CROFFORD, Dr. J. W., 1902 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Leon Journal-Reporter Leon, Decatur County, Iowa Thursday, November 27, 1902 Last Thursday the attorneys of J.W. CROFFORD who was convicted at the November term, 1901, of the district court of the murder of MAUDE STONE, and sentenced to 13 years in the penitentiary, filed a motion before Judge Towner asking that the verdict of the jury be set aside for the reason that R.S. Harmon, the foreman of the jury which convicted him, had formed and expressed an opinion before the trial in which he said that CROFFORD was guilty and should be hung or sent to the penitentiary. The motion is accompanied by affidavits of Alfred Burrell, S.E. Burnison, J.R. Hullinger and James Bass, who swear they heard Harmon so express himself about Nov. 1, 1901, and DR. CROFFORD claims that on account of this expressed opinion and the further fact that Harmon was foreman of the jury, it acted in a measure in securing his conviction. He also alleges that another juryman, Dusky Gentry, had also formed and expressed an opinion and says he will secure the affidavits of W.E. and U.D. Noftsger to this effect. When the motion was filed the County Attorney asked for 20 days in which the state could secure affidavits and make reply, and Judge Towner so ordered. Should the motion to set aside the verdict be sustained by the judge, it would send the case here again for trial. CROFFORD is now out on bond pending the appeal to the Supreme Court. ~ ~ ~ ~ Leon Reporter, Leon, Iowa Thursday, December 4, 1902 The latest news in the CROFFORD case is that he has the affidavits of S.E. Burnison, Alfred Burrell, Riley Hullinger and James Bass, that they heard R.J. Harmon, who was foreman of the jury express himself to the effect that he believed CROFFORD guilty and that he ought to be hung. On this ground CROFFORD asks for a new trial and Judge Towner has granted Prosecuting Attorney Olsen 20 days to investigate and secure, we presume, counter affidavits. Mr. Harmon emphatically denies having made any such statement as is attributed to him by Bass, Burrell, Burnison and Hulling, and further states that he wasn't in town on the day he is said to have made the remark. Evidently there is a screw loose somewhere. --DAVIS CITY LARIAT. ~ ~ ~ ~ Leon Reporter, Leon, Iowa Thursday, December 11, 1902 While in town a few days ago, DR. J.W. CROFFORD, recently convicted and sentenced to 13 years in the penitentiary for the murder of MAUDE STONE, an inmate of this sanitarium, rounded up Alfred Burrell, James Bass, Riley Hullinger and Ed Burnison and secured from them affidavits to the effect that they had heard R.J. Harmon, who was foreman of the jury that, from the evidence, found CROFFORD guilty, prior to the trial express himself as follows; "I believe DOC CROFFORD is guilty and he should be hung or sent to the penitentiary." Armed with the foregoing affidavits, CROFFORD's attorneys appeared before Judge Towner and filed a motion that the verdict of the jury be set aside, making allegations against Mr. Harmon in accord with the affidavits. Since last week we have again interviewed Mr. Harmon who says: "It is possible that I did express my opinion of the case in words similar to those I am charged with in the affidavits CROFFORD secured, but if so it was AFTER the trial. Of one thing I am absolutely positive: Even though I may have used some such language after the case was ended, I never said "he ought to be hung, for I DON'T BELIEVE IN HANING ANYBODY." Ed Burnison, one of the signers of the affidavits, says: "CROFFORD came to me, sent by Alfred Burrell, who CROFFORD said, had told him I was present at the time Harmon made such a talk. He (CROFFORD) took me down to the hotel where he had the balance of the boys and read the affidavit to us but he didn't read it the same, or at least I didn't understand it, as they claim it is now." Alfred Burrell, another of the signers, interviewed, said: "Harmon made the remark when I was back here on a lay-off. I was working on the railroad at the time and was home on a lay-off. I don't know what date it was but I can tell by looking it up." Prosecuting Attorney Olsen was here Monday looking into the matter and we are told, secured impeachment affidavits. What in the name of all that is holy he wanted with them, we are utterly unable to comprehend if Bass and Hullinger occupy the same position in the matter that Burrell and Burnison do. At the present writing, from what we have learned, we do not believe any one of the quartette of affidavit makers did any false swearing and paradoxical as it may seem, neither do we believe Harmon expressed himself in any such manner before the trial. It isn't reasonable to believe that any man -- man, we say -- would perjure himself to gain the opportunity of serving on a jury and sentencing a fellow-being to penal servitude for life. And Mr. Harmon, in our estimation, is a man. -- --DAVIS CITY LARIAT. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Leon, Decatur County, Iowa Thursday, April 27, 1902 'Ira Hammond on Trial at Mt. Ayr for the Murder of Miss Maude Stone.' The trial of IRA HAMMOND on the charge of murder in the second degree as an accomplice of DR. J.W. CROFFORD, in the murder of MAUDE STONE was commenced at Mt. Ayr before Judge Towner Monday morning, a change of venue having been granted at the last term of court by Judge Towner on a showing by the attorneys for the defendant that he could not secure a fair trial in this county, and the case was sent to Ringgold County for trial. Our readers are familiar with the details of this case. MAUDE STONE, a beautiful young lady 21 years old, who resided with her mother a few miles northeast of Decatur City, left home on the morning of Jan. 22, 1901, ostensibly to visit friends near Mt. Ayr. Nothing further was heard of her until a week later when her mother received a note from DR. CROFFORD saying MAUDE was at his sanitarium, having been taken sick on the train, and for her to come at once. When MRS. STONE reached Lamoni, MAUDE was dead, and IRA HAMMOND and his mother, MRS. ANNA HAMMOND, were both there. Suspicions of foul play were aroused and at the coroner's inquest it developed MAUDE STONE had died from the effects of a criminal operation for abortion. DR. J.W. CROFFORD and IRA HAMMOND who was engaged to MISS STONE, were arrested, charged with murder in the second degree and when the grand jury convened an indictment was also found against MRS. ANNIE HAMMOND. The trial of DR. CROFFORD was held at Leon at the November term of court, the jury after being out a few hours returning a verdict of guilty and he was sentenced by Judge Towner to 13 years in the penitentiary at Ft. Madison, where he is now confined. Since his indictment IRA HAMMOND has been at liberty on a bond of $10,000 and his mother on a bond of $4,000. ~ ~ ~ ~ Special to The Reporter: Mt. Ayr, Iowa, April 7, 1902 The trial was commenced Monday morning at 9:45, and there is certainly a formidable array of legal talent in the case. The state is represented by County Attorney A.P. Olsen, Geo. W. Baker and Fuller & Fuller, F.F. Fuller being County Attorney of Ringgold County. The defendant is represented by C.W. Hoffman, Marion F. Stookey, V.R. McGinnis and Spence & Smith, of Mt. Ayr. After the case was called, the defense moved to dismiss the indictment for the reason that a part of the exhibits used as evidence in the case had been permitted to remain in the custody of the attorneys for the state, special stress being laid on the bottle of medicine which was found in the private box of MAUDE STONE at her home after her death, and also certain letters written by defendant HAMMOND to MAUDE STONE. After an extended argument Judge Towner overruled the motion and the case proceeded. The work of securing a jury proceeded rapidly, and at 12:45 the jury was sworn, 31 jurors having been examined. From the regular panel only 3 jurors were secured, the other 9 being selected from a special venue of 24 jurors which had been summoned. The court placed the jury under the charge of Court Baliff W.A. DeLashmett, and an order made that they be kept together and not allowed to converse with anyone outside the jury during the progress of the trial. The jury is composed of exceptionally young men and it is the opinion of the Mt. Ayr people who are posted that the jury is as favorable a jury for the defendant as could be selected in Ringgold County. The jury is composed of the following: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Leon Reporter Shortly after court convened for the afternoon session, one of the jurors, J.S. Butts, discovered he had lost his pocketbook containing $170, which he thought he lost in the water closet at the court house, and the court excused him for a short time while he went to look for it, but no trace of the book or money could be found. After the jury was selected the court adjourned until 2 o'clock, and County Attorney Olsen made the opening statement to the jury, stating that the state expected to prove the death of MAUDE STONE was caused by a criminal operation for abortion performed by DR. J.W. CROFFORD, and that IRA HAMMOND was the cause of her downfall and was guilty of murder in having been an accomplice of DR. CROFFORD in the matter. C.W. Hoffman made the statement for the defense to the jury, stating the testimony would show that IRA HAMMOND was simply putty in the hands of MAUDE STONE, who had money and the mental capacity to lead and control the boy. The evidence would show that if MAUDE STONE had prior abortions it was without the knowledge or consent of IRA HAMMOND. That they expected to show that Mike Springer had stated that he did not think IRA HAMMOND was responsible for MAUDE STONE's death, that the guilty person was DR. CROFFORD. That whatever the girl did before in the way of having an abortion performed was done on her own motion and with her own money. That to connect IRA HAMMOND with the fatal operation it would have been necessary for him to have driven from Decatur City to Lamoni and return, a distance of 28 miles, in an hour and a half on Jan. 12, 1901. That the state had practically bought the testimony of one of their principal witnesses, Emory Driscoll, the boy who was living at Crofford's sanitarium when MAUDE STONE died. That the STONES, Mike Springer and Capt. J.D. Brown had lots of money and were willing to spend it to convict this poor boy. At the conclusion of the statements to the jury the witnesses for the state were called, but many of them had not yet arrived and the attorneys for the state began fighting for time until the arrival of the 2:30 train and asked the court to take a recess until the train arrived. Judge Towner spoke quite sharply, saying it was their duty to have the witnesses present and ordered the case to proceed. The first witness for the state was: MRS. MARGARET STONE, mother of the dead girl, who was examined briefly, testifying that her husband had been dead 15 or 20 years. That MAUDE left home in August, 1900, to go to Lamoni to visit. She was in good health and was gone about a week. ED BROWN, was the next witness. He resides at Decatur City and took MAUDE STONE to within a mile of the station at Kingston in August, 1900, she riding with him to the cross roads and then went north toward the station. She had a valise. Saw MRS. HAMMOND and IRA on the road the same day, going south. EDWARD HOWARD, who resides at Lamoni, was the next witness. He testified IRA HAMMOND was at his home in Lamoni in August, on Saturday, Aug. 18, 1900, and stayed until Sunday afternoon. Saw MAUDE STONE at Crofford's sanitarium Sunday and IRA HAMMOND was with her. GEO. F. WOLEVER, assistant cashier of the Citizen's Bank at Decatur City, identified letters introduced as exhibits as being in IRA HAMMOND's hand writing. HERBERT DENSMORE, testified he worked at the STONE farm in 1900. Knew IRA HAMMOND for a number of years and went to school with him in Illinois; identified letters introduced as exhibits as being in IRA HAMMOND's hand writing. VERN KIER, also worked at the STONE farm and testified IRA HAMMOND kept company with MAUDE STONE. That he carried letters from HAMMOND to MAUDE and from MAUDE to HAMMOND at HAMMOND's request, about once a week. FRANK ROBBINS, who lived in the same neighborhood, also testified to carrying letters back and forth between HAMMOND and MAUDE STONE, and said letters introduced as exhibits were written by IRA HAMMOND. RUE STONE, a brother of the dead girl, was the last witness Monday. He testified he resided at the home of his mother and saw MAUDE every day. That she went to Lamoni on a visit in August, 1900, was gone about a week and when she came home was very pale and looked as if she had been sick, but soon recovered her former good health. When she left home on Jan. 22, 1901, she said she was going to Mt. Ayr on a visit, and appeared to be in good health. Told of the finding and opening of MAUDE's tin box in which she kept her private papers, and the finding of the medicine bottle and several letters written to her by IRA HAMMOND. At the conclusion of his testimony court adjourned until Tuesday morning at 9:00 o'clock. Tuesday morning, when court was called, considerable time was occupied with a motion to exclude the testimony of the witness, RUE B. STONE, on the grounds he was not a witness before the grand jury which indicted IRA HAMMOND, and the further fact that he was not a witness in the preliminary examination, the defendant having waived such examination, the motion being overruled. HERBERT DENSMORE, RUE B. STONE, C.B. TOWNSEND, MRS. M.F. SPRINGER and MRS. MARGARET STONE identified certain letters and exhibits, including the papers found in MAUDE STONE's private box after her death. A strong fight was made by the defendant's attorneys to have the letters excluded, but Judge Towner decided they were proper evidence, and 14 letters from IRA HAMMOND to MAUDE STONE were read. The letters are not fit for publication. He addressed her as his dear wife, spoke lightly of their intimacy and of going to Lamoni for medicine, and MAUDE's trip to Lamoni in August, 1900, and of his mother going to Leon to see where MAUDE STONE should go. In one of them, he spoke of being so sorry he could never see their child, but so glad MAUDE was all right again. Others of the letters referred to her going to Lamoni in January, 1901. ~ ~ ~ ~ Exhibits "F", "H", and "I", after long argument by counsel, were by the court admitted in evidence. Exhibit "F" is a letter written by IRA HAMMOND to MAUDE STONE, January 15th, 1901, and "H" is a letter by MAUDE STONE to IRA HAMMOND, January 17th, 1901. "I" is the envelope enclosing Exhibit "H". Following are the letters in full: EXHIBIT "F": Decatur, Iowa, January, 15, 1901 Dearest MAUDE: -- Well, this is Wednesday evening and I am going to write you a little bit, although I am pretty d---n tired. I got home all o.k. Sunday evening, but it was rather late. How did you feel Monday morning? Let me tell you I felt pretty tough. But MAUDE, my darling, I never begrudge the time I spend with you. I hope it won't be long until I can spend it all with you. Of course, I know MAUDE you would rather wait until I am of age, but I can get as much now as I can when I am 21, and maybe more, because we don't know what will happen between now and then. Say, MAUDE, my dear sweet girl, I would give a good deal to know how you are. I do hope that medicine will fix you out all right. I don't know how I will get away to go out there, but (*can't read) you have to go. I will take you. (*can't read) folks where I am going (*can't read) to see our (?) by Dr. A. Brown. Phone at once and do it, so let it go. If we get married this spring we won't have to do that way any more will we, darling. But MAUDE, I think more of your name than I do the child. I wouldn't have you ruined by having a child before we were married for anything. You know as well as I do what people would say, don't you? Now, look here, MAUDE, if I could work out from now till I am of age, I could make some money, but I can't because if we don't get married I have got to stay here, and I would not be a bit better off than I am now. I spoke to my father about getting married; he is willing I should. MAUDE, if I was going to marry some town girl, and good for nothing girl, I know he would kick, but he thinks the world of you; also thinks I couldn't better myself and darned lucky to get as good a one as you are. He says he will give me a good team and tools enough to farm with. What better can you ask? There is many a man that don't give their boys that much, isn't there? And I think he will give me a cow and a couple of brood sows. Now, you see if he gives me a team we will have four horses that can work besides by colt. MAUDE, if you will marry me I will work my d---n head off but what I will support you. I haven't mentioned it to my mother; it don't make no difference to her; father is the one. Father says he thinks we would have done better to gone by ourselves, but he says he won't kick, it is us for it. He said he would liked to had us come here and help him. I tell you, MAUDE, I don't do much here, but when I am gone they will miss me. MAUDE, I wish you would tell your mother that if Bony leaves we are going to get married, and see what she says, will you? MAUDE, you don't know how much I enjoyed myself Sunday night; you know when. I never had opportunity to stay that way before, did I? Did you like it better? But, my Lord, Monday night I never spent such a night in my life. The folks said they never heard such rolling and groaning as I did. I had the d-----est dreams you ever heard of. I only wish one of those dreams I had was so now, it was just as real as could be. Well, I must ring off and go to bed. I suppose you will get tired before you get this red. So good night, my dear, sweet wife, I am as ever your loving husband, IRA. C.Y.K. Ans. soon. I will be with you when you read this. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ EXHIBIT "H": Decatur, Iowa, January 17, 1901 MR. I.L. HAMMOND. My Dear IRA: This is Thursday evening and I am going to write you a letter if someone don't bother me. How are you getting along? All right I hope. I am just the same, not a bit of change in any way. You know what. Verne and Shorty have gone to Leon. I hope you didn't go and I am pretty sure you didn't. I have been washing to-day. I never ironed a Monday as I said I was going to. I done that yesterday. RUE has been gone every day this week. He went to Mary's father's Monday and never came back till Tuesday morning and then Mary and him both went away that evening and never came back till to-day noon. They went to see about getting a place but they never got one. I don't believe they are going to try to buy a place now. I think they will build. I wish they would buy, but if they don't I can't help it. It would be a whole lot better for them to get away from here as soon as possible. I told Mary today that they had all been visiting but me and that I was going to go. I told ma that I wanted to go and she said all right. But, IRA, I am going to two places. I am going to Cainsville and Mt. Ayr. The reason I am going to Mt. Ayr is because it is right on the road to Lamoni. I am going Tuesday and I am going to start to Mt. Ayr. Of course, you know where I will stop, and as soon as I can leave there I will go on to Mt. Ayr and you and the folks will never know but what I have been there all the time, and from there go to Cainsville. I will not be gone only one Sunday. Now, IRA, I don't hardly know which would be the best, for me to go on the train or have you take me, but if you don't take me, IRA, my dear one, won't you please come out there a Wednesday and stay till I leave? Please do, IRA. I know you can go. Your folks may give you h--l but I have stood more from my folks than you have from yours so darling please go. It will be lots of company for me to have you there and I want you to be with me as much as you possibly can. I hope I can get away from there a Thursday. I am not going to take all of the money with me to pay him because I am afraid the folks will catch on about me spending so much money. I am going to write Dock a letter and tell him I am coming so he will be prepared for me. We can talk it all over when I see you Sunday night. Oh, say! Sal saw Mr. Dinsmore over in the field to-day and he was working those horses of Shields' and Sal says, them horses will kill you some of these days, and Herb says, I hope they do, or he didn't care if they did, and Bright asked Sal yesterday when he was down to the mill if Dinsmore had been over here lately, and he said no, not that he knew of, and he asked why, and they said Herb was down there the other day and said he had bought a new buggy and team of horses and that you wasn't going to go with me any longer, that he was going to start right away. I think there is lots of danger of him keeping you from coming over here or anyone else, don't you? If I was him I would either keep my infernal mouth shut or else I would do what I say I am going to. Have you been down town this week to meeting? I hope you haven't. I haven't been off the place. I want to go down to Decatur Saturday to get some things and also to get some money. I wish you would be in town. I would like to see you. Oh! IRA, you can't imagine how lonesome I get some times I can hardly stand it. IRA, you said one thing Sunday evening I think I had better do but it wouldn't do me no good if I did. I am so wicked. It was when I was getting my handkerchief from under the sofa, IRA, I was just thinking today how happy you and I could be when we get married. If RUE and Mary don't move away from here by next fall I don't know what they will do. Do you suppose your folks would care if we stayed over there till they did move out? There is one thing sure, we will not stay here as long as they are in here. If they can't get a place by thunder we can or else we can build. Stanley hasn't come home yet, has he? Has Mr. Ogylvie (that isn't spelled right) come yet? I am kinder in hopes Stanley won't come home because I know you and him won't get along. Well, my dear, sweet boy, as it is getting late and I am tired I will close and go to bed. Wish you were here to go with me. Will bid you a kind good night with lots of kisses. I am your loving sweetheart and w---. Answer soon; be careful with this letter. MAUDE S. Be sure and get here at 5 o'clock. If you take a notion to come sooner, all right. I wish you would take such a notion. By by C.Y.K. I don't expect you can read this. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Witnesses for the state (continued): AUSTIN HOWARD and WIFE, who live at Lamoni, testified MRS. HAMMOND, IRA HAMMOND and MAUDE STONE called at their home in Lamoni in August, 1900. EDWIN HOWARD and LEWIS HORNER, testified to seeing IRA HAMMOND at Lamoni on Saturday and Sunday, Aug. 18 and 19. Howard swore HAMMOND told him he came down after his girl. FERD RAUCH and WIFE, testified MAUDE STONE did not visit at their home in Lamoni in August, 1900, or in January, 1901. JOE MULLIN, testified IRA HAMMOND told him during the DR. CROFFORD trial at Leon that the initials C.Y.K., which were attached to nearly all the letters written by him to MAUDE STONE, meant "Consider Yourself Kissed." DR. B.L. EIKER, was the first witness at the afternoon session, testifying that MAUDE STONE visited his office May 2l, and 22, 1900, which was the last time he ever prescribed for her. After that time IRA HAMMOND came to see him and said he had a girl in a fix and wanted him to help them out. He refused and advised them to get married. ORR FLETCHER, testified IRA HAMMOND got a team and cutter at the livery stable in Decatur City in January, 190l, between 12 and 1 o'clock and drove south from Decatur. He had the same cutter engaged to go to Van Wert that evening and waited until close to 5 o'clock for HAMMOND to return and then had to take another team. H.B. LUNBECK, the Decatur liveryman, testified HAMMOND got a team from his barn on Jan. 12, 1901, and turned south from the square at Decatur. When he returned he drove in from the east. ERNEST JONES, who lives near Lamoni, testified to seeing IRA HAMMOND in DR. CROFFORD's office at Lamoni on the afternoon of Jan. 12, 1901, and saw him there again on Jan. 29. J.A. WELLINGTON, of near Lamoni, testified he was at CROFFORD's office in Lamoni in January, 1901, and there was a man there who said he came from above Decatur, but the witness seemed reluctant to testify and claimed he could not remember or identify the man, but admitted that in the trial of DR. CROFFORD, he identified a picture of the defendant as the man. He admitted that Emory Driscoll was in the office at the same time. EMORY DRISCOLL, was called and testified he was staying at DR. CROFFORD's sanitarium in January, 1901, and saw J.A. Wellington in the office and IRA HAMMOND was there, the date being Jan. 12, 1901. Saw HAMMOND there again about two weeks later and HAMMOND said he lived near Decatur. The witness asked him if he had not been there a short time before and he said he had. MRS. MARY ROBBINS, of Decatur, testified she celebrated her tin wedding on Jan. 11, 1901, and MAUDE STONE was there, the object being to establish dates. RUE B. STONE, testified he was married Dec. 25, 1900, and talked of leaving the home farm at that time. C.B. TOWNSEND, was called and testified it was possible for a person coming into Decatur from the direction of Lamoni to turn east south of the square, come north and then drive back west to the livery barn as though coming from the east in the direction of Leon. MRS. MARGARET STONE, told of MAUDE leaving home on Jan. 22, 1901, to go on a visit to relatives at Mt. Ayr. She was in good health at the time and was a robust girl. Said IRA HAMMOND had kept company with her for about a year. Did not hear from MAUDE after she left until she received a letter from DR. CROFFORD, brought to her by IRA HAMMOND, saying MAUDE was sick at his sanitarium. She started for Lamoni with HAMMOND and found her daughter a corpse when she arrived there. MRS. HAMMOND was there when she arrived. On cross examination she denied having told Mrs. Levi Brooks that MAUDE had been sick with bowel trouble. RUE STONE, testified to his sister's health being good when she started for Mt. Ayr. Did not see her alive again. VERNON KIER, who worked at the STONE farm, testified to the same thing. The state traced MAUDE STONE from the station at Kingston to Lamoni by W.B. Redman, Conductor Mike Carey, C.M. Ketcham, O.E. Hull, E.J. Springer, James Grandstaff and wife and Arthur Townsend, who saw and talked to her on the train. TED SHEEN, of Lamoni, testified to seeing her get off the train at the depot and watched her walk around the block and go into DR. CROFFORD's sanitarium. L.J. BARR, identified a plat of the streets and buildings in the vicinity of DR. CROFFORD's sanitarium. Court then adjourned until Wednesday morning at 9 o'clock. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ When court convened Wednesday morning the first witness called was: ORR FLETCHER, who swore the day he saw IRA HAMMOND get a team and drive south was on Saturday. VERN KIER, testified as to the day in question being Saturday, Jan. 12, 1901. RUE STONE, recalled, testified the time he was talking of buying the Keller farm was in December, 1900. The State's Attorney then carefully traced the defendant along the road from Decatur to Lamoni by witnesses Harrison Orfield, Dell Wiley, Jesse Lloyd and John Springer, who told of meeting a young man riding a rangy bay horse, going toward Lamoni, learning afterwards that the young man was IRA HAMMOND, and the dates being Jan. 12 and 23, 1901. WM. CRICHTON, who lives just across the road from defendant, testified IRA HAMMOND was away from home over night on Jan. 23, 1901. MRS. CRICHTON, also testified his mother told her IRA was away from home that night. CHARLES BRENIZER, a liveryman at Lamoni, told of HAMMOND coming to his barn about a week before the death of MAUDE STONE, riding a bay horse. He remained over night and slept in the barn on a cot, saying it would be late when he came in and the hotel would probably be closed. CLARENCE SPRINGER, a partner in the livery business, testified to seeing HAMMOND at the barn on Jan. 23, and he was sleeping there the next morning. The witness left the barn the night before after 12 o'clock and HAMMOND had not come in at the time he left. His son, ELI SPRINGER, also testified to seeing HAMMOND at the barn on Jan. 23. FRANK HOPKINS, a furniture dealer at Lamoni, also testified as to seeing MAUDE STONE enter CROFFORD's sanitarium on Jan. 22, and did not see her again until after she was dead. EMORY DRISCOLL, who was a patient at CROFFORD's sanitarium, testified to seeing MAUDE STONE the day she arrived at the sanitarium, that she looked well, and after talking with DR. CROFFORD, was assigned to a room. Heard her vomiting a few days later quite hard. He also told of seeing IRA HAMMOND in DR. CROFFORD's office on two occasions, once about ten days or two weeks before MAUDE STONE came. He asked for DR. CROFFORD and went with him into his private room and remained there quite awhile. On cross examination by Mr. Hoffman the witness denied telling his brother or other parties he was being paid big money for testifying against CROFFORD and HAMMOND in this case, and said the County Attorney told him he would see he received the proper medical attention and board if he was unable to pay for it. He said the only money he ever received was a dollar MIKE SPRINGER gave him to pay his fare to Leon when he appeared before the grand jury. That none of the attorneys for the state had ever asked him to swear to anything in this case except the truth. That his father had refused to pay for his board or medical attention unless he remained with DR. CROFFORD. J.A. WELLINGTON, was recalled and testified he saw EMORY DRISCOLL talking with a young man in CROFFORD's office about a week before MAUDE STONE died, and heard him say he was from above Decatur, and had been there before when there was snow on the ground. The state then commenced the examination of the expert medical witnesses, which consumed the balance of the afternoon. The case cannot go to the jury before Saturday and may run over to Monday before the arguments are closed and the case submitted to the jury. Every point in the case is being bitterly contested by the attorneys on both sides. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Leon Reporter Leon, Decatur County, Iowa Thursday, May 1, 1902 'Ira Hammond on Trial at Mt. Ayr for the Murder of Miss Maude Stone.' Continued from Page 1 . . . Witnesses (continued) and Defendant's Testimony: Almost all of Wednesday afternoon was consumed with the state's expert medical testimony, Drs. B.R. McAllaster, F.A. Bowman, H.R. Layton and B.L. Eiker testifying at considerable length in regard to the autopsy held on the body of MAUDE STONE after it was taken to the STONE home the day after she died, being in substance that they found evidences of and operation for abortion having been recently performed and that her death was caused by septic peritonitis or blood poison, the result of such operation, it being their opinion that the dead girl had been pregnant for two and a half or three months. Their testimony was published in full in The Reporter during the trial of DR. J.W. CROFFORD, and we do not consider it necessary to republish the details, as they cannot be generally understood by the public. Dr. J.W. Greenman also testified theoretically as to the cause of death based on the testimony of the other physicians. During the cross examinations of Dr. McAllaster the defense made what they claimed was important evidence, he testifying that at the post mortem examination the womb of the dead girl was removed from the body and placed by him in a glass jar, being kept at his office until some time last December, when it was returned to RUE B. STONE, who got it at the request of the family and buried it. The state claimed it would have been an important piece of evidence in DR. CROFFORD's trial had they known of its existence and had it brought into court to be examined by the physicians for the defendant. MRS. M.F. SPRINGER, being recalled, testified she did not see MAUDE STONE after she left home until she went to Lamoni, Jan. 30 and found her a corpse. Her mother, MRS. MARGARET STONE, MRS. HAMMOND, IRA HAMMOND, DR. CROFFORD and wife and others were present when she entered the room. On cross examination said when MAUD STONE's box was opened she saw only one bottle of medicine in it. There were some other letters besides the ones introduced in evidence. After the box was examined it was locked again and her husband took charge of the key and box. MENDEL CLUM, the Lamoni undertaker, who prepared the body of MAUDE STONE for burial, testified he was called by DR. CROFFORD the night she died, about 10 or 11 o'clock. The body was still warm and she had not been dead over an hour. DR. DERWENT, of Lamoni, testified as to having been in DR. CROFFORD's sanitarium at Lamoni which he conducted as a sanitarium and hospital. Said there was an office, operating and bed rooms, and he had the various surgical instruments used by surgeons, including dilators and vaginal speculums. MRS. M.F. SPRINGER, testified she brought the valise containing MAUD's underclothing from Lamoni, and the valise containing them was locked, she carrying the key. MRS. AVIS RUMLEY, testified she took the clothing from the valise and they were damp and wet, as though they had been washed. Court then adjourned until Thursday morning at 9 o'clock, the first witness being: DR. B.L. EIKER, who, on cross examination testified he testified at CROFFORD's trial entirely without notes. At that trial he swore no parts of the body were saved for microscopic examination, the question whether the uterus or other parts were saved not being asked him in that form. The parts saved were the uterus and appendages, ovaries and fallopian tubes. Dr. McAllaster, the coroner, took charge of them. On redirect examination he said the womb could not have been preserved for any great length of time so as to show the bacteria. The last time he saw the parts was in November, 1901. They were in a glass jar which would hold about two quarts. CHARLES BRENIZER, the Lamoni liveryman, was recalled and testified that when IRA HAMMOND came to Lamoni the second time in January, 1901, he drove a gray and bay team, the bay horse being the same one he rode there the week before. CLARENCE SPRINGER, his partner, testified their barn was closed shortly after midnight on Jan. 23, and IRA HAMMOND was not there when he closed the barn and went home, but was sleeping in the office the next morning. DR. DERWENT, was recalled to explain the use of various surgical instruments and dilators which were used. 'DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY' H.B. LUNBECK, the Decatur liveryman, testified he charged one dollar for a team to Leon and two dollars for a team to Lamoni. He charged IRA HAMMOND one dollar for the team he had on Jan. 12. RUE B. STONE, testified he buried the parts he received last December from Dr. McAllaster, and the court ruled he was not required to tell where he buried them. MRS. MARGARET STONE, testified IRA HAMMOND was not at her home on the Sunday evening before MAUDE went to Lamoni, to the best of her recollection. The defense then put on their medical expert testimony, which was much shorter than at the CROFFORD trial. DR. A. BROWN, testified at some length as to the time death would ordinarily ensue from septic peritonitis, claiming that in his opinion MAUDE STONE could not have died from the effects of an operation for abortion within the time it was claimed she first went to CROFFORD's sanitarium, the condition of her body being as described by the physicians on the part of the state. He denied knowing the parts of her body were in Dr. McAllaster's possession, although Geo. W. Baker stated he had told him of this fact and requested him to go to Dr. McAllaster's office and examine them, and said Dr. Brown asked him to get them and bring them to his office as he and Dr. McAllaster were not on the best of terms. He also admitted that the physicians who testified on the part of the state were honorable men and he would not refuse to believe their statements. Drs. J.W. Horne, S. Bailey and J.W. White, testified along the same lines as to the character of septic peritonitis and other conditions, but their examinations both direct and on cross examination were very short. S.W. KEHLER, clerk of the Decatur District Court, produced certain letters from MAUDE STONE used in the trial of DR. CROFFORD as exhibits and swore they had been in his custody since that time. C.B. TOWNSEND, identified the letters as being in the handwriting of MAUDE STONE. Three letters from MAUDE STONE were then read. One dated May 21, 1900, stated she had been to see the doctor and he gave her some medicine which would make her all right by the last of the week. Another dated Dec. 14, 1900, spoke of troubles she was having and hoped they could soon be married. While the letters in some places were rather broad, they could not be compared with those written by HAMMOND and the language used could be construed in two different ways. Court then adjourned until afternoon, when the first witness put on the stand was: EDWIN HOWARD, of Lamoni, testified that on Saturday, Aug. 18, 1900, he went with IRA HAMMOND to Ferd Rauch's home in Lamoni to see his girl. Mr. and Mrs. Rauch were away from home, and HAMMOND inquired for MAUDE STONE, but she was not there. He saw HAMMOND and MAUDE STONE drive away from DR. CROFFORD's sanitarium the following afternoon. HARRY CORRINGTON, of Decatur, swore that on Saturday, Jan. 12, 1901, he and Fred Townsend Drove from Decatur to Leon, leaving Decatur about 3 o'clock. That they met IRA HAMMOND and John Woodard in a sleigh just west of the K. & W. depot at Leon, driving toward Decatur. They had one of Lunbeck Bros.' livery teams. FRED TOWNSEND, testified to substantially the same thing as Harry Corrington. JOHN WOODARD, testified he went with IRA HAMMOND from Decatur to Leon on Saturday afternoon, Jan. 12, in a sleigh and one of Lunbeck's livery teams. They started home between 4 and 5 o'clock and met Fred Townsend and Harry Corrington near I.N. Clark's residence, west of the K. & W. depot in Leon. On cross examination he denied he had stated in the presence of Abe and Jink Wells that he would swear to anything to help HAMMOND out of his trouble, or that he had asked Abe Wells to give him a receipt for some money he had paid him and date it back to that date, so he could prove his testimony in behalf of HAMMOND, and claimed the statements were merely made at a mock trial. DR. S. BAILEY, recalled, testified that a bottle of medicine with directions to take a teaspoonful after meals would indicate it was for indigestion or a tonic. In his opinion the bottle found in MAUD STONE's box had contained a bitter tonic. More Witnesses and Defendant's Testimony: GEORGE EVANS, testified that in a conversation some time ago EMORY DRISCOLL told him he was to receive $160 for testifying in this case. That he had arranged so he could put his hands on $150 and he believed he could just as well have gotten $500 or $1,000. W.E. DRISCOLL, a half brother of the witness, EMORY DRISCOLL, saw him the night before he testified before the grand jury, and at that time he told him that M.F. Springer and others had promised to pay him money and settle his doctor bills. At another time Emory said that if they did not pay him the money he would turn state's evidence. That they promised to set him up in business and he would never want for anything. LEVI BROOKS, of near Lamoni, who is a cousin by marriage of MAUDE STONE, testified to a conversation with Emory Driscoll at his home in which he said he got a dollar and a railroad ticket to Leon when he went to testify, and that he was to be doctored if he testified, but did not say who was to pay for it. MRS. FERD RAUCH, testified she was present when MAUDE STONE was laid out at Lamoni and helped to dress her. She was not bloated that she could notice. They put on her black silk dress and buttoned the skirt and waist without trouble. MRS. CHARLES TEALE, testified she assisted Mrs. Rauch and gave the same testimony as to buttoning her dress and said she was not bloated. She saw some light colored stains on her skirts which looked like old stains. The clothing was dry at the time. MRS. W.E. DRISCOLL, testified she had heard Emory Driscoll say that if Springer did not do as he had agreed he would turn state's evidence. MELVIN CLUM, the undertaker, testified he was assisted by J.F. Hopkins in washing and laying out MAUDE STONE. He thought she was a very nice looking girl and did not notice any bloating or anything wrong in her appearance. He assisted in dressing her about 11 o'clock the next morning. ED CAVE, who lives 2 1/2 miles north of Decatur, testified he saw IRA HAMMOND and his father in his timber on Jan. 12, 1901, and it was somewhere under 12 o'clock when they left the timber. W.A. SHIPMAN, who lived on Cave's farm, swore he saw IRA HAMMOND and his father in Cave's timber about 9 o'clock on the morning of Jan. 12, 1901, and again about 12 o'clock, driving up the road toward home with a load of wood. ALONZO HAMMOND, father of IRA HAMMOND, testified he and IRA went to Cave's timber on the morning of Jan. 12, and left the timber with a load of wood about 12 o'clock and drove home, a distance of 1 3/4 miles. Though IRA left home that afternoon about 1:30 o'clock on horseback, riding a bay horse. Did not know when he returned, and next saw him at the house about 9 o'clock that night. MRS. M.F. SPRINGER, was again called to state that the dress in which MAUDE STONE was dressed after her death was her own dress which she had taken with her when she left home. DR. F.A. BOWMAN, testified Dr. McAllaster, the coroner, told him the STONE family had requeted of him that the parts removed from the body be not exposed to view to other persons than the physicians. C.B. TOWNSEND, identified another letter from MAUDE STONE to IRA HAMMOND and it was read in evidence. The letter was dated Jan. 17, 1901, and was in regard to her going to Lamoni. She wrote she would tell her folks she was going to Mt. Ayr and Cainsville on a visit, saying she said Mt. Ayr because Lamoni was on the road to Mt. Ayr and she could stop there, then go on to Mt. Ayr and then to Cainsville. She wanted him to take her to Lamoni if he could get away and if not for him to come down the next day as she wanted him to be with her as much as possible. Also that she would not take all the money with her to pay the doctor as her folks might become suspicious about her spending so much money. ALONZO HAMMOND, again took the stand to correct his testimony as to IRA riding a bay horse to Decatur on Jan. 12, saying it was a gray mare. IRA HAMMOND, the defendant, was then placed on the stand. He said he was 21 years old. Was at home on Jan. 12, 1901, and went to Decatur about l o'clock. Met John Woodard, who proposed getting a team and going to Leon. He went to Lunbeck's barn, got a sleigh, drove west to the square, then south a block and east to the home of Mrs. Stanley, John Woodard's mother-in-law, where Woodard got in the sleigh and they drove to Leon. Reached Leon about 3 o'clock. He went to Leon to get a prescription filled for MAUDE STONE which Dr. Eiker wrote for her. It was at her request he went. He had it filled at the drug store known as Honnold's, and took the medicine back and gave it to MAUDE STONE. They met Fred Townsend and Harry Corrington on the way back to Decatur. Arrived at Decatur between 4 and 5 o'clock. This was the only medicine of any kind he ever got for her. Did not go to Lamoni about that time. I went to Lamoni on Jan. 23, as requested by MAUDE STONE in her letter to me. Did not see her from Jan. 15 to Jan. 23, and had no word from her during that time. I rode a bay horse to Lamoni and arrived there between 4 and 5 o'clock in the evening. Put the horse in the livery barn, then went to a restaurant and got my supper. After supper went to the sanitarium and inquired for DR. CROFFORD. He was not there and I asked to see MISS STONE. The attendant went out and soon came back saying it was all right with her and I went to her room. She was dressed and sitting on a chair. I left the sanitarium at 10 o'clock or a little after, went to the restaurant, got supper and went to the livery barn and to bed. The barn was closed up when I got there. Slept in the barn that night, took breakfast at the restaurant the next morning about 7:30, stayed around a little while and then started home. Went back to Lamoni on Jan. 29 in response to a letter from DR. CROFFORD requesting my mother and I to come. Saw MAUDE and DR. CROFFORD there and remained all day. About l0 o'clock that night DR. CROFFORD came into the office with a letter to MRS. STONE and requested me to take the letter to her. I never saw DR. CROFFORD before Jan. 23, 1901. On cross examination he said he did not go to Lamoni on Jan. 12. Never went to Lamoni in a sleigh. Did not meet Dan McDowell on the way to Lamoni and let him ride with me in a sleigh to Lamoni. Don't know such a man. The prescription which I had filled at Leon I destroyed at the request of MAUDE STONE. She asked me to destroy it. On re-examination he swore he did not assist in performing an abortion on MAUDE STONE or encourage her in any way in having it done. ~ ~ ~ ~ 'STATE'S REBUTTAL.' DANIEL MCDOWELL, who lives near Terre Haute, testified he went to Lamoni on Jan. 12, 1901, about two weeks prior to MAUDE STONE's death. He met a young man driving a team to a sleigh near Dell Wiley's house and rode with him to Lamoni. Was not positive as to who it was, as he never saw him before, but to the best of his knowledge the man was the defendant, IRA HAMMOND. He had a home made sleigh with board runners and was driving pretty fast. ABE WELLS, who lives near Decatur, swore he had known John Woodard ever since he was born. Had a converstion with him at Townsend's bank, in Decatur, a short time ago, in which Woodard stated he would swear to anything to clear IRA HAMMOND. A few days after his father, Wm. Woodard, went on HAMMOND's bond, John Woodard came to his saw mill and in the course of a conversation asked me to give him a receipt for some money he paid me for his brother and date the receipt back to Jan. 12, as he had been to Leon with HAMMOND the same day and wanted the receipt to show it. I told him I would look at the books and see when the money was paid. The books show the check was given me between the 3d and 10th days of October. JINK WELLS, testified he was working at the Wells mill a few days after Wm. Woodard signed HAMMOND's bond and heard John Woodard say he would swear to anything to help HAMMOND out. He also heard him make the same statement in Lunbeck's restaurant at Decatur a short time ago. The state then introduced Joe Mullin, Sherman Robbins and Marion Dingman for the purpose of impeaching the witness, John Woodard, they all testifying his reputation for truth and veracity was bad. When court convened Friday morning at 9 o'clock the defendant, IRA HAMMOND, was again called to the stand and testified that when he went to CROFFORD's sanitarium to see MAUDE STONE she was dressed and sitting on a chair, but laid down on the bed in about a half an hour. In explaining what he meant when he wrote to MAUDE STONE saying he had told her several times what he wanted to do, but she would not do it and now he would do as she wished, that she was the boss, he said he meant that he wanted to get married. On cross examination he said he was not going with another girl during the time he went with MAUDE STONE. Did not know the exact date of his marriage to BERTHA LAKE, but it was between eight and nine months after MAUDE STONE died. Denied he went with her as late as the summer and fall of 1900. Said the girl he called Old Bus in his letters was his present wife. DR. B.L. EIKER, testified the last date he gave any prescription to MAUDE STONE was June 22, 1900. IRA HAMMOND, then testified that when he said the day before that he took a prescription from Dr. Eiker to Leon to have filled for MAUDE STONE on Jan. 12 he meant it was a copy of Dr. Eiker's prescription which was written by MAUDE STONE. W.C. STEMPEL, testified he was proprietor of the drug store in Leon known as Honnold's drug store in 1901, that he always preserved the prescriptions written by a physician. That he never had filled one of Dr. Eiker's prescriptions. That when a recipe was brought to a drug store not written by a physician they did not preserve them. He could not remember of ever having sold anything to IRA HAMMOND. GEO. W. CARMEAN, the pharmacist at the same store, testified that he never sold anything to IRA HAMMOND that he could remember. FRANK ROBBINS, testified he saw IRA HAMMOND gong with BERTHA LAKE as late as October, 1900. VERN KIER, also testified to seeing IRA HAMMOND with BERTHA LAKE in the fall of 1900, as late as September. DR. C.C. LESAN, of Mt. Ayr, examined the bottle found in MAUD STONE's box and testified it was impossible for anyone to tell what it contained, as there was not enough left in the bottle. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'STATE'S REBUTTAL' Horatio Lunbeck, Clarence Townsend, A.J. Jones and Ed Cave were placed on the stand to support the attempted impeachment of the witness, John Woodard, all of them testifying that his reputation for truth and veracity was good. MRS. IRA HAMMOND, testified she was the wife of the defendant. That he did not keep company with her prior to the death of MAUDE STONE. The taking of the testimony was concluded Friday morning shortly after 10 o'clock and the arguments to the jury commenced. County Attorney A.P. Olsen made the opening argument for the state, concluding at 2:30 o'clock. He was followed by R.H. Spence for the defense, who spoke until 4 o'clock, being followed by C.W. Hoffman, who made the closing argument for the defense. Geo. W. Baker made the final argument for the state after supper Friday evening. Judge Towner then adjourned court until 9 o'clock Saturday morning. 'INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY' In the District court of the State of Iowa, in and for Ringgold County, April Term, 1902. The State of Iowa, vs. IRA HAMMOND. Gentlemen of the Jury: The state asks the conviction of the defendant, IRA HAMMOND, upon the charge of murder in the second degree, the case coming here for trial on a change of venue from Decatur County, Iowa. The indictment here was in a joint indictment against one J.W. CROFFORD and this defendant, and was, and is in substance as follows: That said J.W. CROFFORD and IRA HAMMOND, on or about the 23d day of January, 1901, in Decatur County, Iowa, did wilfully, maliciously, feloniously, and with malice aforethought, thrust into the body and womb of one MAUDE STONE, a female then and there being pregnant with child, a certain instrument, the particular description of which is unknown to this grand jury, and did then and there administer to said MAUDE STONE drugs, all done for the purpose of and the intent on the part of the said J.W. CROFFORD and IRA HAMMOND to produce, and did produce a miscarriage upon the said MAUDE STONE, then and thereby causing the death of the said MAUDE STONE, said abortion not being necessary to save the life of the said MAUDE STONE, contrary to law. To this charge and indictment the defendant, IRA HAMMOND, has entered his plea of not guilty. It will be noted by the jury that the cause on trial is as to the defendant, IRA HAMMOND alone, and this trial is for the purpose of determining his guilt or innocence only. Whatever finding may have been made as to the other defendant, J.W. CROFFORD, or whatever may be your opinion as to his guilt or innocence, should not in any manner influence you either for or against the defendant. The court instructs the jury that before you will be justified in finding a verdict of guilty against the defendant, under the charges as set out in the indictment, the state must show and prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did, at and within the County of Decatur, and State of Iowa, and prior to the finding of the indictment in this case, which was on the 27th day of March, 1901, cause or produce or aid and abet in causing or producing upon one MAUDE STONE, an unnecessary abortion or miscarriage, which resulted in her death, as charged in said indictment. The court instructs the jury that it is incumbent upon the state to prove every material allegation of the indictment as therein charged. The law raises no presumption against the defendant, and nothing is to be taken by implication against him. He is presumed innocent of the crime with which he is charged until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and, in order to convict him of the crime charged in the indictment, every material fact necessary to constitute such crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and should you entertain a reasonable doubt upon any single fact, or element necessary to constitute the crime, it is your duty to give the defendant the benefit of that doubt and acquit him. The jury are instructed that the reasonable doubt which entitles an accused to an acquittal, is a doubt of guilt reasonable arising from all the evidence in the case; and, in considering this case, the jury should not go beyond the evidence to seek for doubts; nor should you entertain such doubts as might arise from mere caprice or groundless conjecture. A doubt to justify an acquittal must be a reasonable one, and must arise from a candid and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. It should be such doubt as would cause a reasonable, prudent and considerate man to hesitate and pause before acting in the graver and more important affairs of life. If, after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case you can say and feel that you have an abiding conviction of the guilt of the defendant, and are fully satisfied of the truth of the charge, then you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. The crime charged in the indictment is murder in the second degree, in that the defendant caused and produced, or aided and abetted in causing and producing an unnecessary abortion, or miscarriage upon MAUDE STONE, which resulted in her death. It will be proper for the court to define that crime as it is known to our law. If any person cause or attempt, or aid and abet in causing or attempting an abortion, or miscarriage, which results in the death of a woman, and which is not necessary to save her life, he is guilty of murder in the second degree. Before the state will be entitled to a conviction upon said charge, it must establish the following essential elements. FIRST. That the defendant administered, or aided and abetted in administering, to MAUDE STONE, some drug, or drugs, or used a certain instrument, or instruments, or both, or aided and abetted in using a certain instrument or instruments, or both, as charged by the indictment. SECOND. That at such time the said MAUDE STONE was a pregnant woman. THIRD. That said drug, or drugs, were administered, or such instrument, or instruments, were used wilfully and with the intent to thereby produce a miscarriage of the said MAUDE STONE. FOURTH. That such miscarriage was not necessary to save the life of the said MAUDE STONE. FIFTH. That the death of the said MAUDE STONE was caused thereby. In regard to the first essential, to-wit: That defendant administered drugs, or aided and abetted therein, or used instruments, or aided and abetted therein, upon Maude Stone, you are instructed: In regard to the first essential, to-wit: The state must show that the defendant, at the time and place charged in the indictment, administered to the said MAUDE STONE some drug, or drugs, or aided and abetted therein, or used a certain instrument, or instruments, or aided and abetted therein, upon the person of the said MAUDE STONE, or both administered such drugs and used such instruments, or aided and abetted therein. If this is sustained by the evidence, then, as to this element, you would be justified in finding for the state. If not sustained, your verdict should be for the defendant. Regarding the second requisite, to-wit: The pregnancy of MAUDE STONE, you are instructed: It must be shown that at the time when such drugs were administered, or instruments used, if you find they were administered or used, the said MAUDE STONE was a pregnant woman. Pregnancy means with child; and a woman is pregnant, within the meaning of the law, from the period of conception until delivery. If it appear that at the time when such drugs were administered, or instruments used, if you find they were administered or used, the said MAUDE STONE was a pregnant woman, within the definition given, then, on this issue, you would be justified in finding for the state. If, however, you do not so find, your verdict should be for the defendant. It would not be sufficient for it to appear that the said MAUDE STONE had at some time been pregnant. It must appear that at the time complained of the said MAUDE STONE was pregnant. It would not be sufficient if it be shown that the said MAUDE STONE thought she was pregnant; it must appear so in fact. In regard to the third requisite, to-wit: The intent, you are instructed: It must appear that the said drugs were administered, or instruments used, during the pregnancy of the said MAUDE STONE willfully and with the intent on the part of the person who committed the act charged to then and there and by those means to procure, or cause an abortion, or miscarriage of the said MAUDE STONE. An abortion, or miscarriage, as it is termed in the indictment, is the act of miscarrying, or producing offspring before the natural period of gestation, or normal delivery and birth. By willfully is meant intentionally, purposely, and the willful intent necessary is that the person charged administered such drugs, or used such instruments, or both, with the design and purpose on the part of said person then and there and by such means to produce or cause an abortion, or miscarriage, as herein defined, of the said MAUDE STONE. It must also be shown, as to one who is charged with aiding or abetting the commission of such act, that he joined in said intent, and willfully and with said intent aided and abetted said acts. If you find such willful intent shown by the evidence, you would be justified on this issue in finding for the state. But if you do not so find, your verdict should be for the defendant. It must also be shown, as a fourth requisite, that such miscarriage was not necessary to save the life of the said MAUDE STONE. It will be necessary for the state to show, not only the acts charged as constituting the offense, and that said acts were done with the intent to produce a miscarriage, or abortion, but, also, that such miscarriage, or abortion, if shown, was not necessary to save the life of the said MAUDE STONE. The law takes into consideration the fact, generally admitted, that under certain circumstances, justified in causing a miscarriage or abortion, and even if such act result in the death of the woman, they do not constitute any crime. It is necessary, before a conviction can be warranted for the crime herein charged that such conditions shall be negative by the state, and the state must establish that a miscarriage, if one is shown, was not necessary to save the life of the said MAUDE STONE. If the state has so proven, then, on this issue, you would be justified in so finding. If not established, you should find the defendant not guilty. Regarding the fifth requisite, to-wit: That the death of the said MAUDE STONE was caused thereby, you are instructed: It must appear that the acts before referred to caused the death of the said MAUDE STONE. If her death resulted from any other cause whatever, the defendant cannot be convicted. If the death of the said MAUDE STONE was occasioned by any other cause than that charged, the state is not entitled to a verdict of guilty. Under our law the distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal is abrogated, and all persons connected in the commission of a public offense, or aid and abet its commission, though not present, are alike guilty as principals. In the case at bar it is not claimed by the state that the defendant, IRA HAMMOND, committed the acts charged as constituting the offense, but it is claimed that he aided and abetted in their commission. If you find that one J.W. CROFFORD committed the acts which constitute the crime charged, and that defendant, IRA HAMMOND, aided and abetted in their commission, he is guilty. Even if not personally present when said acts were committed, if he advised, counseled, arranged for, or did any act which in any way assisted in bringing about said acts, he is guilty. If he was present and encouraged, or counseled, or in any way aided or assisted in the commission of such acts, he would be guilty. Mere knowledge on the defendant's part that such acts were contemplated or intended, or were in fact committed, would not be sufficient. Even personal presence, without advice, counsel, encouragement, aid or assistance would not make the defendant responsible. Evidence has been permitted to be introduced on the part of the state with reference to another abortion which the state claims was performed upon the said MAUDE STONE in August, 1900, and in the commission of which it is claimed the defendant aided and abetted. The jury are instructed that such evidence was permitted to be introduced as bearing upon the question of the motive intent, or necessity of the acts of the parties with relation to the particular offense charged, which it is claimed occurred in January, 1901. It would be improper for you to consider or give weight to such evidence for any other purpose. The defendant could not be convicted of the crime herein charged by showing he had aided and abetted in the commission of a like offense in August, 1900, even if you should find such fact. The crime charged and for which the defendant is on trial was the one alleged to have been committed in January, 1901, and if such crime was not committed in January, 1901, or if committed, if the defendant did not aid and abet in its commission, he is entitled to an acquittal, whatever occurred in August, 1900. Final Instructions to the Jury: It is no defense to the crime charged that the woman consented to a miscarriage. If you find, in the case at bar, that the said MAUDE STONE consented, or even desired and arranged for an unnecessary abortion, such facts, if shown, would be no excuse or justification to the defendant, if he is shown to have in any manner aided and abetted in such unlawful act. Much of the evidence relied on by the state as showing the defendant's guilt is what is known in the law as circumstantial evidence. It will be proper for the court to instruct you as to the nature and character of such evidence, and of its value in the ascertainment of truth. Circumstantial evidence is that class of evidence wherein the principal fact in issue is to be inferred, or deduced, from other facts proven. It is thus called because it is composed of circumstances, or related facts, connected in some manner with the ultimate fact to be determined. Circumstantial evidence is legal evidence, and is not to be discredited merely as such. Its value, and, indeed, its necessity in the ascertainment of the truth is unquestioned. Nothing in the nature of circumstantial evidence renders it less valuable than other evidence. Indeed, it has been said that in many cases a verdict on circumstantial evidence alone is more satisfactory as being a true and just verdict than one founded on direct evidence. The value of circumstantial evidence depends in large measure upon the clearness of the connection between the fact shown and the fact to be inferred. Circumstantial evidence must be founded on reason and experience, establishing a connection between known and true facts and the facts sought to be proved. It will be observed that in such evidence not only must the related facts be established, but just conclusions must be drawn from them. It is manifest that in such case it calls for close observation and high intellectual discrimination and judgment on the part of the juror than in cases of direct testimony. In direct testimony a fact alone is to be determined; in circumstantial testimony not only is the fact, or many facts, to be determined, but just and true conclusions are to be drawn therefrom. In the first place, each related fact from which an inference is asked to be drawn must be distinctly and independently probed by competent evidence, and no inference should be drawn from a fact not proved. In the second place, great care should be exercised in drawing inferences from proved facts. It must be a fair and natural, and not a forced or artificial conclusion, and, if an any case a conclusion is reasonably consistent with innocence rather than guilt can be given, such conclusions should be drawn. In order to justify a conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone, the ultimate fact to be deduced, or inferred, viz: The guilt of the accused, must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. And not only must the circumstances concur to show that the defendant committed the crime charged, but they must be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion. The circumstances, taken together, should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, leading on the whole to a satisfactory conclusion, and producing in effect a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused is guilty. Absolute, demonstrative certainty is not required, not need it be so conclusive as to exclude every possibility of an error. It will be sufficient if it satisfy the understanding of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case at bar, the jury should consider and carefully weigh the circumstantial evidence offered under the rules given. If, in connection with the direct evidence offered, of if independently the jury believe the facts and circumstances shown are inconsistent with any other rational and reasonable conclusion than the defendant's guilt, then it would be your duty to so find and return. If, however, such facts proved can fairly and reasonably be explained upon the hypothesis of the defendant's innocence, and if such facts do not exclude every other theory than that of guilt, then it will be your duty to give the innocent rather than the guilty interpretation and return a verdict of not guilty. Evidence has been introduced touching the reputation for truth and veracity of the witness JOHN WOODARD. Such evidence may be considered by you as affecting the credibility of the witness, and for no other purpose. The evidence of various witnesses who have testified is sought to be impeached by the testimony of other witnesses who testified to contradictory statements made outside of court. Such evidence may be considered by you as affecting the credibility of such witnesses, and the value of their testimony, and may be given such weight as you think it entitled to receive. The jury are instructed that they are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses. In determining their credibility you have a right to take into consideration their appearance on the stand and manner of testifying; their candor and fairness or lack of those qualities; their intelligence; or want of intelligence; their knowledge of the matters of which they testify, or lack of knowledge, their interest in the event of the case, or want of interest; the relationship of the witnesses to the parties to the case, if any is shown; their temper, feeling, bias, or prejudice, if any is shown; and to give each witness such credit as in your judgment, under all the circumstances, such witness has shown himself entitled to receive. The jury are instructed that they are the sole judges of the weight of the testimony. In determining what weight should be given to the testimony before you, you should consider the whole of the evidence, and all the facts and circumstances proved on the trial, giving to the several parts of the evidence the weight to which they are entitled. And it is your duty, if possible, to reconcile all the different parts of the testimony and, if the evidence is conflicting, to carefully examine it in all its parts, in the light of these instructions, for the purpose of determining the very truth of the matters at issue. And in determining any of the questions of facts presented in this case, you should not indulge in any speculations or conjectures as to which might have been proven, or what might have been shown to be true; and all conclusions drawn by you should be based solely on the evidence before you and not upon conjecture or speculation. Your verdict should be in writing, signed by your foreman, and should be in one of the following forms, to-wit: The State of Iowa, vs. Ira Hammond. We, the jury, find the defendant guilty. .......................................Foreman. OR The State of Iowa, vs. Ira Hammond. We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty. .......................................Foreman. ~ ~ ~ ~ 'THE VERDICT' At 1:45 the jury notified the court they had agreed on a verdict and were brought into court. When they were asked if they had agreed on a verdict, they said they had, and there was complete silence in the court room when the judge instructed Clerk Stranahan to read the verdict which read: "We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty." Sherman Beck, Foreman. Judge Towner then formally discharged the defendant and exonerated his bond. ~ ~ ~ ~ From another column in the newspaper: The much talked of and sensational trial of IRA HAMMOND, charged with being an accessory of DR. J.W. CROFFORD in performing a criminal operation on MAUDE STONE, from the effects of which she died at CROFFORD's sanitarium in Lamoni on Jan. 29, 1901, was brought to a close at Mt. Ayr Saturday afternoon shortly before 2 o'clock, when the jury returned a verdict of "Not Guilty." The case was one of the most talked of and sensational ever tried in southern Iowa, DR. CROFFORD having been convicted at the November term of court in this county and is now serving a thirteen year sentence in the penitentiary at Ft. Madison. His attorneys have appealed the case to the Supreme Court and are confident they can acquit him if a new trial can be secured. During the trial there were a large number of spicy and disgusting letters read which were written by IRA HAMMOND and the dead girl, the like of which were never heard before, especially in regard to their illicit relations. Judge Towner said it was the strangest case he had ever heard. Public sentiment in this county was divided as to the guilt of young HAMMOND, as he was younger than the girl and his attorneys always claimed that he was but putty in the girl's hands, and it was shown by his letters he was urging the girl to marry him all the time, but she wanted to wait until he became of age, being only 20 years old at the time of her death. At Mt. Ayr, public sentiment seemed largely to favor HAMMOND's acquittal. It is said the jury stood l0 to 2 for acquittal on the first ballot and on the third ballot, all voted for acquittal. There is still a case pending against HAMMOND's mother, MRS. ANNA HAMMOND, who was also indicted as an accessory, being under $4,000 bonds, but it is likely this case will be dismissed at the next term of court. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Lamoni Chronicle Lamoni, Decatur County, Iowa April 20, 1905 DR. CROFFORD GIVEN SENTENCE TWELVE YEARS IN PENITENTIARY - APPEAL BOND FILED - CASE GOES TO SUPREME COURT. Dr. CROFFORD was sentenced to twelve years in the penitentiary by Judge EVANS at Osceola, Monday. The case of Mr. CROFFORD, as is well known, has been twice tried, the first trial having been at Leon in 1901. He was at the first trial given a sentence of thirteen years. The case was appealed and reversed for a rehearing. Dr. CROFFORD again appeals to the supreme court. The Register and Leader of Tuesday, in speaking of the case, says: OSCEOLA, IOWA, April 17 - Dr. CROFFORD, convicted at the recent trail in this place of murder in the second degree for causing the death of Maud STONE through a criminal operation at his sanitarium in Lamoni, was today sentenced by Judge EVANS to a term of twelve years in the penitentiary. The sentence came after a motion for a new trial, presented by the attorneys for Dr. CROFFORD, had been overruled by the court. CROFFORD heard his sentence without comment and apparently unmoved. An appeal bond for $12,500 was at once filed, signed by the men who have already given bail for Dr. CROFFORD, and he has returned to his home in Lamoni, pending the decision of the supreme court upon his case. The defense bases its appeal upon the admission of the two letters which have already played so important a part in the case. The attorneys for the defense contend that the letter from Maud STONE to Ira HAMMOND, in which she mentions her plans for such an operation, is not material as evidence, on the ground that Maud STONE, not being liable to prosecution in the case, could not be regarded as a coconspirator, and hence that her letter should not be allowed upon the court records. Judge EVANS, on the other hand, has ruled that the letter is admissible in order to show the intimacy which existed between the dead girl and HAMMOND. Copied by Nancee (McMurtrey) Siefert December 24, 2002 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Osceola Democrat Osceola, Clarke Co. Iowa February 20, 1908 Pardon Denied. The Iowa Board of Pardons refused to grant the petition for pardon in the case of Dr. J.W. Crofford, sent to the penitentiary from Clarke county. Dr. Crofford was a doctor at Lamoni in Decatur county, and was sent up for a criminal operation upon Maude Stone from the effects of which she died. The petition for pardon was circulated in Clarke and Decatur counties by Mrs. Croford, the wife of the prisoner, and was very numerously signed, but the Pardon Board thought it best to let the sentence of the court take its course. Dr. Crofford was sent for twelve years. Transcription by Sharon R. Becker, April of 2015 ~ ~ ~ ~ The Lamoni Chronicle Lamoni, Decatur County, Iowa December 23, 1909 Asks Board of Parole to Reconsider Case. Governor CARROLL this morning turned down the recommendation of the state parole that he pardon Dr. J. W. CROFFORD of Decatur county, now serving a twelve year sentence in Ft. Madison for murder in the first degree. The governor returned the application to the board, stating that he cannot take final action in the case until the board has an opportunity to review the case in the light of the new evidence given against Dr. Artemus BROWN, who made sensational statements entirely exonerating Dr. CROFFORD and charging that the girl in the case performed the fatal operation upon herself. After the board of parole had sent the case to Governor CARROLL with a recommendation that he pardon Dr. CROFFORD, friends of the dead girl entered a protest against the pardon and asked to be heard. The board made the recommendation on the testimony of Dr. Artemus BROWN, who is a sworn statement declared that the girl visited his office before going to the sanitarium of Dr. CROFFORD, in January, and that she had said she had performed the operations on herself. He also told the board that it was this operation that killed her. On this statement the board recommended the pardon. When the hearing was held before Governor CARROLL, witnesses impeached the testimony of Dr. BROWN to such an extent that Governor CARROLL did not feel justified in accepting the recommendation of the state board of parole, and consequently he returns the case to the board to be re-examined by them in the light of the impeachment of the testimony of Dr. BROWN. Governor CARROLL in his letter of transmittal says that the friends of the girl are open to criticism fro not giving their testimony at the first hearing of the case instead of waiting until they thought that Dr. CROFFORD was to be pardoned. - Des Moines Capital, Dec. 17 Copied by Stacey McDowell Dietiker June 23, 2003 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Criminal and Court Cases and Legal History *** Decatur County IAGenWeb |