Part fiction, part family history, the movie Lawless tells the story of the Franklin County bootleggers, but what about the automobiles used to run their moonshine? Their stories can be found at the Library of Virginia in the Franklin County Determined Papers and Franklin County Common Law Papers. Automobiles used by bootleggers were seized by law officers when bootleggers were arrested and reported to the local Commonwealth’s Attorney who would file a criminal charge in the name of the Commonwealth against the automobile, e.g., “Commonwealth vs. REO Roadster Automobile.” These documents record the date of seizure, type and make of automobile, license number, engine number, and reason for seizure. The automobile would then be condemned and sold at an auction at the courthouse. Given the extent of bootlegging in Franklin County, the front of the courthouse may have looked like a used car lot at times.

If anyone protested against the condemnation and sale, they would be made a party defendant with the automobile to give a valid reason why it should not take place. The party defendants generally were the credit companies and banks who assisted the alleged bootleggers with financing the purchases of the automobiles. They made it clear in their responses to the court that they were ignorant of the fact that the purchasers intended to use the vehicles for illegal purposes. Therefore, the credit companies and banks asked the court to return the automobiles to them rather than sell them at auction.

The sales contract between the alleged bootlegger and the finance company or car dealer was commonly filed with the party defendant’s petition to the court. It recorded whether the automobile was new or used; year, make, type, and model number or letter; motor number; price of automobile; payment schedule; names and addresses of dealership and purchaser. Based on a sampling of the suits, the alleged bootleggers generally purchased their automobiles outside Franklin County and in some instances outside the Commonwealth.

The Prohibition-era Franklin County Determined Papers and Common Law Papers are unprocessed but available for research in the Local Records Collection at the Library of Virginia. For more information on Prohibition in Virginia, see the Virginia Prohibition Commission Records, 1916-1934, found in the State Records Collection at the Library of Virginia.

-Greg Crawford, Local Records Coordinator

On the night of 4 August 1882, James M. Duesbury heard pistol shots coming from the nearby home of Christopher Goode and ran to see what the matter was. Goode, a resident of Richmond, Virginia, lived at 709 West Marshall behind what is now the Siegel Center near Virginia Commonwealth University. When Duesbury arrived at the home, Goode stated “I have shot a man; here he is lying down on the floor.” When Duesbury asked why he shot him, he answered, “I caught him on top of my wife.” Policeman Lewis Frayser arrived at the scene and found Winston Robinson “lying on the floor with his pants and drawers down to his knees”  and met Mahala Goode, the wife, in a dress that was “very much disarranged” and “bleeding very freely” from the gunshot wounds she accidentally received during the altercation.

In his testimony to police, Christopher Goode stated, “My God Master, I couldn’t help it to save my life, I shot him and couldn’t help it.”  Mr. Goode further elaborated, explaining that he had been “under the porch and heard them hugging and kissing” and heard his wife invite Robinson upstairs, but Robinson declined saying he “didn’t care about going upstairs” because “if the old man came there would be a fight and one or the other would be killed.”  When Goode heard them get up and go into the parlor, “he took his shoes off and raised the basement window and crept very lightly up the steps and found the lamp turned down very low.”  He turned the light on and discovered his wife and Robinson on the floor and that is when he began firing. Robinson and Mahala both jumped up and advanced towards Goode, who continued to fire. Robinson seized Goode around the neck. Goode fired again, this time hitting his target.

Richmond’s The Daily Dispatch reported the story on 6 August 1882, referring to it as “The Colored Shooting Affair” and describing Christopher Goode as a “quiet, inoffensive man.” We never learn the rest of the story from either newspaper accounts or the 5 August 1882 Richmond (City) Coroner’s Inquisition.  All we know is that the inquisition concluded that Winston Robinson came to his death from the “effect of a pistol shot wound inflicted by Christopher Goode because of criminal relations between him and the said Goode’s wife and they [the jurors] are of the opinion that the killing was eminently proper.”

-Mary Dean Carter, Local Records Archival Assistant

“The 1930s was a tough decade, one made even tougher by Prohibition. During this lawless time in American history, a group of criminals called the Tri-State Gang emerged from Philadelphia and spread their operations south, through Baltimore to Richmond, wreaking bloody havoc and brutally eliminating those who knew too much about their heists. Once termed the “Dillingers of the East,” Robert Mais and Walter Legenza led their men and molls on a violent journey of robberies, murders, and escapes up and down the East Coast.”

Richardson, a former archivist at the Library of Virginia, will recount the story of this whirlwind of crime and how it finally reached its climax in Richmond. The talk, part of the “Books on Broad” series, is free. Light refreshments (wine and cheese) will be served (5:30­–6:15 pm), followed by author talk (6:15­–7:15 pm), and book signing (7:15­–7:30 pm).  His book can be purchased through The Virginia Shop at the Library of Virginia.

Selden made extensive use of the records at the Library of Virginia. The gallery accompanying this post consists of some examples from our local, state, and newspaper collections.

12►

Roger Christman, Senior State Records Archivist

In the years following the Civil War, the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands (commonly referred to as simply the Freedmen’s Bureau) provided assistance to former slaves still living in the South, helping them transition from a society based on slavery to one allowing freedom. Established as part of the War Department by an act of Congress on 3 March 1865, the Freedmen’s Bureau, operational until 1872, helped introduce a system of free labor, provided food and clothing, helped locate families and legalize marriages, promoted education, supervised labor contracts, and provided legal representation.

One of the Bureau’s most important roles was to help safeguard the rights of African Americans and ensure they received justice from the court system. Following the Civil War, several southern states, including Virginia, enacted a series of laws commonly known as “black codes” that restricted the rights and legal status of freedmen. African Americans were often given harsh sentences for petty crimes and were sometimes unable to get their cases heard in the state courts. In September 1865, Freedmen’s Bureau courts were established to adjudicate cases involving freedmen. By February 1866, Virginia had amended her laws and the Bureau courts were discontinued by May of that same year, but because of the failure of many local court officials to administer equal justice, the Bureau courts were reestablished in certain areas of the state.

One instance of the Freedmen’s Bureau interceding to ensure the legal rights of African Americans happened in the Highland County criminal courts. In November 1865, Stephen J. Reynolds accused Alexander McCray, an African American, of feloniously stealing and carrying away his bay horse valued at seventy-five dollars. Alexander McCray successfully postponed his trial until January 1866 by claiming that he had already been tried and acquitted in Staunton before a military court for the crime he now stood accused of again. McCray claimed that he could not safely go to trial without the benefit of a statement from the military court. In January 1866, Lieutenant Colonel Cecil Clay, then stationed in Staunton, wrote a letter stating that McCray had been tried for the alleged offense and further claimed that the horse was proven to be the property of the U.S. government. Clay went on to write that “at the time of trial, civil authority was yet unrestored” and that the provost court was “competent to decide all cases in which the U.S. Government or its soldiers were parties or a party.”

To further ensure that McCray was not tried for his alleged crime a second time, the Freedmen’s Bureau sent a letter by command of Major General A. H. Terry, then Assistant Commissioner for the Bureau in Virginia, on 14 February 1866. The Bureau wrote to James M. Sieg, prosecuting attorney for Highland County, and ordered that all further action in the criminal prosecution against McCray be suspended until further orders were received from the Freedmen’s Bureau. It is unclear why Stephen J. Reynolds was convinced the horse was his property or why the case was brought against McCray for a second time. And, it is also unknown exactly how the Freedmen’s Bureau became aware of McCray’s plight, but they did and the Bureau ensured that the legal rights of this African American were upheld.

The Highland County (Va.) Commonwealth Causes, 1852-1867, are open for research and available at the Library of Virginia. Other Freedmen’s Bureau records can be found at the Library of Virginia in the Free Negro and Slave Records, Court Records, and Cohabitation Registers of various localities.

-Bari Helms, Local Records Archivist

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.”  

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

On the morning of 14 March 1885, Lysander Rose, caretaker of the Old Reservoir in Richmond, went about his normal duties, but this morning would not be a typical one for Rose. As he approached the reservoir, Rose found what appeared to be a piece of broken shoe string, a woman’s red glove, and what he described as signs of a “desperate struggle.” When he peered over into the water, Rose saw “floating near the top the flounce or something of a woman’s dress and one leg jutting up.” After the coroner arrived, the muddy body of a young woman was lifted from the water. A cursory examination revealed that she had slight bruising on her face, a swollen mouth, and a rent in her gown at the elbow. Later, it would be discovered that she was also eight months pregnant. Several days and several false identifications passed before the body was finally identified as that of Fannie Lillian Madison.

At the time of her death, Lillian Madison, as she was commonly called by friends and family, was 23 years old, pregnant, and unmarried. Lillian had checked into the Exchange Hotel in Richmond under the name Fannie Merton mere days before her body was discovered. Lillian’s pregnancy (without the prospect of a husband) supported the coroner’s initial ruling of suicide, but as more evidence began to surface, the coroner was overruled and the cause of Lillian’s death was ruled a murder.

Within days of the body’s identification, Lillian’s cousin Thomas Judson Cluverius was arrested for the murder. Although they were cousins, Lillian Madison and Thomas Cluverius had very little in common. Lillian had a complicated past – she was estranged from her parents and had a history of scandal. Cluverius, however, was the poster child of middle-class normalcy – he was white, well educated, and well regarded in his community. Lillian grew up on her parents’ small farm in King William County. In October 1884, soon after learning she was pregnant, Lillian left for Bath County where she served as a teacher and governess. Thomas Cluverius, born in King William County, received a law degree from Richmond College and was practicing law in both King and Queen and King William Counties. Before his arrest, Cluverius was considered an upstanding citizen, but once the trial began, it was unclear if he was an innocent victim or a nefarious seducer and murderer.

It was soon discovered that Thomas Cluverius had also been in Richmond on 13 March 1885, and the case against Cluverius began to build when a young Richmond boy found a watch key caught on the fence leading to the reservoir. (Cluverius had been arrested wearing his watch and a chain but without a key.) The trial started on 5 May and would last until 4 June 1885. Two of the most damaging eyewitness accounts to Cluverius’s case were given by members of the community whose opinions and accounts would have been little regarded during the nineteenth century – a prostitute and an African American.

Mary Curtis testified that Cluverius had visited her at a “house of bad repute” where she was working as a prostitute and claimed to have seen the couple together in a bedroom located in the back of a Richmond cigar store. While she was able to identify Cluverius by sight, Curtis could only describe Lillian as being heavily veiled and wearing a dark colored dress. The only distinguishing feature on Lillian was her red shawl, an article of clothing that was used by several witnesses as proof that it was indeed Lillian with Cluverius and not some other woman.

One of the most detailed accounts of the couple’s activities came from William Tyler, an African American night watchman at the Exchange Hotel. According to Tyler, Cluverius visited the Exchange Hotel and asked to see the woman in room 19 – the very room that Lillian was staying in under the name Fannie Merton. When told that the lady was not in, Cluverius asked that a note be passed along to her – “I will be there as soon as possible, so do wait for me.” The note never reached Lillian, but was torn up and discarded only to be later reassembled by hotel employees and entered as evidence.

In the end, the jury was left to decide whether or not the long chain of circumstantial evidence was enough to prove Cluverius’s guilt. The jury was instructed that “proof of guilt by circumstantial evidence” did not require “an absolute and demonstrative certainty” but only a “moral certainty.” The jury certainly took these instructions to heart because Cluverius was convicted on the circumstantial evidence of a watch key, a torn note, and a handful of witnesses who testified to seeing the couple together on the day of the murder.

What makes this case so interesting is the doubt that still lingers over a hundred years later. We will never know what really happened to Lillian that night at the reservoir. Was it suicide? Possibly. Was she murdered? Maybe. Was Thomas Cluverius a vile seducer of women or was he merely another victim? These are just some of the many questions that have no easier answers today than they did in 1885. Despite several appeals, Thomas Cluverius was finally hanged for the murder of Lillian Madison on 14 January 1887. Cluverius would reportedly claim to the very end that, “I did not see F. L. Madison during the day and night of the 13^th of March. That is all the ‘confession’ I have to make.”

Records related to the criminal trial can be found in the Commonwealth of Virginia versus Thomas J. Cluverius, 1885 (Barcode 1170946). The collection includes correspondence between Cluverius and Lillian (including a sexually explicit poem “On the Delaware”) showing the couple shared an intimate relationship, correspondence between Lillian and her aunt Jane Tunstall illustrating Lillian’s emotional state at the time of her death, a watch key similar to one supposedly owned by Cluverius, and photographs found in Lillian’s possession at the time of her death.

Want to hear more about the murder and the relationship between Thomas Cluverius and Lillian Madison? Come to the Library of Virginia for a book talk on Thursday, January 12, from 12:00-1:00, to hear John Milliken Thompson discuss his novel The Reservoir, which is based on these events.

-Bari Helms, Local Records Archivist

On 4 April 1906, 24-year-old Will Liddle entered the Virginia Penitentiary to serve his one-year sentence for writing a bad check in Tazewell County.  He was discharged on 15 February 1907.  His freedom was short lived.  Liddle returned to the Penitentiary on 21 September 1907 to begin serving a three-year term for stealing a mule.  He also was given an extra five years for his second conviction.   Liddle’s good behavior quickly earned him “trusty” status which provided him with extra privileges.  In the spring of 1908, Liddle’s trusted status allowed him to assist some carpenters working on the outside of the Penitentiary and the opportunity to escape.  On 12 June 1908,  Liddle, under the guise of going to the tool box, used a crowbar to break into the carpenter’s storage room.  He put on a carpenter’s suit over his prison clothes and walked away from the prison.  The guards quickly noticed his absence and sounded the alarm.  After a 20 minute search Liddle was recaptured four blocks away.  Those 20 minutes of “freedom” added an extra year to his sentence for attempted escape.

After Liddle’s escape attempt, he became a model prisoner and parole eligible.  An 1898 Act of the General Assembly (amended several times) granted the Virginia Penitentiary Board of Directors power to parole prisoners if they met certain conditions. To be eligible the inmate must have served half his term, have not broken any prison rules for the two years preceding the date of one-half his term and the prisoner must have assurance of employment upon his discharge.  Liddle met this criteria and was paroled on Christmas Eve 1913.  Two years later the Virginia Attorney General issued an opinion stating that any legislation limiting the power of the governor to grant clemency was unconstitutional.   This ended parole in Virginia until the creation of the Virginia Parole Board in 1942.

In two weeks:  Mary Morst

-Roger Christman, Senior State Records Archivist

Ever want to claim you were too drunk to be responsible for committing a criminal act?  In Virginia in 1915, you would have been out of luck.  Jury instructions found in the Staunton criminal case of Commonwealth vs. Vaughan Bell (Staunton Commonwealth Causes, barcode 1184535) suggest that Mr. Bell, indicted for housebreaking with the intent to commit larceny in the store house of H. N. Tinsley, tried to use being drunk as an excuse for his accused criminal behavior.  He also may have tried to claim insanity, as a notation on the case wrapper indicates that a commission was held to inquire into his mental state.  The commission found him sane and the jury found him not guilty.  Additional jury instructions speak to the necessity of proving beyond a reasonable doubt not only the housebreaking but the intent to commit larceny and that any doubt must cause the jury to judge in Mr. Bell’s favor.  Clearly the jury did have doubts and Mr. Bell went on his merry way, dubious excuses and all.

-Sarah Nerney, Senior Local Records Archivist

At the October 1903 session of Rockbridge County court, Oliver R. Bane, called “Dock” Bane (alternately spelled Bain), was convicted of unlawful assault against Lone B. Vess (alternately spelled Vest) and sentenced to two years in the state penitentiary.  The grand jury indictment of Bane charged him with making “an assault and him the said Loane B. Vest feloniously and maliciously did strike, beat, cut and wound with intent him the said Loane B. Vest there and then to maim, disfigure, disable and kill.” The official charge was mayhem.  A newspaper article from the Lexington Gazette gives a fuller picture of the circumstances surrounding the crime.  The article states that Bane and Vess had gotten into a fight at the home of Mr. Dave Potter while returning home from a dance.  “Knucks and chairs were freely used in the battle” and Vess was struck on the head with a fire shovel.  Jury instructions from the case file indicate that part of Bane’s defense was that Vess had attacked him first and without provocation.  The article explained that Vess was not expected to recover and that the doctor had extracted several fragments of bone from his wounded skull.  Preserved as evidence in the case file are these bone fragments, wrapped up in tissue paper.  Vess did survive the attack and the loss of pieces of his skull and was summoned as a witness for the prosecution.  Bane arrived at the Virginia Penitentiary on 17 October 1903, prisoner #5086.  He served just over one year of his sentence and was paroled on 22 October 1904. The documents for Bane’s criminal trial can be found in Commonwealth vs. Oliver R. Bane alias Dock Bane in the Rockbridge County Judgments and Commonwealth Causes, 1902-1904 (Barcode 1140736).

-Sarah Nerney, Senior Local Records Archivist

Editors Note: This post originally appeared in the Virginiana section of Virginia Memory.

The beautiful maps in the Voorhees collection and those that reside in Special Collections are well known to Library of Virginia researchers. Yet thousands of rough but informative maps exist in the Library’s local government records collection. Often classified as “plats,” these detailed property maps were created and filed as part of county land records, chancery records, or other legal proceedings.

Some of the most interesting local plats are found within criminal papers. Murder trials occasionally required jurors to consider a particular crime scene, and the resulting sketches created for this purpose offer fascinating glimpses into landscapes and violent episodes. One is featured on the Library’s 1997 web exhibit The Common Wealth: Treasures from the Collections of the Library of Virginia. This drawing shows a portion of Manchester, Virginia, in 1869, at the time of a barroom-related shooting, complete with building facades and streets. And in her 2003 book A Murder in Virginia, based on three Commonwealth Causes against Pokey Barnes, Solomon Marable, and Mary Abernathy, historian Suzanne Lebsock drew upon a court-directed plat from Prince Edward County to illustrate the scene of an infamous 1895 crime involving four black defendants.

While processing Henry County’s criminal causes, I came across a number of particularly gruesome plats. The most remarkable one was filed in Commonwealth vs. Wade W. Lester, July 1897. This trial involved a mill owner who allegedly poisoned one of his mill hands with a mixture of liquor and strychnine, a rat poison. After drinking the mixture, the mill hand staggered back to his home and collapsed in the yard in view of his relatives. The court mapped out the man’s final steps, with a dotted line showing the man’s meandering walk towards home to the very “Point at which [he] died,” just 74 ½ yards short of his residence. The plat also shows neighborhood roads, railroad lines, creeks, and buildings.

In another cause, Commonwealth vs. Sam Valentine, April 1893, a plat was drawn to document a shooting. Trouble began one evening when Sam Valentine, an officer of the law, arrived at Alfred Hairston’s house party to serve a warrant on a guest. After Valentine entered and apprehended the accused man, someone in the crowd resisted, and a scuffle broke out. In the midst of the activity, Valentine shot one of the rowdies in the head, and the man eventually died from the wound. At the trial, the inquest committee sketched a floor plan of Hairston’s house, showing the position of the participants, as well as the hearth, stairs, and doors.

An even more elaborate plat was drawn for an arson investigation for Commonwealth vs. Silas Minter, September 1898 and January 1899. This oversized drawing revealed one neighborhood’s roads, houses, and creeks, plus its many barns. The defendant was accused of setting a barn full of oats and wheat on fire, causing $400 in damages. One issue under debate was whether the fire from several nearby stumps had set the barn on fire, so the map dutifully records the spot of the stumps and brush surrounding the barn in question.

Such maps may not match the artistic merit of those in specialized map collections, but for budding forensic historians, their lines can be just as revealing.

-Ryan Smith, Former Local Records Archivist