The Trial
Suspicion has arisen enough for the Erie County District Attorney’s office to investigate what a coroner’s inquest had already determined an accident. An Erie County Grand Jury would indict Fred Bruce of Murder in the first degree in connection with his grandmother’s death.
It was Wednesday, February 24, 1886. People from all over the town of Collins were nervously preparing for the train trip to Buffalo. Nothing like this had ever happened in Collins; well, yes, deaths are a part of life but murder! Well, there was that Blackney murder a few years ago; but, that wasn’t even the same. In fact, the only thing this spectacular was the murder the murder of George Parkman and that was more than twenty-five years ago and in Massachusetts; but, it was spectacular! It was gory and a murder of a person of high social standing, just like this.
People flocked to the stores, hoping to catch a bit of news from the city before embarking on their journey. Maybe it would give them something new to discuss. For a village with five grocery and provision shops; it was certainly difficult to pick up the morning newspaper. But finally, after traversing from H A Reynolds to Milton Sherman’s, then over to James Matthews’ and from there to Bates and Whites people finally found a copy of the Buffalo Express at Joseph Mugridge’s store.
Not wanting to seam to anxious, their eyes would scan the top portion of the folded newspaper, hoping to be able to catch a glimpse of a headline without having to search for the information. After all, what would their neighbors think? Aha, there it is, bottom half of the front page; To be tried for murder. Wow, everyone was out this morning, no one dared to read while driving their buggy home; if someone got too interested, they might head the buggy right into the ditch!
Yet, not a soul could wait to get into their house before they started to read. Far too many even forgot to unhitch the horse before rushing into the house. Well, if you could call it rushing, a person had to push their way through the clusters of wives and children just to get inside the door. Everyone in town was waiting for this news: It is expected that the trial of Frederick Bruce, charged with murder in the first degree, will begin today in the Court of Sessions. Bruce is charged with killing his grandmother, Nancy Bruce, at Collins Center.
Those in town who had no reason to be at the courthouse, forced themselves to keep busy, stopping long enough for a quick chat with a neighbor, just hoping for some news from the city.
In the Court of Oyer and Terminer, a term originating from English Law, although the term itself is French meaning to hear and determine. According to English law, this was a commission under which a court is empowered to hear and determine a criminal case; in the city of Buffalo, NY, Frederick A Bruce was placed on trial on a charge of murder.
He was charged with murder in the first degree, for which he was arrested on October 10, 1885. Judge Thomas Corlett presided over the trial. His defense team consisted of Truman C White, Manly C Greene and Judge Henry F Allen. This trio representing as many different firms, each possessing a recognized legal ability, would be pitted against Assistant District Attorney (ADA) George T Quimby, the physicall smallest member of the Erie County Bar. Thirty-seven potential jurors had been examined on February 23, twelve were selected: Thomas Leonard of Christ Avenue, Brant; L D Mosher of Eden; Samuel Somerville of Hamburg, Phillip Alter Senior of the First Ward in Buffalo; A M Daley of Grand Island; A M Griggs of Marilla; Charles Van Vliet of Elma; Thomas Danahy Junior of Aurora; Charles Cutler of Akron; Jacob Schick of Aurora; Philip W Pickard of the Sixth Ward in Buffalo and Alonzo Griggs from Amherst.
Several newspapers described Bruce in nearly identical phrasing; on the first day of the trial; well-dressed, fine looking, fine featured and only twenty-one. The Buffalo Evening News reported that Bruce appeared unconcerned in court. While the Buffalo Times reported He sat close behind his counsel, Truman C White, twirling his little mustache and appearing confident that his innocence would be established.
The Prosecutions Case
After having spent most of the first day in juror selection, there would be very little time remaining to actually begin the trial; however, begin, they did. Assistant District Attorney George T Quimby began the proceedings by proclaiming that Fred Bruce’s story was a lie! I think I shall be able to prove to you that this young man went to a friend the day before the alleged accident and said ‘Supposing a fellow happens to accidentally kills a person can they do anything to him?’ His friend told him no and the very next day this young man accidentally killed his grandmother. A day or two after the killing this same young man filed for probate the will of the deceased. This will left him all of the large property of which she had been possessed. What do you think of that?!
Two witnesses would be called on the first day of trial George E Mann, a sanitary engineer who was questioned concerning the map he had drawn of the dwelling where the tragedy occurred. The second and final witness for the day would be Charles Rollinson, undertaker from the town of Collins. His testimony concerned basic information concerning the age, general character and burial the deceased.
All of the hype flowing through the town of Collins could not make things move any faster. In fact, more people would join the ranks of spectators in the courtroom.
Interest in the Bruce murder trial is increasing. The case is one of the most remarkable in criminal history, no one being able to decide on which side to place his sympathies.
As one would expect, the testimony began where it had left off the night before, with Charles Rollinson recalled to the stand. His testimony would begin with the graphic description of how he had found the body of Nancy Bruce on October 29, 1884; He described how Mrs. Bruce was found dead sitting in her chair. Her spectacles lay on her lap, and an open letter had evidently fallen from her hands and rested on her knee. The body had sunk forward but slightly. The whole upper part of the head was blown off. From the elevation of the shot marks in the wall indications were that the gun was fired resting in a slanting position across the prisoner’s knee. Rollinson’s testimony ended with the fact that it was his opinion that Fred lived in good terms with his grandmother.
The next witness would be Doctor Horace Babcock; his testimony basically corroborated what Rollinson had said. There was one additional piece of information added by Babcock’s testimony; the victim’s skull, the part above the ears had been completely blown away, adding; that on the floor he saw a piece of the skull.
At this point, ADA Quimby began questioning Babcock as to the size of the shot that had been used. It will become apparent that Doctor Babcock was ahead of his time, utilizing forensic science to explain what had occurred at the Bruce home at the time of the shooting. Prior to 1900, court related testimony had allowed only a few self-proclaimed experts to testify on the stand.
During a trial held in the state of Georgia, 1876; the Court would allow a witness, considered experienced in firearms usage, to provide expert testimony regarding the elapsed time period since a gun was fired. Several years later, 1896; in the state of Kansas during State v Asbell, the court would allow a person, experienced in firearms to testify on the effects of firing a pistol at human hair and paper targets.
True forensic science would finally become a light in law enforcements eye with an article published in the Buffalo Medical Journal, dealing with a diverse set of issues. This article included everything how measurement of land and groove markings was made on bullets, to gunpowder residues in barrels of firearms.
Quimby’s questioning of Babcock made clear that he was attempting to solicit that buck shot rather than bird shot had been used. To confirm his assessment as to the size and type of shot that had been used, Babcock indicated that he had experimented by shooting at squashes.
Defense attorney Allen began the cross examination of Doctor Babcock; his questions an attempt to prove animus in regards to the witness towards the defendant. Allen questioned the reasoning behind the doctor’s experimentation; Did you do this to qualify yourself as a witness?
Babcock remained professional as he explained he had conducted the experiments to squelch his own curiosity. He did however; admit that he had chosen a Hubbard squash due to its similarity in shape to a human head. In conclusion, Allen dragged the fact that he was called by the prosecution to offer surgical testimony relative to the result of the discharge of a shotgun at the distance mentioned. Allen immediately turned from questioning to an objection against allowing Doctor Babcock’s results from being entered on the record. Judge Corlett sustained the objection, and the jury was requested to disregard the information concerning Doctor Babcock’s experiments.
With an easy win in his column, Allen continued by requesting that Doctor Babcock identify the person who had instigated the inquiry which resulted in Fred Bruce’s arrest. This time it would be the prosecutor’s objection that would be sustained. Allen’s attempt to prove animus on the part of the ADA had failed. Allen made another attempt to identify Fred’s accuser, asking outright if C C Torrance was not the man that had asserted that the coroner’s inquest had a tendency to shield the guilty. A second objection was sustained and the court ruled all consideration of C C Torrance be disallowed.
During the discourse between attorney Allen and Doctor Babcock, concerning who had caused the DA’s inquiry into the shooting of Nancy Bruce, Doctor Babcock admitted; …that he wrote an article suggesting that the matter ought to be investigated. He said he wrote it as a matter of news. It stated the circumstances to some extent. It might have been written with a view of suggesting that Fred Bruce had intentionally
killed his grandmother, but, said he, when I apprehended that, I withheld it. I can’t say that I read it to Dr. Atwood. I read it to Supervisor Johnson of Collins; I read it to Mr. Torrance, a Gowanda lawyer; to Mr. Peacock, to Lafayette R Ostrow, and others. Despite his confession that he may have instigated the issue, Babcock completed his testimony on the issue with No, I did not originate the whole thing.
As the lunch recess was called, an unidentified reporter managed a statement from attorney Allen who stated that he was confident of acquittal; but, felt that the trial would probably last a week. Noting the calmness of the prisoner, the same reporter asked his opinion of the trial. A positive answer was forthcoming, as Bruce indicated that he had no fears for the result.
Doctor Harley Atwood of Collins Center would be the first witness of the afternoon. While basically corroborating the earlier testimony, Atwood added the fact that he had viewed gun powder residue on the victim’s right cheek which indicated that the gun would have had to have been held close to the victim when it was fired.
Suddenly, the prosecution seemed to be hosting minimal witnesses. Two witnesses one from the grand jury and the other from surrogate court would be called. The first witness would be court stenographer George Macnoe who was requested to swear to the accuracy of his minutes of the grand jury testimony. After assuring that Macnoe felt his transcripts were correct, he would be asked to read Bruce’s testimony before the grand jury in regards to his grandmother’s will. Macnoe answered that Bruce had sworn he did not known before his grandmother’s death that she had made a will.
Macnoe would be followed by Surrogate Stern who testified that Bruce and his lawyer, Green, had come to his office on November 1, 1884, to have the will probated, but that he (the surrogate) had refused to comply with the request because of insufficient evidence.
To that point in time, there had been no truly damaging evidence against Bruce; but the next witness, Leroy Hathaway was about to change everything. Collins’ storekeeper and long-time friend of Fred Bruce, Leroy Hathaway was about to figuratively stab his best friend in the back.
Hathaway would testify to the facts as uttered by the ADA during his opening statement, with additional information concerning a will. According to Hathaway’s testimony, Bruce had followed his question concerning accidentally killing someone by
adding; If there was a will made and only one heir, would appraisers have to be appointed? And; If a deed is made out and is not recorded, is it good?
Before the end of Hathaway’s testimony; hi words would sear the veneer of confidence which had expounded through the courtroom. According to Hathaway, Bruce had entered his store on the day prior to the shooting, asking strange questions in the midst of store patrons, yet the first statement made had issues a warning as to what would come; there were Western bonds which paid ten percent- better than farming.
The will in question states that Nancy Bruce leaves all of her estate, both personal and real to her grandson, Fred A Bruce. It continued by appointing Fred the executor of the estate and requests that no accounting be made upon her estate. The will was signed by Nancy Bruce and witnessed by her neighbors, Joseph and Susannah Mugridge.
After admitting the will into evidence, the signature witnesses would be called to testify; Joseph Mugridge would be called first. After qualifying his relationship with Nancy Bruce by explaining that he owned the store across the road from the victim’s residence, he would be asked one simple question; did he sign the document; his answer of no would create quite a stir amongst the spectators.
During cross examination, Mugridge would depict an open loving relationship between grandmother and grandson. He testified that he had known Fred Bruce since he was a young boy and thought his relations with his grandmother were pleasant. . He had known her to make gifts to defendant and had heard frequent expressions of good will. Never heard him say anything disrespectful of his grandmother, nor did he know of trouble or ill-feelings between them.
Yet, when questioned concerning his signature of the will, Mugride stood firm; he acknowledged the resemblance in the handwriting to his own. He swore that he had not signed any will for Nancy Bruce, but might have signed one if he had been asked. He, Mugride, was sure that the signature in question was not his. When his wife Susannah was called to testify to the same question, she responded likewise; although, she indicated that signature appeared quite similar to her own.
Questioning of the couple would bring to light that they had each signed several documents for Nancy Bruce; yet, they insisted that her will was not one of those documents. At the defense’s request, both Joseph and Susannah would sign their names on several slips of paper; however, they would not be allowed into evidence.
Joseph Conger would be the next witness called by Quimby. His testimony added little that was new to the case, with the following exceptions. Conger explained the place of death was about three-quarters of a mile from his residence. (Our readers should recall that during the coroner’s inquest, Fred had admitted that he drove directly to the home of his aunt for help; a home two miles from the scene.) After learning of the shooting incident, between 9:00 and 10:00 am, he went directly to the Bruce house. Upon arrival he saw a small, dark satchel on the table partly open. About an hour after that time Bruce drove away taking the satchel with him. During cross examination, Conger admitted that there was nothing mysterious about the satchel except that things should be left undisturbed until the arrival of the coroner.
The next witness would be John Washington Kerr, whose testimony brought out few significant factors. Upon arriving at the Bruce home on the day of the shooting he was asked by Fred to secure all of the papers he could find, and did so. Fred also told him where papers could be found at other house and he went there the next day and got them. Of course, as with each of the witnesses called to testify, one fact would be uttered which would create a murmur through the assembled spectators. In Washington’s case, the statement would be; the will was in a large box in the satchel.
Frank Palmerton was called to the witness stand next for his part in accompanying Kerr to secure the Bruce papers. Since most of Palmerton’s responses began with I think, Quimby would ask; if he was troubled by a poor memory, as he had not been able to make very positive statements.
While Palmerton would be the last witness of the day; but there would still be one startling aspect to attract even more spectators; the introduction of the gun used during the killing into evidence. The gun with which the fatal deed was done was introduced in evidence. It is a handsome double-barreled shotgun, which, it is said, was given Bruce by his grandmother as a birthday present but a few days before it became the instrument of her death.
Should that not be enough to entice the Time’s readership; one final paragraph was added to their daily account: The young man has been out on $10,000.00 bail ever since indicted by the grand jury. He is prominent in the best circles of society at Collins, and rumor has it that he is engaged to be married to a charming young lady of that town.
At what appeared to be the close of the prosecution’s case; Quimby stated that; he had been informed of an important witness that he should need before resting his case, unless he were allowed to call him after defense began taking testimony. He therefore asked that the defense be allowed to proceed and that he be given time to procure his witness. On being asked by the Court why he had not gotten his witness ready, Mr. Quimby said that he had just heard of him. He said further that he had not had anyone to assist him on the case. Officers had subpoenaed the witness, and that was all. The witness had generally been very loath to testify, and it had been exceedingly difficult to bring out the facts in the case.
Judge Corlett then proposed to adjourn until morning, in order to let Mr. Quimby bring his witness from Collins. But Mr. Quimby had important business in Albany on Monday, and did not want to lose too much time.
‘You have no business there that is more important than this,’ said the Judge.
Mr. Quimby thought that if the defense would put the defendant on the stand and allow him to question the witness as to this story and on his denying it bring the witness from Collins to contradict the testimony, it could be arranged without adjourning.
Here Judge Allen, for the defense, who had been on his feet some time ready to object to Mr. Quimby’s proposition, began to give his reasons for objecting, but the court stopped him by saying that there was no need for argument. This was a capital case and if such an important witness can be found there was warrant for adjourning over night to wait for him.
On being asked by the Court who was his new witness, Mr. Quimby declined to state. He had been informed by a reputable citizen that a certain friend of Bruce’s had been known to say that Bruce had threatened to kill his grandmother. Just how much the party could be forced to testify, he did not know.
The next morning Deputy Sheriff Warner would testify that the man Kelly had skipped to Kansas the Saturday before for reasons unexplained. This effectively concluded the prosecution’s case.
The Defenses Case
At the opening of the court all the seating and standing room was occupied. Within the railing were a number of lawyers, and, as on preceding days, many women. Young Bruce appeared in good health and perfectly calm and self-possessed; although, well aware that the evening would find him either a convicted murderer or as free of guilt as any man present. The remarkable degree of self-possession which he has manifested from the beginning has, in the minds of some, militated against the natural supposition of innocence.
An opening statement would begin the defense’s case. We were told at the opening of this case that testimony would be given that would read like a novel. That it was the most remarkable one in the annals of crime. We were told that Fred, that boy there, was a cunning, scheming villain. [But we] have not heard it yet. The most thrilling fact of it is the story of Doctor Babcock hunting Hubbard squashed on his native hearth. Lots of meanness came out that is astonishing. I want you to think of some of the testimony, particularly that of the saintly Hathaway, of whom Fred asked what they did with people who killed others accidentally. This was the man who suggested to Fred that these ‘accidents’ were nt always accidents. He it is who has sought to shroud this case in mystery. I ask you to take this testimony into account and the answer he made to this boy, ‘all accidents are not accidents.’ Fred was the one thing on earth that his grandmother loved and on him she poured out all the love she had for husband and children, who had gone before.
Mrs. Clarence Washburn testified as to the character of the defendant and his relationship with his grandmother. Hudson Ainsley, former Collins resident and former surrogate of Cattaraugus County was called as an expert witness in the use of firearms. His testimony concluded that a cap exploding, if the muzzle is near enough, will blow out a candle.
Former Collins Center resident and attorney, Orr L C Hughes would be called to give testimony concerning the will of Nancy Bruce. He was also the lawyer of record on a lawsuit against Nancy Bruce brought by Monroe Kelly. The lawsuit involved $30.000.
Attorney Manly C Green, one of the defendant’s attorneys would then be called next. His testimony concerned Nancy Bruce’s movements on the day prior to her death as well as his involvement with the will. Several neighbors and family friends were then called upon to testify as to Fred’s character and his relationship with his grandmother.
The person who knew most, with the exception of Fred, was called to testify, his aunt; Emily Popple, who described the events of the day of the shooting. Fred came into our house and said, ‘Auntie, auntie come quick. I’ve shot grandma.’ Where did you shoot her, I said. God only knows said he. Come quick, come quick! Fred seemed very much frightened, and didn’t seem to know what he was about. I went and screamed to my husband and we went and got into Fred’s buggy. He drove so fast that we were afraid he would throw us out. We asked him to drive slower but he didn’t say anything. When we got to the house, Mr. Popple went up to Mrs. Bruce and ask her if she was hurt. Then he saw her head, and said ‘ Good God, Emily.’ Fred, who stood behind us, doubled up and put his hands over his face, and we all went out just as quick as we could. Fred said, ‘Good God Auntie, what have I done, I’ve killed my poor grandma who has always been so kind to me. Would to God it had been me.’ Fred was cold and shaking all over. I thought he was going into spasms and built a fire. It was between 9 and 10 o’clock in the morning on the 29th of October. When we first got into the room, we thought that Mrs. Bruce had fainted, till we saw her head, she looked so natural. The letter she was reading lay on her lap. It was covered in blood. It was subsequently destroyed.
Clement Etsler would be called to testify on the coroner’s inquest. He would be the last witness that day.
Continued from the previous say, Clement Etsler would be recalled to the stand. His testimony concluding with information concerning the formation of the coroner’s jury, at which he had served. He also testified in reference to the collection of Nancy Bruce’s personal and financial papers, that it was thought necessary by the friends and relatives of the deceased to secure them as soon as possible.
On cross-examination, Quimy plastered the witness with questions regarding his previous testimony concerning Bruce’s blood relationship to the Harrington family. What doe it mean, Mr. Etsler, for one in your part of Collins to say that a man’s a Harrington all over?
‘Well,’ said Mr. Etsler ‘It isn’t anything but complimentary.’
Well, what does it mean?
‘I object’ interrupted Judge Allen for the defense ‘it’s immaterial. Blood changes sometimes.’
Mr. Quimby – yes, I have noticed that in your case.
Everybody smiled.
Quimby was referring to a long standing feud between Harrington siblings, of which Nancy Bruce was one. Taking the time to spend at Erie County Surrogate’s Court, one will locate hundreds of pages of transcripts regarding the will of John J Harrington, father of Nancy Harrington Bruce that proves greed beyond any doubt.
The defendants uncle, Eugene Wilber would be the first fresh witness of the day; although, his testimony added nothing of significance. Next would be the recall of a previously sworn witness, the defendant’s aunt, Emily Popple. Her testimony added to the facts surrounding the securing of papers. Mrs. Emily Popple was recalled and testified to a conversation she once had with Mrs. Bruce, in which the latter told her that in the event of her sudden death she wished her grandson to take immediate possession of all her papers. Witness had not repeated this request to anyone.
The Gowanda Express, being but a small local weekly newspaper, would wrap up the events of the week as they best saw fit. In their February 26, 1886 edition of the newspaper, the Express made reference to the Harrington reference made earlier in the week during the trial. The Buffalo News of Wednesday the 24th contained a picture of Fred A Bruce, now on trial for the murder of his grandmother, Mrs. Nancy Bruce. An old resident of Collins, and daughter of the late John J Harrington, who died many years ago, leaving a large estate to his children, who for many years enjoyed the luxury of lawing among themselves. We do not believe that the vices of preceding generations are always visited on their progeny; therefore it would be wrong to prejudge the young man on trial for his life by any act or characteristic of the ancestors as many seem ready to do, now that he is brought so prominently before the public. It would seem that the young man could have no object in committing so fowl a crime, and to do without an object would place him amount the most hardened criminals of any age, which from our personal acquaintance of the young man makes the proposition too absurd to be entertained for a moment.
The Defendant takes the Witness Stand
The following has been taken from a single newspaper article, unless otherwise noted. I have had to rely on newspaper accounts of this matter because the actual court transcripts seem to have disappeared from Erie County Hall. In fact, there is not even as much as a ledger entry to indicate the trial ever occurred. We spent weeks going through court transcripts from that time period. We even located a room filled with unclassified journals and documents that the door of which, had been hidden by racks of classified documentation.
Although the room was in horrifying condition, we did locate several trial transcripts involving Orra L C Hughes; but never did we locate any indication of the Bruce trial.
There was a sensation in the courtroom when the defendant was called. There was a moving of chairs and a craning of necks and peering over heads to get a good view of the alleged murderer. Fred walked to the witness box with a firm step his cheeks suffused with a rosy color, but himself apparently self-possessed and exhibiting no signs of uneasiness or trepidation. He was dressed in a short Jacque coat and vest of black diagonal and his trousers were of dark striped goods. He looks like a young boy – he is twenty-one – but his conversation is worthy of one much older than himself.
About 10:00 o’clock the prisoner was asked to take the stand, a rather unusual proceeding in modern murder trials. …Every one in the audience being anxious to hear the testimony of this mysterious and inevitably fascinating young man. He told his story in a distinct voice, a little sad perhaps, but with no apparent attempt to effect.
As Bruce began to speak a well-rehearse speech exited his lips; a speech constructed to vie the sympathies of all that listened. He said, ‘I am twenty-one years of age. I was born in Gowanda. My father, Albert A Bruce, died when I was three years old. My mother died in 1879, at the house of Grandfather Wilber. She married a second time, my step-father now residing in Chicago. My father was a lawyer, and a partner of Mr. Torrance of Gowanda. Since the death of my mother I have lived with my grandmother, Nancy Bruce. Part of the time I attended school at Gowanda.’ At this point he was interrupted by his counsel, Mr. Allen, who requested him to tell us careful as possible, the circumstances attending the visiting of Mrs. Bruce. Not a sound was to be heard within the courtroom as the witness continued.
‘That morning,’ said he, ‘my grandmother and I ate breakfast together, and then I helped the hired man to do the milking. After that, I hitched the horse to the buggy and drove down to Hathaway’s store. I returned with the intention of taking Grandmother to Collins, but as she was not yet ready to go, I got out my gun and began loading cartridges with the shot bought at the store that morning. I intended to go hunting the next day, but had not ammunition enough prepared. As I remember the facts, I had loaded one of the cartridges and by mistake laid it in the box with the unloaded ones. I then got up and went into the dining room for a glass of water. When I returned, I picked up what I supposed was one of the unloaded cartridges and placed it in the gun for the purpose of trying it, as some of the cartridges had been capped a long time and I was afraid they would not explode. I suppose I must have picked up the loaded cartridge. The gun was resting on my knee, and as I snapped the trigger I raised the barrel slightly.
(The Buffalo Times reported a slightly different scenario, as follows: I sat down in a chair by the table, took a cartridge from the box on the table supposing it was an unloaded one, and put it in the gun and pulled the trigger. There were two boxes on the table at that time, one of loaded and the other of unloaded cartridges.)
In regards to the testimony given by his long-time friend, Leroy Hathaway’s testimony, Bruce was easily able to explain the conversation away. I know Leroy Hathaway. I went to his store the afternoon I had a conversation with him. I borrowed his roller skates and used them nearly an hour. When I came back, Mr. Hathaway was reading a paper. I asked him if he found anything interesting in it. He said yes, he was reveling in a case of accidental shooting. I asked him what would be done to a man who did such a shooting. He said it would depend on whether he was found guilty or not. I had no conversation with him about an unrecorded will, or about minors holding property under a deal. He was in the north end of the store.
‘Did you intend to kill your grandmother?’ asked Mr. Allen as the witness paused in his narrative. ‘I did not, sir!’ very emphatically.
The witness said that Mrs. Bruce was reading a letter she had written to some people in Illinois.
On the cross examination witness was asked if he had ever known a man named, Joseph Kelly.
‘Yes, sir.’
‘When did you first become acquainted with him?’ I first saw him some years ago. I once employed him as a hired man. Kelly had numerous occasions of seeing my conduct towards my grandmother. We did not subpoena him. I first knew that the prosecution wanted Kelly the day the announcement was made in the courtroom.’
‘Where is Kelly now?’ ‘I don’t know.’
Did you send a messenger to Kelly the day I made the announcement?
There was a messenger sent. His name was H A Reynolds. I saw Kelly a few days previous to the trial. He did not say he was going to Kansas. I don’t know whether he went or not.
‘Do you not know that Kelly has been seen in Collins trying to hide?’ ‘No, sir.’
The witness then, at the request of Mr. Quimby, took the gun which had caused his grandmother’s death and went through the motions of loading and unloading it, precisely as he had done on the day of the shooting. Mr. Quimby took a seat at his side and asked Bruce to aim it at his head, one of the jury placing the barrel at the proper inclination.
The scene was a striking one, and perfect silence prevailed as the accused and the district attorney re-enacted in the crowded courtroom the events which had occurred a year ago in a quiet house in the country. Mr. Quimby asked permission of the Court to allow the prisoner to explode a cap in the gun, but was refused.
‘Did you not know that you had killed your grandmother when you went for Mr. and Mrs. Wilber?’ ‘No, sir.’
‘Why did you go for them?’ ‘I thought she was hurt, and wanted them to come and help her. I told them I had shot my grandmother, but I didn’t say I had killed her. That’s why I was in such a hurry.’
‘What became of the unrecorded deed?’ ‘I don’t know. I didn’t know there was one.’
‘After shooting your grandmother, did you look at her?’ ‘No, sir, the room was full of smoke.’
‘Who straightened the body up after the shooting?’ ‘I don’t know.’
The next paragraph of conversation, being at the point where the newspaper was folded, is unreadable.
The cross-examination was continued for some time, but failed to weaken Bruce’s previous testimony.
Remaining Witnesses.
Wellington Beebe, Joseph Palmerton, Supervisor John Johnson and Charles Rollinson were all called to the stand; their testimony being that of character witnesses. The next witness, defense counsel Truman C White would be called. His testimony explained his general guardianship over Fred Bruce, beginning in March 1885. He also testified as to the papers found at the Bruce properties, including the fact that no unrecorded deed had been located amongst them.
After a lunch break, two more witnesses would be called; James Matthews being yet another character witness, and the recall of Eugene Wilber who added nothing to the case.
The Judge’s Charge
Judge Corlett rose to charge the jury. He spoke for upwards of an hour, and was listened to with the closest attention by all present. Judge Corlett entirely reviewed all of the testimony in the case.
The defendant, he said, was a young man of more than ordinary intelligence. The element of youth is not, therefore, involved in tending to mitigate the consequences of the crime he is involved with. He was the sole heir of his grandmother, and had every reason to suppose that upon her death he would be the inherited possessor of between $40,000 and $70.000, and this, it was the opinion of the court and this would have been the case whether or not a will had been admitted to probate. This fact could, as a rule of law long adopted in criminal procedure be taken as sufficient resolve for the motive.
This murder, if murder it was, is one of the most remarkable in the annals of crime. There was only one case at all approaching it in celebration of detail, the Parkman-Johnson case of many years since. The two motives adopted by the prosecution were, and are very much out of the common, and even extended into the realm of fiction. One of these was that the defendant was supposed to have the habit of thinking aloud. It was thus, when talking to the witness Hathaway, about accidental shooting, the prisoner had made the remarks sworn to. It is believed by the people that Bruce’s mind was running on the subject of making away with his grandmother, and had put his thought into words. This testimony, however, could not be considered in deciding the case, it was of entirely too unsubstantial a character.
The judge then made a clear end; through analysis of all the circumstances surrounding the crime and support the arguments supporting his final decision. In Scotland, there may be rendered three kinds of verdict; guilt, not guilty or not proven. If this were Scotland and not America, the court would be justified in directing the jury to bring in the last of the three. If this was murder it was deliberate murder in the first degree, not incident. If it was murder, it was designed; it was planned, there was no
scheme; it was complete in all details, a most remarkable case. It involves all the elements of deep thought, elaborate plans, if the theory of the people is correct.
It is as if there were two roads, on one of which Mrs. Bruce was killed. In either case the death was caused by the defendant. One of the roads means deliberate murder, the other innocent. The mind is, in this case, left in doubt and this must be construed in favor of the defendant. If he is guilty he bears upon his brow the mark of Cain, and he may well say to himself, as did the first murderer ’every man will slay thou.’ There is a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s crime, and accordingly the court has decided after the most careful deliberations to advise the jury to bring in a verdict of acquittal.
The Verdict
In less than five minutes; the jury would return a not guilty verdict as instructed. The announcement was received with great satisfaction and applause, and a general rush made by friends and visitors in the courtroom to extend congratulations to the young man.
The case was a peculiar one and enlisted the sympathies of a large class of people that seldom allow their minds to be drawn into criminal cases of any kind, but the tender years and exceptional good character of the young man, as testified to by the witnesses in both the prosecution and the defense, drew largely on their feelings and found the courtroom each day crowded with their presence, and when the case closed were prepared to receive such a verdict as Judge Corlett authorized the jury to render..
The Aftereffects
Driven crazy be a murder trial and similar headlines would ring across the country. Collins resident and witness in the Bruce murder trial, Sarah Witheral would be so intensely affected by the trial that she became obsessed with the idea that someone was actually going to murder her. Upon arriving via trail at Collins Station, Witheral became so overwhelmed and unsettled by the last week of testimony that she first began acting bizarrely followed by a violent outburst. It would take several men to control her enough to get her home where a doctor awaited to sedate her.
.