Editor Shoots Rival Editor 1880

1880 Pocket Pistol Advertisement

In my last article, Slanderers Are Contemptible Creatures Akin To Venomous Snakes, I talked about how slanderers were seen as lowlifes and snakes even as far back as the 1800s. Well, part of the reason that I wrote that story is because I've been researching a story about a newspaper editor who shot and killed a rival newspaper editor in 1880. The murderer shot his victim while his victim was at their local courthouse in the process of filing a libel suit against him. Yes, a newspaper editor shot his rival over the fact that he was about to be sued for something that the killer printed in his newspaper.

Before we get into this story, let's remember that even in the 1880s, the law was the same as today in that there are two forms of defamation and a distinct difference between slander and libel. While they are both defamation, slander refers to spoken defamatory statements; libel refers to defamatory statements made in a permanent form, such as in writing or print. Either way, spoken or printed, they are an assault on someone's reputation.  Both are considered civil wrongs, with the focus being on the damage caused to a person's reputation. 

Someone can make the argument that someone's name and reputation were viewed as more of a valuable asset back in the Old West than it is today.  As for a slanderer's defense, his only real defense is to prove that the statement he made was true. Of course, the slanderer has no defense if his statement is proven false. And think about this, whether in the Old West or today, proving specific monetary loss from slander can be difficult. Because that's the case, it makes it hard to win a slander case unless the victim can prove monetary loss from what the slanderer said. 

As for libel laws, the growth of newspapers during the Civil War and into the late 1800s led to an increase in libel suits that impacted newspapers across the nation. In the 1880s, libel law in the United States favored plaintiffs, particularly those claiming reputational harm. It's true. A person who brings a case against another in a court of law could sue for libel and win because what was said was printed.

The primary focus was on "reputational harm" and protecting an individual's reputation from false and damaging statements. Because of that, in the 1880s, courts tended to favor those bringing libel suits. And here's something else, in many states, a defamatory statement was presumed false, and the defendant had the responsibility of proving what was written was true.

Yes, in some states, the courts placed the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate the truthfulness of what was printed. That was the way things were. Of course, that meant that defamation claims could be brought to court a lot easier, even for minor inaccuracies in newspapers. 

In the 1880s, libel law favored those claiming reputational harm. The plaintiff's burden of proof was often lower, and Constitutional protections were limited. That means there were a lot of challenges for newspapers back in the day. Yes, especially during the era of sensational journalism, also known as "Yellow Journalism," where newspapers felt they were above the law and showed they had no decency by printing just about anything they wanted to. 

So yes, a lot of newspapers were sued and lost a lot of money for printing fake stories, out-and-out lies, and defamatory statements. Some newspapers even went bankrupt after being sued for libel. 

So why did I just tell you all of this? Well, it goes to why one newspaper editor shot his rival newspaper editor. You see, the murderer printed something in his newspaper about his rival editor that couldn't be proven, and he knew he'd lose a libel suit. He called the rival editor a "Horse Thief," in his newspaper. It wasn't a really smart move. 

The rival editor decided to sue for libel. On the day that he went to their local courthouse to start his lawsuit, the other newspaper editor, the one who printed the defamatory comment, showed up. So yes,  one newspaper editor was suing the other newspaper editor for libel over one calling the other a "Horse Thief" in print. What happened next makes the story especially sad. 

As reported in the Morning Press newspaper on February 16, 1880:

EDITOR SHOOTS RIVAL EDITOR

S. H. Brummett, editor of the Hollister Enterprise, was shot and killed by G. W. Carlton, publisher and editor of the Hollister Telegraph. It was the result of a newspaper quarrel. The deceased leaves a wife and two children.

The bitter newspaper war waged for some time past by George W. Carlton and E. S. Harrison, of the Hollister Telegraph on the one side, and S. H. Brummett, of the Hollister Enterprise, on the other, resulted on the 12th in the murder of the last mentioned editor. The causes which led to the murder may be briefly explained: 

It appears that the Supervisors of San Benito County invited bids from the three weeklies in the county to publish the delinquent tax list, which involves a profit to the contractor of $5OO. The proprietors of the aforesaid weeklies agreed among themselves to make a joint bid, so that they might all share in the profit. Such a bid was sent in, but one George W. Carlton got a fourth party, for a consideration, to put in a lower bid, and the contract was awarded to him. The bitter feeling this underhanded act caused was great, and an article on the subject appeared in the next issue of the Enterprise attacking Carlton, who retaliated by publishing statements most derogatory to Brummett’s character. 

On the day of the shooting, Carlton's Telegraph contained an article denouncing Brummett as 

"A HORSE THIEF, 

a debauchee, and a man whose whole life had been revolting in the extreme." 

Immediately on reading the article, Brummett started for the courthouse, saying that he would give Carlton a chance to prove his charges in court. While waiting there for the District Attorney, about 11 a.m., George W. Carlton came up with both hands in his pockets. 

Brummett asked him why he had “published such a lie about him?’’ 

Carlton, on the instant, without a word, drew a revolver and shot him through the head, the bullet penetrating the brain. 

Carlton's victim fell unconscious and remained so until his death, which occurred two hours afterwards. Carlton was at once arrested and placed in jail. Strong threats of lynching were made, but it was finally decided by an enraged, but sensible people, to let the law take its course. The murder was, from statements of eyewitnesses, entirely unprovoked and unjustifiable, and the affair caused more excitement than any event that ever happened in the county. The murdered editor leaves a wife and two little children, and the scene as they watched beside their dying protector was very affecting. The body was buried under the auspices of the Fire Department, of which the deceased was a member. 

THE HOLLISTER HOMICIDE 

— FUNERAL OF S. H. BRUMMETT. 

The obsequies of S. H. Brummett, an account of whose murder at Hollister has already appeared in the Press, took place there on the 13th. The funeral services were conducted in the Christian Church by the Rev. J. K. Wallace, who preached an affecting sermon. The church was filled to overflowing with a sympathetic congregation. The funeral was conducted by the Hollister Fire Department, and was attended by citizens in carriages and on foot, making the largest cortege ever seen there. The business houses were all closed till the obsequies had ended. The grief of the wife at the grave was heartrending. 

The deceased was born and raised in South San Juan and left many warm friends and relatives in the county. Everything possible has been done for the widow and her fatherless children. 

The Enterprise will be continued by John McGonigle, its former owner. No violence toward Carlton is apprehended, although the jail is double-guarded, as also is the Telegraph. Carlton has made no statement other than to claim that his action was done in self-defense.

-- end of article

The Pacific Rural Press published the following report on February 21, 1880:

Personality in Journalism.

The killing of one editor by another at Hollister, California, last week gives occasion for a brief preachment on one phase of journalistic ethics. It would indeed seem as though the affair at Hollister, the rise of the spirit of Cain, the shedding of blood, the wails of the widow, the silent eloquence of the grave, would have some power to put an end to petty warfare between editors, which, beginning in an ill-use of type, proceeds at length through steps of hate, vituperation and slander, until at last the personal encounter is reached and a life is taken, while the demoralizing excitement and useless expense of a murder trial are inflicted upon a peaceful community.

And Why? Simply because two men have forgotten their duties as citizens — have proved false to their mission as journalists; have outraged their own consciences, and instead of being public teachers and conservators of public morals, have become public brawlers —a menace to the peace of their neighborhoods; a curse to themselves and the land they live in. It is no part of honorable journalism to serve personal ends.

It is a sublime conceit which leads an editor to think that the public is more interested in his personal ambitions, disappointments, and grievances than they are in the private affairs of any other citizen of equal rank. It is true that there is a class of people who gloat over journalistic quarrels and roll under their tongues the sweet morsels of slander and abuse which quarreling editors defile their columns with.

As a rule, it is the same class that would stand in the wrapt contemplation of a dog fight. And while the editor who allows himself to indulge in personal thrusts at his neighbor is winning the plaudits of this element of society, he is losing the respect and esteem of those whose encouragement and support alone can make his paper an enduring power for good in the community. Thus, he abuses the trust committed to him, and if he reaches success by the stinging quality of his pen and the conscienceless nature of journalistic behavior, it is because he finds supporters who are thoughtlessly led into his low tone of thought, or are fitted by nature and surroundings to enjoy it.

Of course, we do not mean that editors should be incited by unity of thought, and, like birds in their little nests, agree. So long as the imperfections of human knowledge cause differences of opinion, it must be expected that journals will disagree, and it is in the interest of the determination of truth that they should. It is well that journalists maintain the faith that is in them by the most vigorous writing within their power.

There is enough in ideas and principles to employ a writer's most acute thought and trenchant style, and the exercise of such abilities will win him renown. But to forget that this is the mission of his calling, and to till his sheet with ill-natured attacks upon the personality of his rival papers, is an insult to the community and a breach of contract with readers who are fed upon petty personal passions, hates and slanders instead of the news and the truths of general value which it is the office of the newspaper to disseminate.

We trust that all journals which are disposed to make their personal quarrels the subjects of their heaviest journalistic labor will take warning from the Hollister episode. Summon a little self-respect and a little respect for the calling of the journalist, and the evil influence of personality in journalism will be no more.

-- end of article.

The Stockton Independent newspaper reported the following on August 7, 1880:

George W. Carlton is now on trial at San Jose for the killing of S. H. Brummett at Hollister last February. Brummett was editor of the Enterprise at Hollister, while Carlton edited the Telegraph in the same town. Carlton denounced Brummett as a "horse thief." The next day, Brummett met Carlton and asked, “What made you put in that d—d lie about me?” At this, Carlton drew a pistol and shot Brummett dead. Carlton is only indicted for manslaughter.

-- end of article.

The Ventura Signal newspaper reported the following on August 28, 1880:

Carlton Convicted.

San Luis Obispo Tribune, The editor Carlton, who killed a business rival at Hollister and unjustly escaped indictment for murder, was convicted by a jury in San Jose last week of the crime of manslaughter. Every means was afforded this murderer to evade the penalty of his cowardly crime. The grand jury indicted him for manslaughter when the presentment ought to have been for murder. 

A change of venue was given him, and the trial was transferred to Santa Clara County. Notwithstanding all these advantages, Carlton was convicted. The prompt conviction of this fellow is an indication that the people of California are becoming weary of the bloody dramas, which have been so frequently enacted during the last few years, and are determined to discourage future assassinations by enforcing the statutes against the assassins. If juries will but do their oath-imposed duty, the murder era in California will speedily close. Carlton has been sentenced to six years in the penitentiary.

-- end of the article.

So now, you may be asking yourself how Carlton, though intentionally going to the courthouse with a pistol in his pocket to shoot Brummett, and did without provocation, was not charged with murder instead of manslaughter? We know that Carlton approached his rival newspaperman, Brummett, and shot him in the face because Brummett was in the process of suing him for libel. And no, it's not every day that I read about one newspaper editor shooting a rival newspaper editor over something printed in a rival paper. 

Most folks at the time believed that Carlton simply drew a pistol from his pocket and shot his fellow journalist in the face because the dead man was about to sue the killer and would have probably won a lot of money for what he printed. It was believed by many in San Benito County that Brummett may have even put Carlton's newspaper out of business. 

And with local tempers running pretty hot, Carlton's defense requested and got a change of venue to a place where he was not known. Then Carlton claimed "self-defense," and he had his charges reduced to manslaughter instead of murder. And a jury, yes, in 1880, only awarded Carlton six years in prison for killing Brummett by shooting him in the face. 

Of course, as I said before, "What happened next makes the story especially sad." 

George W. Carlton went to San Quentin Prison. But he wasn't there very long at all. He was only there for a couple of months when his conviction was overturned on a technicality. While the people in Hollister, California, were said to have regretted their decision not to lynch him when they should have, Carlton was ordered to be tried again. The second trial ended with a judge ordering a new trial. During the third trial, there were problems with the jury. After that, a judge is said to have become exasperated with problems taking place during the trial and simply dismissed the charges on a technicality. With that, George W. Carlton was set free. 

So yes, George W. Carlton shot a man in the head to stop from being sued for libel and got away with murder. Some say the system failed. Others said that he and his lawyers played the system. Either way, Carlton got away scot-free without ever having to pay for what he did.  

In the end, people read about how S. H. Brummett, editor of the Hollister Enterprise, was shot and killed by George W. Carlton, publisher and editor of the Hollister Telegraph. They read what happened and how the deceased left behind a wife and two children. And to the amazement of most who followed the story in the newspapers in 1880 and 1881, they read about how his murderer ended up walking away a free man because the courts failed to convict someone who willfully and without provocation took the life of S. H. Brummett.  

Which, of course, with all of us knowing how such things still take place with regularity today, shows us that times haven't changed much after all.

Tom Correa

Slanderers Are Contemptible Creatures Akin To Venomous Snakes

Libel and slander are both forms of defamation, which involve making false statements that damage a person's reputation. Libel is defamation that is written or broadcast, such as in a newspaper, online, or on television. Slander is defamation that is spoken. It is a false statement told to others. Both libel and slander can be the basis for a civil defamation lawsuit. 

I found the article below in the Russian River Flag newspaper published on April 2, 1874. I found it interesting simply because the person writing the article viewed slanderous individuals as most folks did back in the day -- as contemptible, low-character, snakes. Yes, like how they are viewed today.

Read it, and see if you come to the same conclusion. 

Slander

Slander, says an old proverb, is the revenge of a coward. He who uses it will find it a two-edged sword, for though it may wound one to whom it is applied, yet it will finally prove more destructive to the person wielding it. Slander is the offspring of a vicious, envious mind, the poisonous expression of those who are strangers to honor, truth, and justice; it should, therefore, be treated by all with the contempt it merits. 

Those who allow this vice to become a habit are pessimists of the worst sort; mankind is to them only on aggregation of foes placed on earth for the sole purpose of opposing and annoying them, and beating them in the contest of life; hence they exhale their venom on every occasion, hoping that some of it will prove effectual and accomplish the purpose for which it was ejected. 

The purest in the world cannot escape the voice of slander, for its upas-like breath permeates every condition in life, from the lowly to the most exalted. It is rife alike in the professional, as well as in the social circle, and the innocent maiden is no more apt to be free from its sting than the man of the world. The ablest soldiers, the most subtle statesmen, the boldest navigators, and even the most exemplary professors and teachers of the Gospel, have been subjected to the slanderer's venom; so it would seem the more exalted the position, the more actively it is attacked by this social curse. 

In fact, it is proverbial that the more successful and distinguished one becomes, the more he is assailed by the envious; for the latter, with their jaundiced minds, envy all who tower above them, so they try to pull the exalted from the high position which they cannot attain themselves. Such being the purpose of those addicted to the habit of vilifying their more successful fellow beings, their assertions should be treated with contumely by all persons who are imbued with a sense of truth and honor. 

Similes are not required to describe these vilifyers, for one can detect them by every mode of expression. When you hear a politician speak of a rival in discourteous tones, giving him no attributes but the basest; when you hear a man speak slightingly of a young lady, or a professional man speak in terms of disrespect of another in the same profession, because both do not agree in every detail—they belong to the low order of the slanderer, and their expressions are merely the utterances of base, envious minds, and they are therefore devoid of a sense of propriety, let alone honor. 

While it is necessary that scientific men should keep their profession free of charlatans, yet they should adopt the dignified manner of gentlemen, and not the plaintive, scolding tone of a costermonger. If ladies traduce each other without any apparent cause, they are in the category of the slanderer and they should be avoided; for one who will vilify another from mere prejudice is apt to speak in the same tone of even the dearest friend, for the slanderer is guarded by no higher principle than more selfish pleasure. 

You know, for instance, a lady with a nez retrousse [a turned-up nose], as our Gallic friends term it, and another with a beautiful Grecian or aquiline appendage of the same sort. Now speak to the former of the beautiful nasal outlines of the latter, and in nine cases out of ten, she will say: “Oh yes, she has a good nose, but she has a most horrible mouth." This proves that she lacks a sense of truth and justice, and therefore, no attention should be paid to her remarks, for their cause is evident. 

The pure, the honorable, are never addicted to this habit, for they have too much dignity of character to allow themselves to indulge in a vice so base and unwarrantable. All persons, then, should avoid slanderers as they would avoid the venom of a serpent, for they are the most contemptible creatures in the world and the curse of society.

-- end of Russian River Flag newspaper 1874 article.

There are reasons why those who libel and slander others are seen as being similar in nature and character to cold-blooded snakes. Slander can inflict significant harm on folks. That includes damage to reputation, emotional distress, and, in some cases, financial losses. It can lead to the loss of clients, missed opportunities, and even job termination due to the spread of false statements. Furthermore, the lies that a slanderer spreads can cause lasting damage to personal and working relationships.

Slander can severely damage a person's reputation, particularly if the false statements are widely circulated. False statements about a person's abilities, ethics, or behavior can undermine their credibility and professional standing while also leading to a decrease in their social standing.

Slanderous statements can also damage personal relationships with friends, family, and colleagues. The spread of false information can create division and mistrust within social circles and professional networks. Speaking from my own experience with people spreading lies, someone who has experienced real slander and not just back-biting gossip firsthand, it is absolutely no fun. Besides making someone angry, it can cause significant emotional distress, including anxiety, depression, and distrust. 

In some cases, slander can create financial losses, such as leading to job loss, loss of income, missed promotions, and missed business opportunities. If a business's reputation is tarnished by slander, it can result in a decline in customers and sales. It can even lead to difficulty finding new employment.

Of course, there are also the costs associated with repairing one's reputation. Again, from my own experience, I've spent thousands of dollars on lawsuits to fight false accusations in the past. And when accusations are proven to be false, most slanderers, those individuals of low character, don't even have the decency to apologize for falsely accusing someone. 

And frankly speaking, that proves that those low-character individuals are morally weak people who lack any sort of personal integrity. They are dishonest and essentially the complete opposite of people with good morals and ethics. They enjoy being liars. They enjoy being fakes. They relish intentionally hurting others, not respecting others, and believe they are never wrong. There is nothing good about them.

 

So what do you think? Have things changed? Have things changed that much at all? Are slanderous individuals still seen as venomous snakes, two-faced people with no redeeming qualities, horrid individuals who should be avoided? Should they still be seen as some of the "most contemptible creatures in the world and the curse of society"? 

I think so. Just as they were seen in 1874, I believe slanderous individuals are contemptible creatures akin to venomous snakes. They are just low-character lowlifes that we need to avoid. They're not worth spit. 

Tom Correa

Rescuing Big Joe -- A Salute To Rancher Don Mickelsen

The caption on this YouTube video reads: 

This horse is named Big Joe. He is a draft cross that was donated to the Horseshoeing School a few years ago. Riley trained him to ride and taught him the basics. Riley’s father, Don, owner of Rocking M Quarter Horses, found him to be a phenomenal ranch horse. Joe found his home at Don’s Horse ranch in central Idaho. 

A few days ago, Joe fell into a deep hole in a pasture while checking cows. The hole was made by a leaky water mainline and was just big enough for Joe to wedge his whole body in. Thanks to quick thinking by Don Mickelsen, they saved him, and he is making a full recovery.

The description of the video that I saw online stated: 

"Joe’s near demise. Ranching isn't always romance. Often, we are in the middle of a crisis. This morning, we nearly lost Joe, one of our good ranch horses. Thanks to River and Bre, we managed to save him. Pay no mind to the fat guy doing all the yelling. Enjoy the video. We sure didn't enjoy making it. My good wife, Cathy, stayed there through the whole thing, filming it. Thanks to her, we have it recorded."

To me, Don Mickelsen epitomises the can-do spirit of the American Cowboy and the resilience of American Ranchers. He is a prime example of the sort of man who tackles problems with fierce determination and a "never quit" attitude. Cold, wet, and exhausting didn't matter. So yes, if Americans today need an example of toughness and what it is to do right in a stressful situation, this is it. 

I salute Mr. Mickelsen. He's the sort of American that others can learn from. As for River, Bre, and Mrs. Mickelsen, who filmed the rescue, God bless you all.   

Tom Correa

James McCrory Deserved Hanging 1872

An old friend used to say, "Some people deserve hanging." There was no question about what he was talking about. After all, some people are evil. Sadly, some people live to prove that evil exists. It's not merely that they don't have any redeeming qualities; they are evil and need to be dealt with in the harshest manner imaginable. To say, "Some people deserve hanging" is one way, a blunt way, of expressing one's extreme disapproval for someone's heinous behavior.  

Take the case of murderer James G. McCrory in Visalia, California, as an example. He was someone who deserved to be hanged. And frankly, after reading about him, I'm sort of surprised that he evaded dancing on the end of a rope for as long as he did. Was he evil? Well, decide for yourself after reading what he did -- especially what he did to Charles Allen.

James G. McCrory supposedly originated in Arizona, where he supposedly had quite the reputation as a gunman and desperado. For my readers who know that I use the word "supposedly" because there's nothing to confirm the myths about people, though James McCrory was supposedly a badman who is said by some to have killed 13 men -- there's no proof of that. Other than the 2 killings that we know he did for certain, there's no proof that he killed 13 men anywhere -- including in Arizona. 

As with a lot of stories of badmen in the Old West, we need to figure out what's an inflated myth and what's true information. That being the case, we should take note of the fact that the first mention of James McCrory in a newspaper story syndicated by telegraph was on February 16, 1867. I found this small news tidbit in the Sacramento Daily Union and the Mariposa Gazette. 

It wasn't about James McCrory being in a gunfight or prospecting. No, it was about the death of his 9-year-old son James William McCrory. The small notice simply read: 

DIED 

At Visalia, February 4th, 1867, JAMES WIILLIAM McCRORY, son of James G. McCrory, aged 9 years, 1 month, and 6 days.

__________________________________

The next time James G. McCrory was mentioned in a newspaper story was on April 2, 1870, when the Sacramento Daily Union newspaper reported the following:

Shooting at Visalia.

March 30th - On Saturday night last, there was a shooting scrape between a Mexican and James McCrory, which came near resulting fatally to the Mexican. There are two rumors about town in regard to the shooting - some say that there were two, and some say four shots were fired. As we do not know the particulars, we will forbear all comment regarding it until McCrory has his examination, which has been set for next Friday. This is the same Spaniard who was arrested by McCrory and Billy Moore some time last year, for which he has threatened to kill both of them, and this shooting grew out of that in some manner. McCrory was arrested and given bail for his appearance for examination before Justice Bradley.

_________________________________

Did you pick up on the newspaper saying that James McCrory arrested the Mexican? Yes, he was a lawman once. But, while I haven't been able to find out if he was a deputy with Tulare County or a Visalia town deputy, it appears he was a lawman who turned badman. 

About six months later, a second story came out on October 26, 1870, the Sacramento Daily Union reported the following:

Murder in Tulare County

Visalia. October 25th., -  A Mexican, named Manuel Barales, was shot and instantly killed Friday night by James McCrory. Barales was standing in a saloon engaged in conversation with his back to the door when McCrory appeared at the door with a shotgun loaded with buckshot and fired at Barates, blowing nearly half his head off. The testimony at the preliminary examination yesterday fails to show any previous trouble, though McCrory claims the deceased had threatened his life. The prisoner was committed to await the action of the Grand Jury.

_________________________________

A few days later, on October 29, 1870, the Sacramento Daily Union reported a follow-up on the story above with a few more details of how McCrory shot his victim with a shotgun.

Homicide at Visalia.

The Delta [newspaper] of October 26th gives these particulars of a late homicide in its midst: On Friday night last, about half past 11 o'clock, James McCrory shot and killed a Spaniard named Manuel Barales, under the following circumstances: It appears that the Spaniard and McCrory had been running together, drinking with each other all the evening, and while at the Fashion Saloon, McCrory lent him some money, and shortly after left the house. In a few moments after his departure, while Manuel and Thomas Harper were standing talking at the bar.

McCrory returned and pushed the front door open, first with his hand and then with the muzzle of his shotgun. Harper happened to turn his head and saw McCrory in the act of raising the gun, but thought he was only in fun until he heard the gun cocked, when he stepped back one or two steps and the gun was discharged.

The whole charge struck the Spaniard full under the left ear, in the neck, and passed through, making a terrible wound and killing him instantly. McCrory surrendered himself to Sheriff Glasscock. On Monday afternoon, he was examined before Justice Shearer and remanded to jail to await the action of the Grand Jury.

_________________________________

So now, though I haven't been able to find any newspaper coverage of his trial in the archives, we can all see that he was convicted of that killing -- since it says that in the May 1, 1871, the Daily Alta California newspaper report: 

For the Penitentiary.

James McCrory was brought down from Tulare County yesterday, en route to San Quentin Prison, having been convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment.

_________________________________

Okay, so here's a twist that most folks today think only happens today and didn't happen in the Old West. James McCrory was released from prison after being locked up for about a month and a half. He was to have a new trial because of a technical error at his first trial. It's true. On June 16, 1871, this report was in the Sacramento Daily Union newspaper:

People vs. McCrory

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial, with leave to the appellant to withdraw his plea of "guilty of murder in the second degree."

_________________________________

While I've tried to find out why the judgment was reversed, I couldn't. I searched the archives and I couldn't find a report of his new trial. But, in this case, I can safely say that he must have been set free. We know that because he killed again on Christmas Eve of 1872. In that shooting, as with his others, he killed an unarmed man.

The following was reported in the Daily Alta California on December 25, 1872:

LYNCH LAW AT VISALIA.

A Well-known Desperado Kills a Man and is Immediately Hanged by a Vigilance Committee.

Visalia, December 24th, James McCrory, a noted desperado, who has already killed several men in this place, shot and killed Charles Allen about five o'clock this afternoon. He was arrested within a few minutes by an officer in an out-house to which he had fled. He was armed to the teeth. He was twice taken from the officers by an exasperated crowd amid cries of "Hang him, shoot him," but the officers finally succeeded in lodging him in jail.

A vigilance committee was at once organized around the jail door, and a demand made for the prisoner. The sheriff and deputies were overpowered and the keys taken from them. McCrory was taken from the jail and hanged from a bridge in the vicinity. The excitement has all subsided. The body is still hanging from the bridge amid the pouring rain. The unanimous sentiment of the people is "well done." Great praise is due to the Sheriff and deputies for their efforts to avert the hanging.

More details came out in the Marin Journal, Volume 12, Number 41, on 28 December 1872:

Details of the Visalia Tragedy.

The following dispatch to the San Francisco Chronicle is dated Christmas Day: The town has been very quiet all day after the exciting scenes of last night. The body of the murderer, McCrory, after hanging an hour and a half, was moved to an undertaker's. There was not the slightest provocation for the murder. McCrory was abusing a third party in Allen's saloon when the latter entered from the rear door, and accosting McCrory, asked what was the matter. McCrory answered, "I would just as soon shoot you as anyone else," and opened fire on him with a Navy revolver in each hand.

Allen threw up his hands after the first shot, exclaiming, "I am unarmed; for God's sake, don't kill me."

McCrory fired again, one shot penetrating the chest and one going through the skull, making a wound from which the brain oozed out. Allen then sank into a sitting posture against the counter, with his head resting on his breast, insensible. But the murderer, not yet satisfied with his bloody work, fired another shot into the victim's abdomen, and then coolly walked to the back door and took refuge in a small out-house.

When taken from his cell by the vigilantes, the murderer showed fight, but a rope was instantly thrown over his neck and he was dragged to the scene of his execution. The vigilantes were composed of the best men in the community—men who, wearied of the uncertainty of the law, were determined to mete out justice themselves.

McCrory had been previously acquitted of two or three cowardly murders and would probably have been again turned loose in our midst. There is but one expression today in regard to last night's proceedings —it meets unanimous approval. A determination is expressed to keep it up as long as murderers are allowed to escape through the meshes of the law.

_________________________________

Here are more details of his hanging at the hands of Vigilantes in Visalia, as reported in the San Jose Weekly Mercury newspaper on January 2, 1873:

Swift Execution

In Visalia, on Tuesday, James McCrory, a noted desperado, who, it is stated, has killed four or five persons, shot and killed one Chas. Allen, without any apparent cause. He fired five shots into the brain, chest, and abdomen of Allen, either one of which was fatal, firing the last shot as his victim lay prostrate on the floor.

McCrory attempted to escape, but was brought to bay in an outhouse, where he faced the crowd with a Navy revolver in each hand. Deputy Sheriff Reynolds advanced on him and, by the aid of the citizens, succeeded in disarming him. On his way to the jail, a crowd of excited citizens captured him from the officers, but he was retaken and convoyed to jail. The crowd becoming reinforced, moved upon the the jail, broke open the outer door, overpowered the officers, took from them the keys to the cells, went to McCrory's cell, opened it and placing a rope around the neck of the murderer, led him out on to Court street bridge, tied the rope to the railing and swung him into eternity. 

The murderer and his victim died at about the same moment. That sort of swift vengeance is, of course, all wrong, but it is about the only sort of treatment that such desperadoes can appreciate.

__________________________________

James Greenville "Jim" McCrory was born sometime in 1836 in Arkansas. On Christmas Eve in 1872, murderer James McCrory, age 35 or 36, was hanged in the town of Visalia, in Tulare County, California, by local Vigilantes after he killed one of the owners of the El Dorado Saloon. It's said the citizens took McCrory from the jail, dragged him to the Mill Creek Bridge, put a noose around his neck, and threw him over the side of the bridge to hang him. The reason for the hanging is said to be the citizens' frustration with the lawlessness in the town. 

It's said the vigilantes decided to leave his body hanging there for a few hours as a warning to others. Before cutting him down, those who lynched him collected money to provide a decent burial. Imagine that. They collected funds for the burial of McCrory while he swung from that bridge.

It should be noted that James G. McCrory was married once to Julia Ann Bozeman. She had 5 children by her first husband, James G. McCrory: Charles, Ambrose, Mary Frances, Martha, and James. After he was cut down from the Mill Creek Bridge, James G. McCrory was buried in the Visalia Public Cemetery with his 9-year-old son, who died in 1867. The birth year on his headstone is said to be wrong.

  

Tom Correa