If you're just joining us on this long and twisting tale, you can catch up with Part One, Part Two, and Part Three. Today's entry should be our final entry into the saga of the Little family, and it will not have any detailed medical testimony (just in case you're squeamish).
To quickly recap where we left off, the first trial for Lycurgus Little was held over two weeks in October of 1873 in Berryville, with Judge Turner presiding. At the end, Lycurgus was deemed guilty of second degree murder.
Lycurgus' Sentencing
The sentence was proclaimed on the following Saturday, around 3 PM. Lycurgus was said to be pale but composed, "though a few tears were shed." According to the Winchester News:
Judge Turner then proceeded to pronounce the sentence of the court, in conformity with the decision of the jury. When the Judge mentioned the term of imprisonment, the prisoner interrupted him by asking. “How long, Judge?" “Fourteen years,” replied the Judge; “but by a course of good conduct on your part, and a ready obedience to the rules and officers of the prison, this period may be lessened. Your course of conduct, when backed by the influence of your friends, will have its weight with the Governor when he is importuned to shorten the term of your imprisonment. This is the only consolation I can offer you.”
As you might remember, the defence indicated it wanted to appeal, so they asked for and received a suspension of Lycurgus' sentence for 60 days in order to allow time for the court of appeals to consider the case. "Shortly after, the prisoner and his brother Oscar were carried, hand cuffed and hobbled, to Winchester, where they were confined in the jail of Frederick" (Winchester News). Lycurgus became quite ill with pneumonia after he was transferred to the Frederick County jail,and was reported as still ill on November 18, 1873, about three weeks after his trial ended (Daily Dispatch).
Oscar's Trial and Sentencing
Back in July, the theory was the defence would try for an insanity plea for Oscar and attempt the angle that Lycurgus was caught up following the lead of his older brother (Daily Dispatch). It's hard to say if that was baseless speculation, or if since Lycurgus was tried first, this approach had to be dropped. There was still "a mystery about this fatal drama that the trial of Lycurgus did not solve," and the speculation was that the trial "of Oscar may do it" (Daily Dispatch).
The judge and defence legal teams were the same as in Lycurgus' trial, with E. P. Dandridge (Commonwealth's Attorney for Frederick County) and A. R. Pendleton joining the state's prosecution team (Clarke Courier). However, this time, "[t]he court requested that no report of the trial should be made, giving among other reasons the difficulty, if a new trial should be necessary, in getting a jury" (Staunton Spectator). Given that limitation, coverage of Oscar's trial will be much more brief.
Oscar's trial started on November 18, 1873. It seems safe to assume most of the evidence was the same, and the motives presented were broadly the same as in Lycurgus' trial. The Clarke Courier provided the names of the jury: "George W. Brent, Jesse Barley, B. F. S. Holden, George C. Harris, Wm. Pannett, Samuel L. Purcell, W. M. Jefferson, Jas. W. Seibert, George W. Sumption, J. M. Ritter. J. K. McCann, Wm. B. Hodges." Dr. Godfrey Miller, who testified at the first trial, was the first witness called in Oscar's trial.
Due to the request for no coverage at this trial, we hear little else until December 4, 1873, when the Clarke Courier reported the final outcome:
As you can see, even those we were present in person to watch the trial still felt the actual motivations remained largely obscured, due to the family's sympathy's preventing them from being called as witnesses. Oscar was sentenced the Monday after the verdict was announced. Details of his sentencing were reproduced in the Alexandria Gazette from the Winchester Times on December 5, 1873:Conviction of Oscar Little.—The trial of Oscar Little, indicted jointly with Lycurgus Little, for the killing of their brother, Clinton Little, on the 5th of last July, was concluded in Winchester on Saturday night, by the jury bringing in a verdict, after an hour's absence, of guilty, and fixing his term of imprisonment in the penitentiary at seven years. The trial lasted nearly two weeks.
We understand that Lycurgus' counsel, after the conviction of Oscar, concluded to abandon all further proceedings towards obtaining for him a new trial, on the ground that the same testimony which moved a jury in Clarke county to convict Lycurgus of murder, also moved a jury in Frederick county to convict Oscar of the same crime. While the one, in all probability, was as guilty as the other, Lycurgus was condemned to serve a term in the penitentiary twice us long—fourteen years— as that of Oscar’s.
The facts surrounding the killing of Clinton Little were not revealed in the trial of his brothers. Several witnesses of the tragedy, from whom the truth might have been elicited, put themselves beyond the reach of the law. Columbus Little, partly upon whose testimony the now convicted parties were committed to jail, although present at the summons of the prosecution was not introduced as a witness for the State in the trial of Lycurgus, because of his alleged sympathy for the prisoner. The same reasons obtained against the introduction of the other members of the family as witnesses for the State, while the defence was prevented from using them as witnesses owing to their testimony before the Coroner’s inquest, which was of a character damaging to the cause of the prisoner.
The theory of the whole affair implies that the prisoners deserve the punishment to which they have been condemned. That they entered the room, on the morning of the fatal affray, armed, circumstances warrant us in believing, and this of itself shows that some mischief was premeditated. Whether they intended to extort, by threats of violence, money from the deceased, we are not prepared to say, but this seems to be accepted as the motive that caused them to appear armed on the occasion.
Those who believe that the shooting grew out of a quarrel between the brothers, base their views on the ground that the prisoners would have selected a more private place and occasion for the commission of so great a crime as premeditated murder. The testimony of the several members of the family before the coroner’s jury which is believed to be as pure as it could be obtained at any time, as it was taken the day after the murder was committed, forces the reader of it to conclude that the crime was premeditated.
But there is an unexplained mystery surrounding this tragedy, and as we did not intend to discuss the facts and theories of it, we will drop the subject. From the time of the killing of Clinton Little up to the present, public sentiment in the county has been against the men who now stand convicted, and the punishment awarded them is believed to be fully deserved.
Upon being asked the usual question whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be pronounced against him, he replied in a clear voice and without a sign of trepidation, "I am not guilty of the charge against me."
Judge Turner then, amid profound quiet, pronounced sentence upon him as follows: "Oscar P. Little-Two juries have had under investigation the circumstances attending the death of your brother, Clinton L. Little, on the morning of the 5th of July last, in the breakfast room of your father's house for the purpose of ascertaining what connection, if any, you and your brother Lycurgus had with it.
"The jurors composing these juries were carefully examined, and found free from all bias or other objection.
"In the trial of Lycurgus in Clarke county, and of yourself here, the evidence has been patiently heard; both of you have been most ably defended, and upon full consideration of the facts and of the law applicable to them, under the solemn sanction of an oath, the conclusion has been twice reached that you and Lycurgus murdered Clinton, your brother.
"Your guilt of murder in the second degree has been established, and the term of your confinement in the penitentiary of Virginia fixed by the jury at seven years in your case.
"A repetition of murder by you must be prevented, and all law, human and divine, requires that you be made an example of.
"I therefore pronounce upon you the sentence merciful in view of the enormity of your fratricidal deed--that as soon as practicable after the rising of this court you be conveyed to the penitentiary of Virginia, and there be confined for the period of seven years."
Major Conrad, speaking for Oscar, asked to delay the removal of the prisoner to the penitentiary. The request was granted, so that Oscar (and presumably Lycurgus) would remain in Winchester until around the 25th of the month, giving them a few more weeks to spend near their home and their family before Christmas.
Lycurgus' Appeal
While this could have been the end (and the sentence seemed fairly conclusive with the evidence presented), the family did not end their attempts to exonerate the brothers for Clinton's death. In September of 1874, the defence team filed an appeal on several grounds. The first concerned one of the jurors, William A. Reily, chosen for the original trial. He had stated that he had an opinion on the case but could make an impartial judgment. While the defence objected, it was overruled and he was a member of the original jury. Additionally, the defence posited that during witness examination, some additional errors of process (not allowing witnesses to make statements, or testimony that was not challenged or the challenges were overruled) occurred which impacted the fairness of the trial.
Judge Moncure, reviewing the case, concluded William A. Reily was a competent juror who could put aside his earlier statement, and there was no error in allowing him on the jury.
The second point of appeal was that a statement Lycurgus made to Miss Hattie Pritchard was excluded. The full statement of her remarks can be found in the appeal, but generally after a more detailed account of the girls' walk in the apple orchard, she returned to the house and saw Lycurgus and Oscar returning. She was about to relate something Lycurgus said to her at that point, but the prosecution cut her off. While the defence objected and wanted the statement shared, the court upheld the prosecution's exclusion of the statement. Judge Moncure deemed it was unlikely Lycurgus would have had time to fabricate a statement to Miss Pritchard at that point, and the statement could have either helped or hurt his case, and it's impossible to say whether it would have been admissible without even hearing the statement. Therefore, this was deemed an error.
The third potential error was in not permitting James Milton, Jr. or another witness to be recalled to the stand for further questioning. The Judge Turner apparently denied the request by saying it came too late, essentially refusing on a procedural point. The error came in not allowing for more further questioning, either of Milton directly, or of another witness (Hesser, whose testimony was not well-covered in the original trial) to try to contradict Milton's statements when new evidence was presented that the defence was initially unaware of.
The fourth objection was also in relation to Milton, Jr.'s testimony. Washington Dearmont apparently could have contradicted one of Milton's statements, but the court again refused to allow it, based on what appears to be a convention, not legal practice. Judge Moncure deemed Dearmont should have been able to testify on this matter.
The fifth identified error was finding it an improper question to ask William Lewis about a statement he heard James Milton, Jr. make on the courthouse steps to two other gentlemen. This seemed to be a two-part objection, in that the names of the two gentlemen were not known at the time the question was asked, in addition to the "proper" angle of the question by not setting up enough of a foundation for this line of questioning. Judge Moncure deemed this was also an error, as the time, place, and description of the two men were specific enough to meet the legal threshold and the question should have been allowed, even if their names were not known.
The last points the defence raised were in essence "We should have had a new trial, so reverse the judgment" (which was ignored by Judge Moncure), a repeated objection about Milton's contradictory testimony (which was dealt with in point three), and a final "shot in the dark" that it was not proven the felony took place in Clarke County. Judge Moncure noted the last alone would not have been sufficient for a new trial, as it was an error of oversight and the location where Clinton Little died is well-documented as being inside Clarke county, but the second through fifth points all merited a second trial. The judgment was remanded back to Clarke County. The full statement can be read in Reports of Cases in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia or Virginia Reports (note that several pages for the report were poorly scanned in this book, but the full text is available).
Lycurgus's Second Trial
The second trial began in March of 1875. It appears that the prisoner was tried in Frederick County this time, as E. P. Dandridge and Alex Pendleton were rejoining C. M. Louthan for the prosecution. Major Conrad was joined in the defence by Col. F. W. M. Holliday. Judge Turner was once again presiding over the case. The jurors for the second trial were reported as "John W. Walters, John
S. Sperry, W. M. Stickley, L. A. Glaize. Silas Lupton, Jacob Spillman,
G. G. McCune, D. B. Dinges, O. J. Bywaters, Isaac Rhodes, James R.
Darlington and Milton Bayliss" (Clarke Courier).
 |
| "I feed you all!" detail, by American Oleograph Co., Milwaukee, c1875. Image courtesy of the Library of Congress. |
His [Gilbert's] version of the affair was that it was an accident. He claimed that his statement before the Coroner’s jury, which differed materially from that made in court, was given whilst he was under the influence of whiskey and opium, and that he was not in a fit condition to give evidence at that time. A severe cross-examination by the Commonwealth failed to elicit anything else.
Drs. Love and Miller of Winchester, and Drs. Somerville, Lewis, and J. P. Smith of Clarke, have also been examined. The testimony of the two latter gentlemen discredited the statement of Gilbert Little that he was under the influence of opiates; and that of the Winchester physicians related to the wounds received by the parties in the affray.
Similar to Oscar's trial, very little direct coverage is available, though the closing remarks were reported in the Clarke Courier:
the commonwealth’s attorney for Clarke county, Mr. Louthan, opened his argument. . . He made a minute examination of the case, and was listened to attentively. He was followed by Col. F. W. M. Holliday, of counsel for the defense, who made a speech of seven hours, pronounced to have been the greatest effort of his life. He was followed by Major Holmes Conrad, the original counsel for the defence, who held the jury spell-bound by his masterly eloquence. . . . Mr. Edmund P. Dandridge closed for the prosecution in an able effort. He spoke eloquently and well, and there were no points in the case which he did not adorn. He is a courtly orator, with much legal acumen, and presented his case with masterly effect. . . . We have heard the efforts of each of these gentlemen highly extolled, and indeed it would be difficult to decide which came off best in this forensic contest. Each speaker has his excellencies and his peculiarities in presenting his thoughts.Despite these extensive efforts for the defence and the new trial, when the jury retired on Wednesday night, they returned Thursday morning about 10 AM with the verdict: "We, the jury, find the prisoner guilty of murder in the second degree, and fix his term of imprisonment in the penitentiary at five years" (Staunton Vindicator). The sentence of five years, given the time elapsed already, brought his term in line with Oscar's seven-year sentence for the same act, a fair adjustment, but likely not the outcome the family wanted.
The Pardon Attempts
About one year after Lycurgus' second trial, in April of 1876, a petition was presented to Virginia's Governor, James L. Kemper. The governor reached out to Judge Turner, who "refused to join in the application, and replied negatively to the question, 'Is there any good reason to suppose that others and not themselves perpetrated this horrible homicide?'" (Winchester Times). As one might expect, this attempt at a pardon failed.
Kemper was in office until 1878. By fate or happenstance, the same Col. Holliday who represented Lycurgus at his second trial became governor that year, and a new request for a pardon specifically for Oscar was approved in August of 1879. The Winchester Times reported:
The following is the Governor’s endorsation on the pardon of Little: “Oscar P. Little was convicted of homicide in the Circuit Court of Clarke county and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. He has yet about fifteen months to serve. Upon application for his pardon the surgeon states: "‘Serious disease of the lungs has recently been developed in the case of Oscar P. Little. I think that longer confinement in the penitentiary would interfere with and retard his improvement, if not entirely prevent it, and his release would, in my opinion, prolong his life.’" He is, therefore, pardoned the residue of his term.”
The news made minor notices in the South Branch Intelligencer and Shepherdstown Register, but lacked the fanfare of the earlier coverage. Oscar succumbed to his disease, likely tuberculosis, in early January1880, despite returning to the family home for care (Shepherdstown Register).
Exploring the Little Loose Ends
The arguments over this case extended much further than initially thought, if this exchange in the Helena Weekly Herald is anything to go by. It is probably quite similar to the aspersions cast on the Winchester papers by the Richmond ones!
A rumor circulated in January of 1874, before the appeal and retrial, that Lycurgus confessed to Rev. Reed that he killed Clinton for not dividing $300 with him. The origin of the rumor was not found (it was likely an oral rumor), but it was debunked in the Staunton Vindicator, and there seems to be no other credible reports of a confession.
In 1876, Gilbert and Wallace purchased the Parkins Mill and farm near Winchester (Shenandoah Herald). Those familiar with the area may know the site as the Keckley Mill or "The Elms." The house and the mill have both been demolished; the mill was located between O'Sullivan/Continental and Kern Motor Company, while the stone house was located across Valley Avenue.
Amanda
Little was married in 1877 to W. P. Chew; it seems they experienced
several deaths of their children in the 1880s within a short period,
compounding the family tragedy (Winchester News, Winchester Times, Winchester News).
An exploration of the 1870 census for Greenway, Clarke, Virginia (Roll M593_1641, Page 477B) gives us a possible lead on the house servant mentioned in passing as providing some minor testimony. While it was three years before the fateful July, it's possible her name was Susan Black.
The Little family was involved in a number of other cases related to debt around the same time as Lycurgus' appeal and new trial, which coincided with the Panic of 1873 and subsequent financial fallout. Starting in 1875, the mansion where the murder took place was listed for public auction several times to settle the case of William Lee Chipley, Sarah Bowen, et. al vs. Franklin Little and his family (Clarke Courier). The troubles persisted until at least the 1885, though it seems the family lost possession of the property before this final auction (Clarke Courier, Clarke Courier). It seems the family had left Virginia by 1883 or earlier (Clarke Courier).
What became of Lycurgus? The online trail became cold after the death of Oscar and the Little family moving away from Virginia. Like much of this case, we're left with questions we can't answer, just speculation. It seems fitting to end with a note in the Clarke Courier relating to the Little family tragedy:
We cannot close our account of this appalling tragedy without enjoining our readers not to be too hasty in forming their opinions as to the guilt of the prisoners. Verdicts are sometimes shaped from newspaper and other reports, which are often highly colored.
Thank you again for making it through this case with me. It ended up much more involved than I could have anticipated when I started, but I thoroughly enjoyed the twists and turns, trying to make sense of the hearsay and fragmented legal reporting. I hope I was able to bring some sense to this long-forgotten legal case and spark some interest in a solved - though not adequately explained - homicide. I'll try to find something a little less intense for our next project!
Enjoy these posts?
Comments
Post a Comment