The Morton Mortonson House in Prospect Park before it's restoration c.1930. It is the oldest house in Penna.
Some early Colonial Trials
The documentary sources from which we must gather our
knowledge of the criminal and civil procedure enforced among the Swedish settlers
presents as has been happily said, “a mere traced, fitful at best and rendered
more faint by the days of time.” That
remark will apply with equal force to the Dutch domination for the Hollander
has handled down to us little as to those matters in the fragmentary records,
correspondences and official reports now at our command. While this is true,
time has not wholly obliterated all the circumstances associated with the noted
criminal trials in our early annals before the territory, of which Delaware
county is part, came under the rule of the crown of Great Britain. When New Amsterdam and the south River
(Delaware) colonies passed into the ownership of James, Duke of York, the heir
apparent, the records of Upland Court, together and the Duke’s “Book of Laws”
preserve to us comparatively full information as to the criminal and civil code
enforced as well as set forth the kinds of tribunals, which dispensed justice
among the rude forefathers of their commonwealth. It is my purpose to recall several of the
celebrated cases of the old times, selecting, save in one instance, trials that
were, had prior to the coming of William Penn to Pennsylvania in the fall of
1682.
FIRST
CRIMINAL TRIAL –The first criminal trial which occurs in our annals was at
Tinicum, and arose from circumstances which happened in the winter of
1645-6. It was a charge of arson. The inhabitants of the Swedish Colony, over
which Col. John Printz acted as governor at that time did not in all number two
hundred souls. On the evening of
November 25, 1645, between the hours of 10 and 11 o’clock, Fort Guttenburg was
discovered to be on fire. The flames
spread so rapidly that the sleeping garrison and the people gathered within
that structure of “groaner” logs, which Governor Printz had completed only two
years before, had barely time to escape “naked and destitute” from the
conflagration, which consumed everything in the form of buildings connected
with the fort, excepting the dairy. The
winter had set in early with unusual severity, the cold was intense and the
streams were frozen, while the drifting ice in the river prevented all
communication with the main land by boats.
The
situation of these people, who were planting the seeds of empire on the
Delaware was most distressing, for the report of Governor Printz informs us
that “the sharpness of the winter lasted until the middle of March, so that if
some rye and corn had not been unthrashed, I, myself, and all the people with e
on the island, would have starved to death.
But God maintained us with small quantities of provisions until the next
harvest.”
No
wonder was it that the public mind was highly inflamed against Swen Wass, the
gunner, who had set fire to the fort, although the act was accidental and the
result of intoxication on the part of the accused. He was tried for the crime, but the nature of
the tribunal before which he was arraigned is unknown as is also the procedure
that was used on that occasion. We have
no further information as to the case save that which appears in Governor
Printz’s report dated February 20, 1647, and that day forward by the Golden
Shark to Sweden. He states that “the
above mentioned incendiary, Swen Wass, I have caused to be brought to court and
to be tried and sentenced; so I have sent him home in irons with the vessel,
accompanied by the whole record concerning him, submissively committing and
referring the execution of the verdict to the pleasure of Her Royal Majesty and
Right Honorable Company.”
UNDER
HOLLAND’S RULE – When the next important criminal trial, which has been
presented to us in official documents, presents itself, the flag of Sweden had
been supplanted by the standard of their High Mightiness of Holland and while
the case did not in its incidents come within the present commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, yet the criminal proceedings were held within the territory which
was subsequently known as Pena’s three lower counties.
In 1661
Alexander D’Hinojassa was acting governor of that portion of the present state
of Delaware extending from the southern bank of the Cristiana River to Cape
Henlopen, he asserting that the City of Amsterdam, by reason of its purchase
from the Dutch West Indies Company, had acquired absolute jurisdiction over the
territory before designated, hence he stoutly refused to recognize the
authority of Governor Stuyvesant in anywise within those boundaries. D’Hinojassa was a rash, impetuous, headstrong
man and in would brook no interference on the part of any one with his
prerogatives, the particular case to which I am now referring are unusually
interesting. A vessel had been wrecked
on the coast near the present breakwater and one of the sailors, a Turk,
reached the shore where he was taken prisoner by a party of Indians, who sold their
captive to Peter Alrichs. Peter among
other things was a slave dealer and was chiefly instrumental in fitting out the
ship Glide which brought the first cargo of slaves from Africa to the shores of
the Delaware.
The
unfortunate Turk was sold by Peter to an English planter in Maryland. Subsequently the Turk and four other slaves
escaped to Delaware, but, were pursued and captured. While they were being conveyed in a boat to
New Castle, when near Bombay Hook, the Turk made a desperate fight for Liberty
and during the struggle and before he could be subdued he wounded two
Englishmen seriously and a third slightly.
In the
confusion which followed, he sprang overboard and succeeded in reaching the
shore but he was shortly recaptured and taken to New Castle where he was
heavily ironed and imprisoned.
D’Hinojassa refused when the application was made to him to deliver the
prisoner to the English claimant but declared that as the Turk had committed a
crime within the jurisdiction of the City Colony, he must be held on that
charge. He thereupon ordered him to be
arraigned before Van Sweeringham, who sat as the judge at the trial.
The
prisoner, practically ignorant of the language in which he was called to make
his defense was convicted of having resisted and wounded his captors. Although the laws of Holland applicable to
the colonies provided that in criminal cases where the punishment was capital
five judges must actually preside at the trial, the miserable Turk
notwithstanding that violation of law was sentenced to be hanged.
On
Sunday, October 19, 1662, the sentence was carried into execution. The Turk was hanged at Lewes, his head being
afterwards “cut off and placed on a post or stake at Hare Mill.” This incident is also memorable because it is
the first case of capital punishment in the Delaware River settlements.
THE LONG
FINN – The next case to which I shall call attention is that of the “Long
Finn.” At that time the red crossed
banner of St. George had supplanted the colors of Holland, as the symbol of
soverenty in the Delaware River colonies.
This was a charge of treason against the government of His Majesty –
King Charles II of England, and the chief actor was Marcus Jacobson, alias John
Brinckson, etc., but better known as the “Long Finn,” because of his lofty
stature.
The arrogance
of the Englishmen in authority, had aroused a spirit of restlessness among the
Swedish settlers, hence when the “Long Finn” toward the middle of the year 1669
began to whisper among those people, a project looking to the overthrow of
English authority in the colony, he found little difficulty in imposing on the
credulity of his hearers. By birth he
was a Swede, who had found his way to England, where, for some crime committed
by him there, he had been convicted and sentenced to transportation to the
Maryland plantations, where he was sold for a term of years.
Escaping
from servitude he made his way, it is believed to Upland, now Chester, and
located in the town or its neighborhood.
Here he represented himself as the son of Count Konnigsmack, a noted
general of Sweden, and in interviews with the Swedish settlers, he informed
them that a fleet of Swedish vessels of war had already been dispatched to the
Delaware and were actually then lying in the bay, under instructions at the
proper time to wrest the province from the British crown. He had, he also told them, been commissioned
to go among the Swedish people and encourage them to aid in the effort to shake
off the foreign yoke, to rise in arms and stay the hated English as soon as the
Swedish armed vessels made their appearance in the river.
PLOTTING
A REBELLION – Among those he enlisted to his proposed rebellion was Henry
Coleman, a wealthy Finn, who it is conjectured, resided in the neighborhood of
Marcus Hook. He also persuaded Armgard
Papagoya, the daughter of Governor Printz, who then resided at Printzdorp,
facing Chester Creek and the river, an estate she subsequently sold to Robert
Wade, in whose house Penn made his first stop in this Province of Pennsylvania,
to look with approval on his project.
Rev. Lawrence Lack the former Swedish chaplain, then resided in the old
house which his heirs subsequently sold to David Lloyd. The original building was destroyed by fire
on a first day, while Lloyd and his wife were in attendance at meeting, compelling
the Chief Justice to erect, in 1721, the dwelling known to us a the Porter
mansion, which was destroyed by an explosion on Friday, February 17, 1882,
accompanied with a frightful loss of life.
The Rev. Lack was the ancient document tells us, designated to play,
“the trumpeter to the disorder.”
Powder,
shot and other munitions of war were procured for the outbreak and then a
supper was announced to which most of the Swedes within reach were
invited. After the guests had eaten
their fill and liquor had done its part, the “long Finn” made an address to the
men recalling the injustices that had been practiced upon them by the English;
how partly by force and partly by fraud large tracts of land had been illegally
taken from the Swedish owners, ending finally by demanding whether under those
conditions, their allegiance was due to the Swedish or the English crown.
Peter
Kock, who subsequently figured prominently in our annals, saw through the
design of the demagogue and declared that inasmuch as the King of Sweden had
surrendered the province to the English monarch he proposed to hold allegiance
to the latter’s rule. Thereupon Kock
hurriedly opened the door of the house, there seems to have been only one, went
out, and closed it, holding it firmly shut, while he called for assistance to
arrest the Long Finn. The latter from
within vainly strove to pull or push the door open and succeeded in forcing his
hand between the door and the jamb.
Knock, knowing that the strength of his opponent would succeed ultimately,
unless he was made to let go his hold, with his knife hacked the fingers of the
Long Finn until the latter was compelled to relinquish his grip. A moment after, however, with a sudden burst
the Long Finn forced the door open and succeeded in making his escape for the
time being. Subsequently he was
apprehended and by order of Governor Lovelace he has heavily ironed and
imprisoned at New Castle.
Henry
Coleman, the wealthy Finn, who appears to have contributed largely to the
proposed rebellion, when he learned that a warrant had been issued for his
arrest, abandoned all his holdings on the Delaware and fled for protection to
the Indiana, with whom he was very friendly and influential and was never heard
from more.
Governor
Lovelace appointed commissioners to try the case, who sat at New Castle,
December 6, 1669, and, as expected, the jury rendered a verdict of guilty as
against Jacobson the Long Finn. The
sentence, which was prepared by Governor Lovelace before the case was brought
to trial reads as follows:
THE
FINN’S SENTENCE – ‘Long Finn deserves to die for the same, yet in regard that
many involved be in the same premunitee, if the vigor of the law should be
extended, and amongst them divers simple and ignorant people it is thought fit
and ordered that the said Long Finn shall be publicly and severely whipped and
stigmatized or branded in the face with the letter R. with an inscription
written in great letters and put upon his breast; that he receive the
punishment for attempted rebellion, after which he be secured until he can be
sent and sold to the Barbados or some other remote plantations.”
On
January 25, 1670, the Long Finn was put on board the ship Fort Albany for
transportation to the West Indies after which all record of him, so far as we
now have information, ceased. His
accomplices were sentenced to forfeit to the king one-half of all their goods
and chattels, while a small fine was imposed on those of lesser note who had
taken active part in the proposed insurrection.
The case of the Long Finn will always be of interest for therein is the
first recorded trial of a criminal charge under English procedure on the
Delaware, in which a prisoner was formally indicted, arraigned and a jury of
twelve men empaneled, subject to challenge by the prisoner, and charged to
render a verdict in accordance with the evidence.
SANDELAND’S
DOUBLE HOUSE – In the early part of the eighteenth century on the west side of
Edgmont Avenue below Third Street, in the city of Chester, could be seen the
foundations of an old building which is the period associated with Penn, was
known as James Sandeland’s double house.
It was the most imposing building in Upland and therein Penn convened
the first General Assembly that ever sat in the province of Pennsylvania. The house had been built with mortar made of
oyster shell line, which proved so utterly worthless, notably because of
defective burning that in the course of twenty odd years the structure showed
such signs of decay that it became untestable, full late ruins and gradually
the materials made in its construction were received. Shortly after 1800, even the foundations were
buried in the accumulation of evil that has taken place during a century. In time its very existence was forgotten,
hence tradition for many gave credit to the Friends’ old House, which stood on
the adjoining lot, as the place where the first Assembly met.
In
August 1892, while excavations were being made for the row of commission
stores, the foundations of Sandeland’s double house were unearthed. An accurate survey of them was made by Walter
Wood, assistant City Engineer, giving the precise order of the old structure
and the distance from the intersection of Third and Edgmont Streets. William B. Broomall, Esq., had Mr. Nyemetz
take a photograph of the unearthed walls for which act he will receive the
thanks of coming generations.
In the
double house in its pristine glory James Sandelands kept tavern, for the
pretentious word, hotel, had not then found its way in the English language. Early in 1675, Sandelands, in ejecting a
drunken Indian from his premises, had used such violence that the savage died
shortly after, and it was asserted his death was caused by the injuries he had
received on that occasion. The incident
it appears, aroused such feeling among the Indians that there were fears of an
outbreak on their part, hence, Captain Cantwel, the Deputy Governor on the
Delaware, wrote to Governor Andross at New York, respecting the case and in
answer was instructed to take such action that Sandelands, if guilty, should be
punished for the deed.
THE
INDIAN CASE – The preliminary proceedings were followed by a special court
which convened at New Castle on May 13, 1685, at which Governor Sir Edmund
Andross presided in person, assisted by three commissioners especially
appointed to hear the case. The bench,
the old record relates, was “called over and placed on the Governor’s left
hand; Governor Philip Carteret of New Jersey, on the right with Mr. Daniel
Edsall, Mrs. James Wandall, Mr. Joseph Smith, Mr. John Jackson, Mr. William
Osborne.” Distinguished visitors, it
would seem in those days, were accorded seats on the judge’s platform as was
done within recent years in England during the Baccarat trial While the Duke of
York’s laws were not then applicable to the Delaware settlements, for it was
not until September 25, 1676, that Governor Andross, extended the operation of
that code to this territory, the jury, in Sandeland’s case consisted of seven
freemen in accordance with the Duke’s laws in criminal trials.
The court
being in session, James Sandelands was “brought to answer a presentment by the
sheriff for suspicion of being the cause of the death of an Indian.” After the presentment was read the prisoner
entered a plea of not guilty. Sandelands,
the accused, was the first witness called to the stand and he related “the
whole story of the Indian being at his house and him putting him out of
doors.” The aboriginal witnesses who
were then called did not agree in their testimony. One stated that the man died five days after
his fall, while others made the interval of life after the ejection from the
tavern six and eight weeks. A peculiar
fact which appears on record is that while the Indians were giving their
testimony, Sandelands, by leave of the court, went “and had a talk with
them.” The jury, after being charged by
the court, withdrew and finally returned a verdict that appears on record,
thus: “They found the prisoner not to be
guilty. He is ordered to be cleared by
proclamation.”
IN THE
PENN REGIME – I will allude only to one case that was tried after William Penn
had acquired actual possession of the province.
The proceedings were to recover damage on a suit for defamation and the
trial took place at Chester on the 7th day of the second month,
which would be May 1, 1685. The space
that is accorded to this trial I the old docket at West Chester, indicates the
intense public interest which the details excited among the people of this
section of that day.
Henry
Reynolds who settled at Marcus Hook in 1680, where he kept a tavern in which he
sold liquor with license when he secured the approval of the court and without
when the justices withheld their approbation, brought suit against Justa
Anderson for an alleged slander.
Reynolds was a man of quick temper and in the heat of his anger was
swift to strike those who had offended him.
From the meagre records preserved to us it appears that towards the end
of the preceding year, 1684, he had bound servant girls in his household, whom,
in his rage, he would whip severely.
After one of these beatings the girl died.
The
defendant, Anderson, spoke openly of the occurrence and public opinion was
unusually excited that James Kenneelly, the first Coroner in the history of
Chester County disinterred the body and held an inquest thereon. When the suit, instituted by Reynolds, was
tried, the plaintiff showed by James Sandelands, James Brown and William
Hawkes, that Anderson had stated in their hearing “that he (the plaintiff) beat
and kicked his maid and that he (the defendant) saw her alive no more.” In justification of his words, Anderson
called Thomas Pearson to the stand, called Thomas Pearson to the stand, who
testified that he was at Reynold’s house when the latter picked up the tongs
and threatened to strike the girl “for not eating such things as were provided
for her.”
SOME OF
THE TESTIMONY – Wooley Rosen, who then lived just below Naaman’s creek in
Delaware, stated that he was at Reynold’s Inn and the maid had asked her master
for some milk, whereupon in a rage he struck her “one blow with a broom staff,
asking her whether there was not victuals enough in the house.” William Connell, who was also witness to the
act said he saw Reynolds “beat his maid with a broom staff and afterwards kicked
her as she was by the fire.”
William
Moulder appears to have seen the girl subsequent to Connell for he testified
that “he saw the mail sleeping by the fireside and afterwards she went to bed,
after which a revelation came to him that the maid would die that night.” She did die, but like the modern prophets,
Moulder told no one of his prophetic vision until after the happening of the
event he seemed to have foretold. The plaintiff,
in rebuttal produced his mother-in-law, Prudence Clayton, who had been sent for
to lay out the corpse and she testified that she “did not remember that she did
see any manner of hurt about her.”
The
jury, however, found in favor of the defendant.
The matter did not end immediately.
Coroner Kennelly had before the trial on the third day of first month,
obtained an order of court directing that “execution be granted against Henry
Reynolds for the Cronnor’s fees, charges of inquest and taking up the said
Reynolds maid, with all other charges whatsoever thereunto belonging.” The sheriff on this execution had levied on
an ox, and Reynolds at the next court had to pay 4, 10 shillings when “the
court ordered him his ox again.”
No comments:
Post a Comment