Abbie Summers Killed - The Coe Murder Case

THE COE MURDER CASE

THE PRISONER'S FATHER PUTS IN AN AFFIDAVIT

The State Demands a Trial-The Case Continued to February-Indignation of the Public
Our report of the Ambrose Coe murder case yesterday concluded with the adjournment of the court at two o'clock Thursday, afternoon to await the arrival of defendant's witnesses. At six in the afternoon of the same day Judge Henry took his seat, and court was formally opened. The attorneys for the State announced that they were ready and anxious for trial. The counsel for the prisoner stated that their witnesses had not arrived, and they would have to move for A CONTINUANCE, based upon the following affidavit sworn to by Samuel D. Coe, the father of the prisoner.
The undersigned being duly sworn, says, that he is the father of the defendant in this cause that said defendant (???), has been in close confinement in jail, and that affiant alone is defending the accused herein, and has had and has the entire charge of the preparation of the cause for trial on the part of said defendant, and the accused has no knowledge on the subject matter of this affidavit, and therefore the same is made by this affiant. This affiant says that the defendant herein has a good defense to the indictment herein: that he is not ready for trial at this term of this court, on account of the absence of witnesses, who are material and necessary to his defense, and that he cannot safely proceed to trial, without the testimony of said witnesses. This affiant says that George Bryant and Reuben A. Strother are, each of them, material and necessary witnesses for the defendant herein in his defense. This affiant states that he expects to prove by said witness, George Bryant, that on the day of the Friday previous to the alleged killing of Abbie Summers, as charged in the indictment herein, that he was at his brother's, W. B. Bryant, in the county of Pike and State of Missouri, on said day and there saw the defendant and observed something strange in his countenance; but only saw him for a moment. That afterwards on the day of the alleged killing, he saw the defendant in the town of Ashley, in the county of Pike aforesaid at church in said town; that during the preaching of the sermon he saw him rise on his feet, looking strange and pale, and making for the door of the church; that defendant seemed to be greatly disturbed, keeping his hand on the corner of the slips as he passed along to the door, his countenance and actions showing that he was not in his right mind; and said witness is also expected to prove that he saw the defendant a half hour before and immediately at and after the alleged killing of said Abbie Summers, and that he is expected to prove that said defendant was insane immediately before and after said alleged killing. Affiant states that said Bryant is the most important witness in this cause on the part of the defendant. This affiant states that on the 13th day of July, 1872, a subpeona was issued for said Bryant by the clerk of this court to testify on the part of said defendant, and on that day forwarded by mail to said County of Pike; that said subpeona was served by the Sheriff of Pike County, Missouri, on said Bryant on the ? day of ?, 1872; that said witness is not in attendance on this court; that said affiant is informed and believes, and so states, that said Bryant is sick at his residence in Pike County and unable to attend this court. Affiant also states that Reuben A. Strother, of the County of Pike, in the State of Missouri, is a material and important witness for the defendant in his defense; that on the 13th day of July, 1872, a subpeona was issued by the clerk of this court for said Strother to appear and testify on the part of the defendant and immediately forwarded to said county of Pike; that said subpeona was served on said Strother, on the 30th day of July, 1872, and that said Strother is not present at this court, in consequence of being sick, as affiant is informed, believes, and so states. That said Strother is expected, by this affiant to prove, he believes he will prove, that he saw the defendant on his farm, about one mile from the town of Ashley, in the county of Pike, Missouri, on the Friday before the Sunday on which the alleged killing of Miss Summers was done; that when said Strother first discovered said defendant he was sitting under a tree with a memorandum book in his hand. Witness approached him, and spoke to him. Defendant then asked him if he wanted to hire a man; that when defendant sppoke he saw that something was the matter with him; that his countenance had a strange and unnatural appearance; that his actions, countenance, and demeanor, led witness to get rid of him as soon as possible, although witness then wanted a hand to work badly. That affiant expects to prove by said Strother that defendant was then and there insane: affiant further states that no witness is in attendance or known to affiant or defendant that can prove the particular facts that the foregoiong named witnesses are expected to prove. This affiant further states that Jesse F. Betis and R.S. Orr, residents of the county of Pike, Missouri, are important and material witnesses for the defendant in his defense; that they have been duly subpeonaed to attend this trial; that they are not now in attendance on this court. Why they are absent is unknown to this affiant. Affiant further states that there are no witnesses in attendance on this court by whom the facts expected to be proved by the foregoing witnesses can be proved; that defendant cannot go safely to trial without the testimony of each and all of said witnesses; that affiant believes the attendance of said witnesses can be procurred at the next term of this court. The affiant says that since the wwriting of the above he has been advised and has ascertained the fact to be that the above named witness, George Bryant, has grown worse and is now very seriously ill and entirely unable to attend to this court. Affiant further states that no one of the said witnesses is absent by or with the consent, connivance or procurement of the defendant, nor of this affiant, nor of defendant's counsel herein, or by the want of diligence on the part of this affiant. That this continuance is not asked for vexation or delay, but that the defendant may have a fair trial. Samuel D. Coe
The attorneys for the State asked for time to examine the affidavit and the court adjourned until the following morning at 9:00 o'clock.
WHAT WAS DONE YESTERDAY, Yesterday morning upon the assembling of the court, States Attorney Hollister stated that he would object formally to the affidavit for insufficiency. His associate counsel had examined the affidavit particularly, and would make their objections at length.
MR. EWING TALKS, W.G. Ewing in a half hour's speech presented clearly and forcibly the objections of the prosecution to the statements sworn to by the prisoner's father - which briefly were as follows: 1. The affidavit does not show that any writ, commanding the witnesses to appear and testify, was issued under the seal of the court, and did not show that the subpoenas were sent to the Sheriff of Pike county or any officer authorized to serve the same. 2. The affidavit did not show that the defendant has used diligence the law requires in drocuring the attendance of witnesses; that defendant waited from the first of May until the 13th of July before calling for subpoenas, and that thiss being the fourth application for a continuance by defendant he should show the strict dilegence required by law. 3. The witnesses failing to appear on the day for which the trial was set the defendant was entitled to compulsory process. The affidavit does not state that he asked for such process. The affidiant states that four witnesses were not present, but only gives the circumstances expected to be proved by two, simply stating of the other two that they are important witnesses. So far as the evidence of the witnesses, Bryant and Stratton, is competent, it is not material. So far as such evidence is incompetent the court would take no notice of application on that account. It is pretended in the affidavit that the witness Bryant, as an expert, that he ever gave any attention to the diseases of the mind or the science of Pschycology, and he could onlly testify to the conduct and appearance of defendant, and from his personal observations give the conclusions in his own mind as to the sanity or insanity. The only opinion that the witness could give would be from his personal knowledge of the conduct and habits of defendant and it is for the court to say in order to determine whether the evidence would be material in this case whether the particular circumstances the witness will swear to will show or even tend to show that the defendant was insane. It is for the court to say whether the circumstances detailed in the affidavit as the testimony of the witness Bryant would have a tendency to lead the mind of a reasonable man to the conclusion that the defendant is insane. If not, the witness could not swear to the insanity of defendant, and his evidence is not material. In the case of the witness Strother the circumstance of his meeting the defendant with a memorandum book in his hand, and that defendant inquired if he wanted a hired man, ?? strongly to the action of sanity. If these are defendant's best witnesses as stated in the affidavit, then gentlemen, (turning to prisoner's counsel) God have mercy on your client. If the court thinks the affidavit is sufficient we will admit, in order to go to trial, that every circumstance and act of defendant as observed by the witnesses are absolutely true, and that the conduct of defendant old form in the minds of the witnesses the conclusion that defendant was insane. We will admit further that the witnesses were persons of reasonable judgment on that question. If the defendant's application is not made for delay we will make these admissions and go to trial. If the defense won't do this, to test their sincerity, we will guarantee if the defense will go into trial now that the witnesses shall be here by the opening of the court tomorrow morning, in their accustomed health, and if we do not produce them we will agree to a continuance. If the gentlemen of the defense will agree to neither of these propositions the people will understand who is responsible for the laws delay. The wheels of justice may be clogged or impeded, but they cannot be stopped. For remember "the mills of the gods grind slow, but they grind exceeding fine." All we ask is that the Court will do equal justice to all the parties, to the State as well as the defendant, as the interests involved are as important to the people as to the prisoner. The above is but the substance of Mr. Ewing's remarks. Col. McCabe followed in an argument against the affidavit, urging that it was insufficient and that the court should overrule the motion for a continuance. He urged about the same objections as those presented by Mr. Ewing, but for want of space a synopsis of his remarks are omitted. OPINION OF THE COURT, The counsel for the defense did not make any reply to the propositions of Mr. Ewing, and Judge Henry said: I can only judge of the merits of this application by the affidavit itself. As to the first point raised, the objection is made that no writ was issued under seal. The affidavit states that a subpoena was issued. If it was a subpeona, then it was under the seal of the court and issued by authority. We are bound to presume that the clerk did his duty. The second point, that the writ was not directed to the sheriff of Pike County, or any other officer authorized, to serve it, is, in the opinion of the court, obviated by the fact that the sheriff of Pike County did serve and make his return. If there had been no service, I think the objection cuold be a good one, and would overrule the motion. But the sheriff's return, although the subpeona may not have been directed to him, shows that he did receive, said duly serve it, and did make return as required by law. As to the question of diligence used, the affidavit shows that the subpoena was served on the 30th of July, and although the witnesses lived in Pike County, they lived near a railroad and had an abundance of time to reach here before the day set for trial. That service was not made sooner may not be defendant's fault. If the sheriff failed to do his duty, this defendant should not suffer by reason thereof. The next objection raised by the State, and it was argued both by Mr. Ewing and Col. McCabe, was to the relevancy of the evidence of the witnesses mentioned in the affidavit, they holding that the evidence did not tend to show insanity, and that being the defense relied upon, the evidence is immaterial. This would be a good argument to make to a jury. It is for the jury to determine whether under the circumstances detailed in the affidavit would tend to show that the defendant was insane or not. I confess that I think the circumstances very slight and while they might not have any tendency to lead my mind to the conclusion that the defendant was insane, still it is not for the court to say what impression that evidence would make upon the minds of the jury. But the affidavit states that it is expected the defendant will prove by the witnesses that at the time of the killing he was insane. Now, gentlemen for the State, if you are prepared to admit the facts as stated in the affidavit, I will force the defendant to a trial. Col. McCabe and Mr. Ewing stated that they were willing to make the admissions they had agreed to make while stating their objections to the affidavit, but of course we are not ready to admit that the defendant, at the time of the killing, was insane. The Court resumed. The admission must be as broad as the affidavit. And unless it can be so made I will have to continue this case. i don't know whether the affidavit is true or false, but whether ture or false the court is bound to consider it as true. Therefore the motion will be sustained. The case was accordingly continued to the February term, and court adjourned. INDIGNATION - The crowd who watched the proceedings and took an interest in the case, upon learning that it was postpoined for the fourth time, were indignant and expressed themselves pretty freely on the streets and about the Court House. The citizens of Palmyra and the county generally are disgusted with the long delays and successful attempts to stave off a trial. Within a few minutes after the case was disposed of the statement was made in a crowd of and respectable citizens that the only way to reach such cases was for the people to take the law into their own hands and the sentiment was endorsed by every man who heard it. Such trifling as has charcterized the case of Coe since it has been in court leads the people to believe that justice will not be done in the courts, and not unrequently creates mob law. We learn from reliable citizens, of Palmyra, that the public, owing to the frequent postponements of the case have come to the conclusion that justice is being trifled with. WHERE WERE THE WITNESSES? The impression about Palmyra is that the statement about not being able to secure witnesses was trumped up that the witnesses were kept away on purpose to secure a continuance. Responsible citizens of Ashley stated yesterday that the witnesses Bryant and Strother were both able to attend to business on Wednesday evening and that one of them made the statement that he expected to attend the trial. This information naturally excited the public and induced many to speak harshly of the court and the law that would permit a man, charged with murder, to defer his trial just as long as it pleased him. They urge that if the prisoner has a good defense, it will not hurt his case to establish it on trial now, more than two years after the commission of the crime with which he is charged, and that, if guilty, it will work him no injustice to have the case disposed of, and stop the heavy expense to the county. THE IDEA - of the defense all the time has been to prevent the case from coming to trial. They were opposed to a trial at this term, and especially before Judge Henry. After the civil docket has been disposed of, the following communication was circulated amon the bar for signatures, and afterwards presented for the purpose, as is supposed, of inducing his honor to go home, without taking up the Coe case: Hon. John M. Henry: - The undersigned members of the Palmyra Bar, beg leave to say to your honor that they recognize the net that you were invited to hold the present term of our court, in order, by the trial of cases in which Judge Redd has been of counsel to prevent the many charges of venue that would otherwise result from his election to the judgeship. Inasmuch as Judge Redd, in making the request of you to hold our present term with the view above indicated, and inasmuch as after the labors of more than a week the cases in which Judge Redd was of counsel have been dispused of, we beg leave to say that we are grateful to your honor for complying with our solicitations, and further beg leave to testify our appreciation of the promptness and distingushed ability with which your honnor has disposed of due business of the court; and further, to say that we do not consider that we have any right to tax your honor's obliging disposition in view of the heat of the weather and the near approach of your own court. July 29th, 1872, Thos. L. Anderson, II; S. Lipscomb, W. M. Boulware, R.E. Anderson., H.J. Drummond; Wm. R. Anderson; Edwin G. Pratt; R. E. Gedes; Joseph L. Hart; D.G. Davenport, John W. Boulware. Mr. Drummond in writing his name wrote the following explainitory note after his signature: "It not construed into an intiuation that we do not want Judge Henry's services any longer." Judge Henry looked upon the letter as a movement, coming from prisoner's at ??, to get him off the bench, and he, therefore, remained, called the case, and was prepared to try it, the parties were ready. The responsibility of the delay will be placed by the public upon the defendant.
Found in The Quincy Herald Whig, August 3, 1872, page 4.