man who
wanted to save his father from murder and himself from the odium of
the crime, would, night after night, hide himself to hear the maturing
of the plans and keep all to himself until too late. - -
But in this wonderful case, it would seem that the two gritty boys
died martyrs; that is, they died with seaſed lips in order to save others
doubtless equally guilty with them. In this they died heroes, know-
ing, perhaps, that a true confession would not save them, and would
only implicate near and dear ones.”
- -º-, -º-º-º-º-º: -
tº sº tº consºrsºrs.
ºr ºf -º-º-º-
* Thus have we fºllowed this strange case, step by step,
*from beginning to end, endeavoring to give our readers a full
and fair account of what is already known as one of the most
remarkable criminal trials ever held in Missouri. No case
ever created more interest. From the first it has been sur-
rounded by mystery. The conflicting stories told, the differ-




174
ent confessions made, have all tended to confuse the mind.
As Governor Crittenden remarked, “The able bodied, stalwart
lying” to which the case gave rise, has never been surpassed.
Neither was this lying confined to one side. No story against
the boys or family was too wild or improbable not to find nu-
merous believers. Every one connected with the case has
come in for a share of this lying. It would make a curious
volume, and be a sad commentary on the credulity of the hu-
man race, if we would put the rumors we have heard in print.
But there are two or three, which in justice to parties should
be corrected. The attorneys for the defense have been made
the target for a great deal of abuse. Whether they made
mistakes or not, is not for us to say, but those who read the
pages of this book will see with what difficulties they had to
contend. With clients that varied their story with every
conversation, it was hard to deal.
There has also been much said of the sworn confessions,
which both boys declared, was gotten up by Dawson, and
AE,
a
with which they had nothing to do but to sign it.
In justice to Mr. Dawson the following letter from Mr:
Charles Ingles, of Plattsburg, should find a place in this book.
- - PLATT's BURG, July 9th, 1881.
HoN. LAFE DA w8oN, Maryville, Mo. - -
DEAR SIR-I have read the confession of the Talbotts in the St.
Joseph Gazette, and it is a fair and full statement of the boys as made
by them to you, in the presence of their sisters and myself, on the first
day of July, 1881, in the Buchanan county jail.
- Yours truly,
('in Ariºs ING in Es.
A word concerning Mr. W. W. Ramsay the able prosecu-
ting attorney is also in place. It was reported by the press of
the State, that he, just before the execution wrote a letter to
the Governor protesting against a commutation of sentence.
This was a mistake. The Governor wrote to Mr. Ramsay
asking him some questions. Mr. Ramsay answered those
questions without recommendation of any kind. During all
the struggle for a commutation of sentence, he maintained a
discreet silence, saying nothing for or against it.
A word as to the mystery of the murder. It was gener-
ally thought that at the very last the boys would reveal the
true story of the assassination of their father. But they died
leaving the mystery as dark as ever. If it had not been for
those two confessions, there are many who would have be-
lieved them innocent of the crime. It is hard to believe that
men will die with a lie on their lips. Yet nine hundred and
ninety-nine people out of a thousand believe that the Talbott
boys were in some manner connected with the death of their
father. How, may never be known. Many there are who be:
lieve the sworn confession of Charles was at least, in part
true. More there are, who think the fatal shot never came
-
-

175
through the window-that it was fired in the room. Again,
was the ball that killed Dr. Talbott found. Dr. Talbott himself,
first called the attention of the sheriff to where the ball struck.
The hole was through common wall paper. The plastering
had at some time in the past fallen off and the paper had been
pasted over the place. The ball had passed through this pa-
per and fallen down between the plastering. The supposition
is it had struck the plastering on the opposite side of the
studding, and being nearly spent dropped down. It could
have been put through the paper and found in the same place.
The great difficulty in believing the shot was fired in the room
is where the ball was found, it being in direct range with the
window, Can it be, the ball struck some where else than the
place shown the Sheriff by Dr. Talbott? Can it be, that the
Doctor did plan the defense for the boys' Many think so.
As each one has a theory of his own, it may not be amiss
for the writer to express his opinion. He has had to collate
all the evidence and write on every phase of the subject.
Taking all the varied testimony, all the different confessions,
he would give the following opinion:
That the shooting was done by Henry Wyatt through the
window, and that this shooting was done at the instigation of
the boys. . -
1. At the time of the arrests, before the boys had seen
counsel, Henry Wyatt weakened and told Sheriff Toel, Ed. did
the shooting. This was perfectly natural. He was afraid the
truth would out.
2. Ed. having heard Sheriff Toel testified to this fact, told
Leighty that Wyatt was a liar, that he (Wyatt) himself did the
shooting.
3. If Mitchell swore to the truth, the boys told him that
Wyatt was the one that did the shooting. This testimony is
important. It is true the boys told Brighton they did it, but
they believed Brighton a great train robber and they wanted
to impress him with their deeds of blood. -
4. This reconciles the different statements of the boys
that Wyatt was the murderer. Because they did not fire the
shot, made it easy for them with their blinded moral faculties
to declare their entire innocence. -
There are many things that would go against this view,
but taking every thing into consideration it reconciles all
statements and facts full as well, if not better, than any other
view. The exact facts in all probability will never be known
until the earth and sea give up their secrets and all things
are made plain.



-
-
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ſº
ſº º 4
- Gºzº
- -
- -- . - -