Out of the Box

Petersburg Chancery Digital Project Now Complete

Bari — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:42:33 +0000

The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce the completion of the Petersburg chancery causes digital project. The scanning project was funded by the Circuit Court Records Preservation Program along with a $155,071 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The collection has been digitized from 1787 through 1912 and the images added to the Chancery Records Index. The most recently added suits cover the years 1889-1912.

The following are a few suits of interest found in the newly added Petersburg chancery digital images.

In chancery cause 1907-055, George E. Fisher, for, etc. vs. Virginia Passenger & Power Company, etc., the plaintiffs ask the court to take over the floundering Virginia Passenger & Power Company in order to protect their financial stake in the business. The suit contains numerous exhibits including plats (images 616, 2030, 2032), minutes from board of directors’ and stockholders’ meetings (images 1878 and 1673). In 1908-034, John F. Crowder, etc. vs. Eli Tartt, etc., the suit stems from the unhappiness of the First Baptist (Colored) Church members with their pastor Eli Tartt. The plaintiffs wanted the court to remove Tartt as pastor of the church and their bill of complaint gives an account of a church meeting that became so uncontrollable that local police had to be called in to restore order (image 7). Crowder, the custodian of the church records, also accused Tartt of breaking open an iron safe in order to steal the records of the church (image 10). The church constitution was used as an exhibit in the suit (image 18). Chancery cause 1911-025, Frank Roberts vs. Emma Grace Roberts, is a scandalous divorce case in which plaintiff Frank Roberts claimed that his wife was impregnated by a person other than him. A letter from Mrs. Roberts’ paramour, living in Idaho at the time, was referred to in a deposition (image 19) and used as an exhibit (image 21).

[View with PicLens]

The Petersburg (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1787–1912, are a nationally significant archival collection. The collection consists of approximately 270,000 leaves and 3,900 individual cases. The records illuminate the lives of numerous under-documented populations through a host of primary sources such as depositions, bills of complaint, affidavits, wills, business records, correspondence, and photographs. These records are particularly significant to historians in three ways: they enable historians to study industrial and economic development in an urban area, and the extent to which such cities provided opportunities for upward mobility, especially to minorities, in the eighteenth century; they document the lives of free African Americans in the city with the largest population of freedmen in the Mid-Atlantic states prior to 1860; and they contribute significantly to existing and future scholarship in the humanities, especially in the areas of African American, women’s, and legal history, but also with great potential in the areas of labor, immigrant, economic, and social history.

-Sherri Bagley, Local Records Archivist

Latest Issue of Broadside is Now Available

Roger — Fri, 11 May 2012 13:39:07 +0000

The spring 2012 issue of Broadside, the Library of Virginia’s quarterly magazine, is now available. Discover fascinating items from the collections as well as events, exhibitions, educational programs, and opportunities to become more involved. The current issue includes an article by Jessica Tyree describing how her September 2011 blog post, New Friends in Wartime, An Ocean Apart, reunited a Library donor to the son of her World War II-era pen pal in England.

Click here to subscribe to Broadside or view past issues.

A Horse in the Frederick Co. Courthouse

Bari — Wed, 02 May 2012 13:00:59 +0000

All eyes in the horse world may be directed towards Churchill Downs this week for this year’s Kentucky Derby, but Kentucky isn’t the only state with a rich horse history. Horses have played an important role in Virginia history ever since the first horse arrived in Jamestown. Secretariat, the 1973 Triple Crown winner and arguably the greatest horse to ever race, was born on Meadow Farm in Doswell, Virginia. Genuine Risk, one of only three fillies to win the Kentucky Derby, called Virginia home. Robert E. Lee rode the well-known Traveller into battle. And, Misty of Chincoteague is one of the most beloved horses in children’s literature.

Here in Local Records the horses we find aren’t always as famous or majestic. Horses are left in wills and deeds, argued over to settle debts, objects of theft in criminal cases, and even causes of death in coroners’ inquisitions. Two instances of horses being caught up in matters of debt were found in the Fredrick County Judgments and Frederick County Chancery Causes. The judgment, Colmes vs. Ford, 1858, contains a broadside advertising the stud services of Young Dread, a “celebrated young Stallion” said to be the “noblest specimen of the horse kind ever known.” A beautiful blood bay in color said to have excellent movement and an exceedingly gentle temper, Young Dread, with the English blood of Eclipse, Wellington, and Durock in his pedigree, was advertised for ten dollars for the season and fifteen to insure. Farmers and others wanting to improve their breed of horses were invited to call and examine Young Dread, “the model Horse of America.” Young Dread was not the only impressive horse found in the Frederick County court records. A similar broadside for the “elegant horse” Young Jack Sopus can be found in the Frederick County Chancery Cause Admx. of Abraham Johnson vs. Nicholas W. Hancher, 1823-174SC. Compared to Young Dread, the grandson of Old Jack Sopus was a bargain standing at the moderate price of three dollars and fifty cents for the season. The owners of Young Jack Sopus found it “unnecessary to give a further pedigree, as his appearance will recommend him to all good judges.”

The pre-1866 Frederick County chancery causes are available on microfilm at the Library of Virginia; however, the post-1866 chancery causes are currently closed for processing. Please see the Chancery Records Index for a listing of the available locality chancery collections.

-Bari Helms, Local Records Archivist

Reason to Believe: Quantico and the Evacuation of Stafford County

Roger — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:00:41 +0000

On 5 October 1942, the United States District Court in Norfolk, at the request of the Navy, condemned 50,000 acres of land in Fauquier, Prince William and Stafford counties in order to enlarge the Marine base at Quantico. Two days later 650 families learned that they would have to vacate their property within 20 to 60 days! I learned of this story when I processed the records of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Development, Division of History.

In September 1942, the Virginia Conservation Commission’s Division of History and Archaeology, under the direction of Dr. Hamilton J. Eckenrode, began a war records collection program. Unable to continue the Division of History’s historical marker program because of wartime rationing, Eckenrode sought to “record the history of the Old Dominion’s war effort while the history is still fresh in the making, rather than wait until after the war when the events and details would be more obscured.” The Conservation Commission began a correspondence program in which a non-salaried correspondent from each locality sent reports about local war activities and local effects of and reactions to the war.

[View with PicLens]

In March 1943, Mrs. Mary B. Thompson of Stafford County submitted to the Commission the “Story of Stafford Evacuation” by Elizabeth Russell Powers. Approximately 350 families lived in the 30,000 acres of condemned land in Stafford County. Powers described the difficulties the families faced moving: locating a new home, packing belongings, a shortage of trucks, and muddy and washed out roads. Powers also addressed the “fine spirit” of the people forced to leave their homes. Their spirit “has suffered, and they feel for good and sufficient reasons” - the short moving time fram, lack of assistance from the Marine Corps, and lack of payment by the United States government for their property. “Though I sympathize with the men and women who feel they have been unfairly treated,” Powers concluded, “I believe they will live to realize an economic and social benefit.” A contemporary newspaper account seem to support Powers’ assertion. A story in the 8 October 1942 issue of the Washington Post quoted Robert Guy, a life-long resident of Stafford: “We’re blessed here,” he told his sister. “Why shucks, over across the water, they’re killing men and women and little children every day and bombing their homes. All we have to do is move out. We’ll still have our families.”

While families were forced to move on short notice, they did not receive payment for their land for months and in some cases years. The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported on 29 October 1943 that title to only a third of the condemned land had been deeded to the United States government. For those owners still awaiting payment, Fauquier, Prince William and Stafford counties added insult to injury: the owners had to pay property tax on land that they no longer possessed. A.B. Cloe, deputy treasurer of Stafford County, explained that while the Navy took possession of all properties by December 1942, the property taxes were only shifted to the purchaser when legal title had been transferred and recorded in the county clerk’s office. “When the government took over the land last year [1942],” Cloe said, “I don’t know of a single person who minded paying up taxes through December, even though many had to get out of their homes a month before the end of the year. However, it is hard for them to understand why they must pay this year’s taxes [1943] when the government has had possession, and use of their land.” By 1944, the Navy had title to nearly 70% of the condemned land. In 1945 the United States government surplused some property obtained for military use during the war – but they kept the 50,000 acres for Quantico.

The records of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Development, Division of History is open for research at the Library of Virginia.

-Roger Christman, Senior State Records Archivist

Dear Uncle…

Bari — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:34:50 +0000

This year marks the 200^th anniversary of the War of 1812. A conflict associated with the War of 1812 was the Creek War, fought mainly in Alabama which at the time was part of the Mississippi Territory. Recently, I came across a letter dated 9 April 1814 used as an exhibit in Lynchburg Chancery Cause 1815-002, Peter Detto vs. Heirs of Caleb Tait, etc. It referenced the last and most famous battle of the Creek War, the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, fought only a couple of weeks before the letter was written. Waddy Tate, a recent Virginia emigrant to the Mississippi Territory, wrote the letter to his uncle Caleb Tate to clarify a misunderstanding concerning a deed to a lot of land in Lynchburg that was the source of the dispute in the chancery cause. Caleb believed his nephew had recorded the deed but Waddy informed his uncle that he had not because “our Judicial proceedings were all for a time suspended” because of the “Indian War.” But now that the “brave Genl. [Andrew] Jackson” had arrived, the courts were back in session and he would be sure to record the deed soon. Waddy concluded his letter by describing in a florid style General Andrew Jackson’s victory over the Creeks at Horseshoe Bend:

“General Jackson on the 27^th last month attacked one [of] the strongest fortifications in the Indian Nation. He attempted to batter down their barrackcading [sic] with his cannon but it proved invulnerable. He was compelled to resort to the desperate means of storming the fort. His success is without a parallel. Loss on the part of the Enemy in killed 750. Prisoners women & children only. From 3 to 400. Our loss whites 15 killed Cherokees & friendly Creeks 25. Making in all killed on our part 40. Wounded 106.”

[View with PicLens]

Transcript Creek War letter

For more on the War of 1812 check out the Library of Virginia’s War of 1812 Bicentennial Digital Collection on Virginia Memory. City of Lynchburg chancery records are currently only available for research in their original form at the Library of Virginia. Because of reductions to the Library of Virginia’s budget in recent years, the pace of the agency’s digital chancery projects will necessarily proceed more slowly. Please know these projects remain a very high priority for the agency and it is hoped that the initiative can be resumed in full when the economy and the agency’s budget situation improve. Please see the Chancery Records Index for a listing of the available locality chancery collections.

-Greg Crawford, Local Records Coordinator

We Remember: Virginia Tech Five Years Later

Roger — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:44:43 +0000

Five years ago, Seung Hui Cho killed 32 people and injured at least 17 others before turning the gun on himself. The 16 April 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech is the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in United States history. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, I created a web archive collection, Tragedy at Virginia Tech, in order to capture the Commonwealth’s “on-line” response. Included in the collection are the websites of Virginia Tech, the Office of the Governor, and the Virginia Tech Review Panel. I remember creating the collection because of the “historic” nature of the shooting. I confess that I initially viewed that day’s events with the emotional detachment of an archivist/historian. But what made it “historic?” The number of people killed? The 32 people who died that day are not numbers – they had names, families, hopes and dreams – a future. The biographies captured in the Tragedy at Virginia Tech collection quickly shattered my impassiveness. What I saw as “historic” in 2007 is an ever present tragedy for the families who lost their loved ones. It is a wound that time cannot heal.

I was reminded of this when I began processing the e-mail records of Governor Tim Kaine’s administration. The Kaine administration transferred to the Library of Virginia approximately 1.3 million e-mail messages from 215 staff members. Included are numerous Virginia Tech-related records including but not limited to the creation, work, and report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel, meetings between Kaine Administration officials and family members both pre- and post-settlement, settlement discussions and agreements, and implementation of the settlement. The e-mail from family members to Larry Roberts, Counselor to the Governor, and Governor Kaine reflect their anger, grief, and search for answers.

Records pertaining to the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shooting will not be opened until final resolution of all litigation relating to the incident. Some of these records may be kept confidential for longer in order to comply with the terms of the settlement agreements the Commonwealth accepted. What the Library can release are the 16 April 2007 e-mail messages from the boxes of William H. Leighty, Governor Kaine’s Chief of Staff, and John Marshall, Kaine’s Secretary of Public Safety. These records tell the story of that day in real-time through the e-mail they sent and received. This is not a comprehensive history; it does not include telephone calls, etc. It is just an outline. [Note: a few images can only be read by clicking on "view full size" and then using the "zoom" feature.]

[View with PicLens]

The Library expects to release e-mail from the Kaine administration in several phases by office or secretariat as soon as the Library’s archival staff has finished processing the material per Code of Virginia § 2.2-126 and § 42.1-78. Some records may still remain closed based on other provisions of the Code, such as the Virginia Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act and the Virginia Health Records Privacy Act

-Roger Christman, Senior State Records Archivist

Author’s Note: This post would not be possible without the efforts of my colleague and friend Kathy Jordan. Kathy, the Library’s Digital Initiatives and Web Services Manager, developed the workflows and procedures the Library will use to make the Kaine administration e-mail (and attachments) publicly accessible through Digitool, the Library of Virginia’s digital asset manager. Once in Digitool, the Kaine administration e-mail will be keyword searchable.

A troubled slave makes his escape

Jessica — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:00:46 +0000

In the fall of 1805, John Alcock, a Fredericksburg, Virginia, cabinetmaker, relocated to Richmond and opened a cabinetmaking shop. By 1807 he had expanded his business to include the making of Windsor chairs. In that same year, Alcock purchased James Harris, a “mulatto” chair painter, from Alexander Walker, also a Fredericksburg cabinetmaker, for $450. Alcock would later attest that Harris was agreeable to the sale because he could be nearer his mother, who lived in Richmond and from whom he had been separated at some previous time.

Very soon Alcock became dissatisfied with Harris’ work and described him as “idle,” a “thief,” and a “drunkard.” By 1808 the situation had worsened, and Alcock, who had business in Georgia, took Harris with him in the hopes of selling him. Unable to accomplish a sale in Georgia, Alcock sold Harris in Charleston for $375. He claimed he spent $90 to $100 in trying to sell Harris. Alcock, believing Alexander Walker had knowingly deceived him, demanded restitution. In an attempt to get to the truth, depositions were taken from the men who worked for Alcock and Walker. The information from the depositions, part of Henrico County Chancery Cause 1811-001, John Alcock vs. John Brockenbrough, provide a detailed description of Walker’s shop, who worked there, and Harris’ role in the shop.

James Harris, born circa 1790, had been a house slave in the home of Alexander Walker. About 1801 he was transferred to the cabinet shop, where he worked for three or four weeks as a “waiter whose business was to bring water, warm glue, and such like small avocations.” Harris was then transferred to the chair shop. Both occupations were done in the same house, “in rooms separated only by a partition which was perforated with numerous holes.” Until 1805, James Harris was placed under the supervision of James Beck, cabinetmaker, to learn the trade of a chair painter. From 1805 to 1807 Harris was under the supervision of George Stubblefield, chair maker. Stubblefield stated that Harris did his painting upstairs. While there are two Mutual Assurance Society policies for Alexander Walker showing a one-story, 40 x 40 cabinet shop, only a third policy for 1807 shows a two-story building described as a chair shop.

While Beck, Stubblefield, and other deponents described Harris as a good chair painter, they did concede that his proclivity for alcohol decreased his effectiveness. The depositions also described an altercation or “rumpass” between Harris and Lemuel Doggett, a white apprentice. During the altercation Harris grabbed Doggett with one hand while holding a “painter’s knife” in the other. The deposition of John Mills, who worked in Walker’s shop, explains that a “painter’s knife” could be made of steel or wood. A wooden painter’s knife was used to remove paint from the paint stone where pigments were ground. As Harris was seated at the paint stone before the altercation, the knife was presumably made of wood.

After he was sold in Charleston, what became of James Harris? From the craftsman files at the Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, comes the answer. Robert Walker, Charleston cabinetmaker, placed the following notice in the 11 April 1810 issue of the Charleston Times:

Five Dollars reward.

RANAWAY this morning, a Mulatto Fellow, named

JAMES;

About 23 or 25 years of age, 5 feet 3 or 4 inches high, bushy hair; bought two years ago from Mr. John Alcock, Richmond,Virginia. It is presumed he will endeavor to get off in a vessel to the Northward, or perhaps to Savannah, where he came from last. All persons are cautioned from harboring or carrying off said fellow, as the law will be rigidly enforced.

Robert Walker

The appraisal of Robert Walker’s estate lists no slave by the name of James, and it is not clear if Harris’ escape was successful, if he was apprehended, or what became of him. The chancery case does provide a rare opportunity to see the operation of an early 19th-century Virginia cabinetmaking shop and the men, both black and white, who worked there.

[View with PicLens]

Henrico County Chancery Case 1811-01, Alcock vs. Brockenbrough, is open for research at the Library of Virginia.

-Chris Kolbe, Archives Reference Coordinator

Titanic: 100 Years Later

Roger — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:35:34 +0000

Are you ready for a sneak preview of Titanic !

No, not the 3-D version of the 1997 mega-hit movie, Titanic, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, but the viewing of a stunning array of newspaper images taken from Chronicling America, a featured online resource of the National Digital Newspaper Program, a cooperative initiative to digitize historical newspapers from around the United States. No special effects are needed to be drawn in and riveted by the press coverage of one of the greatest peacetime maritime disasters.

15 April 2012 marks the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. The mighty White Star Liner on its maiden voyage hit an iceberg and within a few hours sunk to the bottom of the cold North Atlantic Ocean, killing over 1,800 men, women, children, and crew members.

Stories of bravery, sacrifice, cowardice, and tragic negligence fill column after column of papers beginning with the late editions of 15 April 1912 and for many days following. Early dispatches were filled with conflicting information, rumor, and wild conjecture, but over time the sad facts revealed the tragic scope of the disaster.

[View with PicLens]

The pages you see here will be added to the Virginia Newspaper Project’s long-standing web exhibit, Titanic: 100 Years Later, a web exhibit, believe it or not, that predates the release of the movie Titanic in 1997 and even the birthday of Google. So we’re happy to update the site with a selection of images that show how newspapers communicated to readers through a canny combination of dry news, sensational story telling, and eye-grabbing imagery that the mass reading public had come to expect from the ever evolving and burgeoning newspaper industry.

And while you’re at it, please check out Fit to Print, the Virginia Newspaper Project’s brand new blog. Right now we’re featuring posts about the infamous Floyd Allen clan and the posts serve as a perfect complement to the work you’ll find here at Out of the Box. In the coming days, Fit to Print will provide additional coverage of the sinking of the unsinkable Titanic!

-Errol Somay, Newspaper Project Director

April Fool!

Bari — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:05:52 +0000

Mary E. Neff opened an envelope to find a defaced photograph of her estranged husband, William E. Neff, with an eye gouged out, an ear scratched off, a rodent scrawled on his forehead, and a button attached to his ear dangling from a piece of string. The couple were in the midst of a divorce, and Mary, assuming that William had sent it, wrote to him that the purpose of the photo “is dark and mysterious to me, and I am at a loss to know the meaning, whether it is jest, insult, ridicule, or what.”

William E. Neff and Mary E. Munsey were married on 13 April 1899 and lived together as man and wife for a mere four months. By 1902, William was seeking a divorce on grounds of desertion, but it was unclear who deserted whom. William claimed that Mary refused to return home with him after a visit to her parents’ home on the evening of 13 August 1899. Mary argued that William would not agree to treat her right and just up and abandoned her.

In an attempt to make some sense out of their accusations neighbors and family members were deposed. Mary was accused of shouting that she “did not intend to raise any kids by the baldhead scoundrel” as she strode about a neighbor’s house brandishing a yardstick. Mary also fired a double barrel shotgun outside of her husband’s home because, as a family member described it, “she was mad and mean.” William faced his own share of violent accusations. Mary accused him of “slapping her jaws,” and a second cousin was questioned about William killing a dog in a potato patch. William’s attorney objected to that particular line of questioning claiming that “the killing of a dog in a potato patch is not made an issue in the pleadings, nor is there any evidence that Mr. Neff ever at any time or at any place killed a dog in a potato patch, bean patch, front yard, or anywhere else.”

[View with PicLens]

In November 1902, William made what appeared to be attempts to reconcile with his wife. However, Mary suspected that he was actually building evidence to support his case by sending her a series of letters backing up the idea that she was the one doing the deserting. In a letter dated 27 November 1902, William lamented that “you are the only woman I love, and that love for you has become a part of my very nature.” Mary became even more suspicious of his overtures when the mutilated photograph arrived. William claimed to have no knowledge of the photograph or its sender. Ultimately the two couldn’t come to terms and a divorce was granted to them in 1904 with Mary receiving a temporary alimony of $100.

The chancery cause, William E. Neff vs. Mary E. Neff, 1904, is part of the Lee County Chancery Collection and is currently closed for processing.

-Bari Helms, Local Records Archivist

“This is a bad fix I am in…”

Bari — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:29:46 +0000

Three Highland County Commonwealth Causes (Barcode 0007281802) reveal a tangled web of conspiracy, murder, and secret affairs. The cast of players includes Elizabeth Sheridan, wife of the deceased; Mary Ann Wily, Elizabeth’s daughter from a previous marriage; Sam, a slave; and Ellen, a slave and Sam’s wife. Commonwealth vs. Sam (slave), 1856 August; Commonwealth vs. Ellen (slave), 1856 August; and Commonwealth vs. Elizabeth Sheridan and Mary Ann Wily, 1856 November concern the murder of Mr. Francis W. Sheridan by Sam, a slave hired by Sheridan from William Wilson. Sam’s wife, Ellen, was also charged with being “concerned in the murder,” while Elizabeth Sheridan and her daughter Mary Ann Wily were charged as accessories. The cases contain assorted court documents including depositions and statements from various neighbors and acquaintances of the accused and the murder victim.

A document entitled “Evidence in Support of Prosecution” offers a wealth of information. Notes from the coroner’s inquest give revealing physical facts about Francis Sheridan. He was described as a small man about the age of 21 or 22 years whose body displayed visible signs of trauma due to strangulation. The report reveals that the body was found lying face down in a drain twenty or thirty feet away from the public road and gives a detailed forensic account of Sheridan’s bedroom, where the murder actually took place.

Francis Sheridan was noted around town for getting drunk and becoming quite belligerent, making verbal threats to kill his wife and step-daughter with a “pistol and a gun.” He often lamented the fact that he had gotten married and said his married life had been the worst six months of his life. Statements also suggest that Sheridan was not the most honest businessman in town. Several people felt they were treated unfairly by him and had ample motive to see Sheridan leave the earth quickly and violently. There are also accounts of Mary Ann telling people in town she wished someone would kill Sheridan, stating that “she would pay to have him killed or if she was a man she would kill him herself.”

[View with PicLens]

A multitude of scenarios and implications concerning the murder abound within the records. The predominant theory was that Elizabeth Sheridan and her daughter, along with Sam’s wife, Ellen, plotted to kill Sheridan and convinced Sam to carry out the deed. There is testimony that the three ladies were witnessed having a loud, quarrelsome conversation with Sam prior to Sheridan’s death and that at one point Ellen beat Sam with her fist and Mary Ann “cracked her fist together” toward Sam. Sam was supposedly madly in love with Elizabeth and desirous that no harm would come to her or her children, especially Mary Ann. Sam is quoted as saying that he loved Mrs. Sheridan “more than any woman on the face of the earth – that he would do more for her, risk his life further, than for anyone else – that he had been sleeping with her for more than twelve months whenever he pleased, that she was to continue to hire his wife [Ellen] as long as she was for hire and he was to continue to sleep with her [Mrs. Sheridan] whenever he pleased.”

While the true nature of the personal relationship between Elizabeth Sheridan and Sam remains unclear, Sam acknowledged that he was in a “bad fix.” He confessed his guilt to the justice of the peace, claiming that he had been promised a hundred dollars from both Mrs. Sheridan and Mary Ann if he committed the murder. Sam claimed that Francis Sheridan was drunk on the day of his death and that he, Sam, was “drinking himself or he could not have done the deed.” Sam claimed to love the man as well as if he had been his own brother and “if he had opened his eyes he could not have killed him.”

Other theories tried to pass off the murder as a suicide. Sheridan was noted as being “smartly intoxicated” on the day of his death and Elizabeth and Mary Ann started telling people that Francis may have wanted to commit suicide because he appeared to be in a bad state. Mrs. Sheridan stated that when he came home that morning “if she had been standing up she would have sunk down, his looks was so dark and terrible.”

Ultimately, Sam was found guilty of the murder and sentenced to be “hanged by the neck until he be dead” and he was, on Friday, 26 September 1856. But despite Sam’s execution, the county did not stop investigating the murder of Francis Sheridan. The investigation continued through November 1856 with the prosecution of Elizabeth Sheridan and Mary Ann Wily as accessories to murder. The lone document in the case states it is seeking costs incurred by the prosecution in the pursuit of the charges and lists witnesses and monies paid to them by the county. As there are no other documents concerning this particular court action, we will never know if Sam acted alone or if he was just a tool wielded by Mrs. Sheridan in an attempt to rid herself of an unwanted husband.

-Joanne Porter, Local Records Archivist and Bari Helms, Local Records Archivist