THE DAN ALLEN TRAIL ( Part 5 )

THE SECOND TRIAL

“Now Maggy it depends on you whether we get clear or not/ oh Maggy I hope we will both get clear and then we can go where we please and do as we please/ now Maggy I want you to do as you think best but Maggy if you will try and get us both clear I will do as I have told you and I will do it to”

After nearly three years of incarceration at Waupun, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin did grant Daniel Allen a new trial in April of 1893.  Allen’s attorney claimed that there were irregularities in the trial and that the verdict of the jury was defective.  Regardless of the reason for the new trial, Clark County again braced itself to spend another $3,000 to $5,000 on legal fees.  Allen was returned to the Clark County jail from Waupun in late May of 1893.  Most residents of the county felt strongly that Allen was indeed guilty, and if he was acquitted it would be on the grounds of technicality, sentimentality, and/or a very tired prosecution.

Anger and frustration resurfaced when Allen was allowed to go free after posting bail of $6,000 with the aid of several bondsmen.  He returned to the Loyal area in Clark County and was not welcomed.  Ill feelings re-emerged and among them was a lack of confidence in the justice system.  Lynching no longer seemed to be on the minds of Loyal area citizens but was replaced with feelings of disgust for a man who took the life of another, not in a heat of passion or during a disagreement, but inch by inch in a slow, premeditated manner.  Daniel Allen was no longer welcome in Clark County.  He was shunned by the people and no one cared to associate with him.  Perhaps, many wished that Clark County soil would have never again clung to his soles.

Judge William F. Bailey, elected to serve as judge for Clark County one year earlier, opened circuit court that October of 1893.  There were 45 cases on the calendar, the first being Dan Allen’s retrial.  The case was continued (trial postponed) and since two of Allen’s bondsmen had withdrawn he was returned to the Clark County Jail at Neillsville.

Sheriff J. W. Page remained in office from 1893 through 1894 and there was much preparation to be done by Clark County officials.  It was more than a year after the Supreme Court’s decision when the second trial of the State versus Daniel Allen began in Neillsville on June 22nd, 1894.  Sheriff Page spent several months locating Maggie Wright, as her testimony was most crucial.  Judge Bailey presided over the case.    Letters were sent to town chairmen of various townships throughout the county.  Chairmen were asked what the opinions were in regards to residents being impartial and capable of serving as fair jurors.  A jury was selected after summoning 136 residents; 36 the first day, 50 the second day, and an additional 50 on the third.  From the original 36 men that were summoned on the first day, only one juror was chosen.

Allen was noticeably worn when he appeared in the courtroom; years of confinement and stress had begun to take their toll on his once youthful but rugged looks.  It had been over eight years since the actual crime took place.  The trial began with a witness who had been working near the Allen farm at the time of the murder.  It then proceeded with testimony again from the doctors who attended Henry Wright before his death and conducted his post mortem examinations.

Sheriff Page succeeded in locating Maggie, the widow of Henry Wright.  There was much argument in the courtroom as to whether or not her testimony should be allowed.  After hearing all points from both sides Judge Bailey decided to admit Mrs. Wright as state’s evidence.  The lawyers were instructed that the jurors were to take the witnesses testimony only as it was collaborated by other evidence and the law, if the court found that a verdict was returned against the defendant, and this verdict was not rendered according to law and evidence, the court would set it aside as being unfair to the accused.  The jury did not hear these instructions as they were kept in an adjoining room at the time.

Many doubted whether Maggie Wright would actually come to Neillsville for the trial.  When she was escorted into the courtroom by Sheriff Page the audience became silent, all eyes were focused on Maggie and the air became as still as a gravestone.  Curiosity as to what she had done with her life since her dismissal in November of 1887 caused all ears to lean toward her testimony.  Answers to those questions came forth as she spoke with straight forwardness and honesty.  She did not break down or waiver until questioned by Mr. O’Neill concerning her placement of arsenic in cookies she left on the kitchen table for her husband.  Maggie then bowed her head and burst into tears and the court recessed.

The life of Maggie Wright began to unfold as she told of her continued tragedies after leaving Clark County.  She had moved to Chicago not long after her release and found work as a servant in the home of a single family for about three years.  In Milwaukee in September of 1891, she remarried a man named William Belt who was employed at the time as a clerk in an electric light company.  The couple resided in Chicago, where William Belt took employment with the Chicago Fire Department.  Mr. Belt had recently died on May 12, 1894, from injuries received while fighting a fire.  The subject of Maggie’s children was also clearly a sad one for her to discuss as she told of the loss of her loved ones.  At the time of the murder, Henry and Maggie had four children but two sons had since died.  Maggie’s oldest daughter, Rosa, now 19, was currently living in Marshfield with a relative of her father.  The surviving son, whom she had not heard from for several years, was last known to be living in Minnesota.  Maggie was again at this point in her life very alone.

Professor Haines, the expert chemist from Chicago, testified once again on his analysis of the stomach and liver of Henry Wright.  He went into great detail on arsenic poisoning, the amount needed to kill a human being, and the grisly affects that followed until death overcame the victim.  He stated that the probable amount of arsenic found in Mr. Wright’s liver was from 2.5 to 4 or 5 grains and that 2 grains or less would be enough to kill.

Maggie Wright Belt was asked to testify several additional times during cross examination.  Discussion took place on the confession she stated she signed without knowing its contents.  The letters she had received in jail from Allen were again shown and Maggie said she had received five of them.  When cross examined it was revealed that Maggie had written the first letter but her letters were not to be found.  Apparently Dan was true to his word and destroyed them, only she revealed his.

The judge excluded several witnesses’ testimonies.  One of the exclusions was that of Dr. Mulvey who had been the family physician of Allen.  On one occasion when Allen visited Dr. Mulvey he asked if there would be any hurt in the doctor giving something to his wife to end her suffering.  The jury was not allowed to retain this information.

Former Sheriffs, J. W. Tolford and John Dwyer, both testified.  Sheriff Tolford was in office when the arrest of Dan Allen and Maggie Wright took place and Sheriff Dwyer was present at the time of Allen’s escape.

Daniel Allen was then put on the stand for the first time and gave a brief review of his life.  He stated that he was born in Ohio in 1837 and came to Dodge County, Wisconsin, with his parents when he was seven years old.  From there he moved to Loyal and resided there about twenty years prior to the murder.  Dan had held the offices of supervisor and treasurer in the Town of Loyal and had known Henry Wright two or three years prior to his death.  For the most part he denied Maggie Wright’s testimony and appeared non-cooperative.

The son of Daniel and Susan Allen, Frank Allen, also appeared as did Dan’s niece, Lillie F. (Allen) Walls.  Several others testified as to the good character of Daniel Allen until shortly before the time of the murder.

The trial itself took about eight days to complete; it proved to be a long drawn out affair that led to much exhaustion on the part of the jurors due to late evening testimonies and a full Saturday in court.  After both sides ended their arguments, Judge Bailey gave his charge to the jury in a seemingly prejudicial and damaging manner.  The judge spoke skillfully with much power and authority, more forcefully than either of the lawyers had spoken.  His words virtually dissolved all the evidence on the prosecutions side.   His statement contained twenty-four handwritten pages.  Judge Bailey hinted that Henry Wright could have taken the arsenic himself in fact inducing his own death.  The judge stressed that if any doubts prevailed as to the cause of Wright’s death or how the victim obtained the poison then the verdict must be “not guilty”.  The jury was instructed to strictly, honestly, and fearlessly observe four rules of law here quoted.  “1) The burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of this charge against accused lies on the state.  2) The law presumes the defendant innocent of the crime charged.  3) In order to overcome this presumption of innocence the evidence must be such as to preclude to a moral certainty every reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.  4) In matters of doubt it is safer to acquit than condemn.”

It was suggested that Dan Allen had no motive and that his affection or lust for Maggie Wright was hardly sufficient to constitute a motive.  Dan’s good reputation and unblemished character prior to meeting Maggie Wright were mentioned.  Also the fact that Allen testified on his own behalf was implied as a further indication of his innocence. The charge also suggested that Maggie Wright was not a stable person, nor a credible witness.  A brief quote from Judge Bailey summarizing the basic jest of the entire charge follows.  “Persons accused of so great a crime as the taking of human life should never be convicted upon probabilities, conjectures, surmises, or suspicions, but only upon proof of the most convincing character.”

With this lengthy charge from the judge on their minds the jurors removed from the courtroom to decide the fate of Daniel Allen.  In a mere ten minutes they returned with a unanimous decision of “not guilty”.

Neillsville Republican & Press, July 5, 1894 –  “What a sensation; what a surprise to everyone who had listened to the trial from beginning to end – after sizing up the jury, and the manly qualities they were supposed to possess – to hear them return a verdict of “not guilty,” after being out but ten minutes.  Oh what a farce!
There is not a question of doubt in minds of nearly every man and woman in Clark County that both Allen and Mrs. Wright are guilty of the murder of Henry Wright by poisoning, and probably for the death of Mrs. Allen, so that the two, who were unduly intimate, could get married. ….The prosecution had carefully prepared every detail on their side of the case, and had spared no pains or money in having everything right to convict, and would have convicted Allen had they not been handicapped by the judge’s rulings.
The evidence offered by the State and received by Judge Newman on the first trial, and which was not received on the last trial, was taken in connection with the other evidence, amply sufficient to have convicted the defendant.  The evidence excluded by Judge Bailey was principally the testimony of James Hill, W. F. Woodward, L. M. Sturdevant and Dr. Mulvey.  The three first overheard conversation of Allen and Mrs. Wright, which conclusively proved Allen’s guilt.  It will be interesting to the public to know what this evidence was.
When James Hill was offered as a witness on the first trial the attorneys for the defense objected on the ground that the officers of the law had procured the evidence by deception.  Judge Newman’s ruling was in these words:  “What Allen said, he said voluntarily, as far as is disclosed now.  There was no apparent necessity for him to say anything, only he didn’t know that there was a witness to it.  I don’t recall any principle or any case which would exclude this testimony.  I think it is competent.”  The testimony of Mr. Hill was that he overheard a conversation between Allen and Mrs. Wright in the jail.  She asked him where he got the arsenic.  He refused to tell.  She then said that he told her last night that he got it in Milwaukee.  He replied “yes.”  She asked him if he was sure he burned all the arsenic in the box and didn’t leave any on the pantry shelves, or where Derby’s folks would find it.  He said “yes.”  She asked him if he was not sorry he poisoned Hank.  He said, “Mag, I don’t say I poisoned Hank, Maggie, don’t ask me, I am sorry for everything.”
Mrs. Wright testified that in February, 1886, and within about three months before the death of Wright, Allen told her he intended to get arsenic of Dr. Mulvey to poison Wright with.  On the former trial the doctor testified that in January or February 1886, the exact date he could not fix, Allen applied to him to purchase some arsenic and wanted it in the powdered form.  It will be remembered that the arsenic in Wright’s stomach had been given in powder.  This evidence of Dr. Mulvey’s was rejected on the last trial.
The State at the last trial offered L. M. Sturdevant, who was district attorney when Allen was arrested, as a witness.  He overheard a conversation between Allen and Mrs. Wright within a day or two after Allen was lodged in jail and after Mrs. Wright’s confession.  Mr. Sturdevant had written down a memorandum of the conversation immediately, but he did not disclose it at the former trial as he did not wish to be a witness.  He had wished to satisfy himself whether Allen was guilty and remembered the conversation for that purpose only.  The attorneys for the State learning that he could give important evidence pressed him, in the interest of justice to be a witness, and he reluctantly consented.
He could have testified to this:  Allen and Mrs. Wright being alone in a room in the jail, and supposing no one was listening, began to talk about the poisoning.  Allen first kidded Mrs. Wright, then he said: “Maggie, Maggie, what trouble you have got us into.  Why did you give me away?”  Mrs. Wright then said: “They knew it already.”  Allen said:  “Who knew it?”  Mrs. Wright: “Capt. Tolford and Sturdevant knew it.”  Allen: “Did you tell them where I got the poison?”  Mrs. Wright: “Yes, I told them you got it in Milwaukee.”  Allen then said again: “Oh Maggie, Maggie, what trouble you have got us into.”
The attorneys for the prosecution insist that all this evidence should have been received.  If received, it would have so corroborated Mrs. Wright, that no reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused could be entertained by any fair man.”

Many questions were voiced to the press and public after this unbelievable verdict was given.  “What about our justice system and why was the judge so biased?”  “Who killed Henry Wright if Dan Allen didn’t?”  “And where was that lynch mob?”  And lastly the thoughts of many were how much of a farce this had all become.

THE RABBIT

Fluffy, brown fur with white tail and feet,

He hops around the yard and woods

Looking for food, something to eat,

Always cautious, eyes big and alert.

His ears jut out high above his head

Turning from side to side, listening hard

For danger, for enemies, creeping upon him.

‘Till he finds himself wedged in the woven wire fence.