John Tyree and his father-in-law and mother-in-law, Steven D. Graham and wife are in jail. Mr. Tyree must answer the charge of rape and the old folks must face the more serious charge of murder. The families came here from Missouri last winter and resided in the city until a few months ago when they were employed by Purdy & Clay to work on the Kentucky mule ranch five miles northeast of town.Mr. and Mrs. Graham have two daughters, the older one being Mr. Tyree's wife and the younger one, Mary, between 16 and 17 years of age, unmarried. On June 17th, the girl gave birth to a child and out of this grows the charge of a double crime. Mr. Tyree is charged with having been the father of the child and of having had intercourse with the girl. Mr. and Mrs. Graham are charged with murdering the child at the time of its birth. Tyree pled guilty before Justice Collins and was committed to jail until the district court convenes in October. Mr. and Mrs. Graham will have their preliminary hearing before Justice Collins tomorrow. They deny the charge very strongly. They admit the birth of the child but they say it was born dead. The county attorney relies on the girl's evidence for conviction. It is said that she testified that she heard the child cry after it was born but that she immediately went to sleep and that when she awoke she was told that it was dead.
The affair was first brought to the attention of the officers on Thursday. The neighbors had known that the girl was in a delicate condition and even her confinement was not a secret although the exact date was not known. The fact that there was no infant around the house caused suspicion and the officers were asked to investigate into the matter. On Thursday the sheriff and the county attorney saw Tyree and questioned him. He denied everything. He said the girl was all right in every way except that she had been afflicted with dropsy, and that people who were slandering her should be made to suffer the penalty of the law. He was very indignant and pretended to be greatly shocked.
The officers next saw Mr. Graham and threw out the inference that Tyree had confessed and they asked him where he (Graham) had buried the child. He answered that he had buried it over in the pasture, pointing in a northerly direction. A search was made but nothing was found. Graham said that he had buried it near the creek and on account of the high water since that time and his confused mind at the time, it is impossible now to locate the place.
Following this incident Mr. Graham was persuaded to make complaint against Tyree on the charge of committing a rape on his daughter, Mary, and Tyree pled guilty as above noted. Tyree now admits the birth of the child but says he did not see it and does not know whether it was born dead or alive.
On Saturday Mr. and Mrs. Graham were arrested. Dr. Coleman swore to the complaint. Usually the county attorney does this when he has reason to believe a crime has been committed, but the presumption in this case is that he did not desire to do it without consulting A. L. Noble. The charge is murder in the first degree.
The affair is a very deplorable one. The day after Tyree's arrest his wife, the older daughter of the Graham family, gave birth to a child, and when the old folks were arrested, it became necessary to employ help to take care of her. Mrs. Maggie Roberts was employed to care for the woman and child, and Joe Shannon to look after the stock and do the general work around the house. When the woman is able to be up, if she can not support herself, she will be taken to the poor farm.
In order to prevent a conversation between Grahams and Tyree, the latter was taken to the Harper county jail at Anthony Saturday night before the Grahams were brought in. Mary Graham who must be the main witness against her parents, is in the care of the sheriff and is not permitted to talk with them except in the presence of officers.
From statements made by different members of the family, it appears that much debauchery has been carried on in this home, apparently with the knowledge and consent of all parties. The outcome is very uncertain and the expense of it, is great. It would be better if the community were never burdened with such people.
To arrest people on the serious charge of murder in the first degree and to dismiss the case before scarce three days have elapsed is a very unusual proceeding but that is just what happened in the Graham case which was thoroughly ventilated a week ago.The case was dismissed at the instance of the county attorney on Tuesday evening of last week a few minutes before the Index was taken from the press. The preliminary hearing had been set for Thursday but the county attorney did not wait for even the first round. He had probably become acquainted with some law as a result of a visit to Winfield the previous day and he seemed to be very anxious to get rid of a burden.
Before he dismissed the case he took occasion to "explode" before Justice Collins and in the presence of a few of his sympathizers whom he had gathered up on the street to make an audience. A few uninvited guests were also present, "one of whom we were which." He was sour on humanity in general but he had a specially prepared chastisement for the county commissioners. He said he believed Mr. and Mrs. Graham guilty of the crime, thought he had sufficient evidence to convict them, but the commissioners thought otherwise and he did not care to prosecute the case when the commissioners opposed it, but he wanted it understood that the entire responsibility was on the commissioners. He left the impression that they were a mighty mean set of men. He also "rapped" the "temperance cranks" and accused them of meddling with his business, and the public in general were not immune from the burning flames of his wrath. All the county officers except the sheriff also were "knockers."
It was a wail more becoming a child under the 'teens than a public officer. It would have been better if he had "cut out" that speech and simply said that the case was brought hastily without full knowledge of the law applicable to the case, that since bringing it he had received substantial advice and had become convinced that a conviction was impossible. His excoriation of the commissioners and the public in general was an inexcusable blunder and if he thinks that it will lead him to a towering pinnacle of fame he has presumed extravagantly. If all his accusations against the commissioners, the county officers and the public were true, he still had absolute power in the matter. This was a case in which the commissioners had no power whatever. If he believed the parties were guilty and he had sufficient evidence under the law to convict them, then it was his duty to prosecute the case regardless of what the commissioners said or thought and his action in other cases is proof sufficient that he doesn't care a continental what the commissioners think. On this particular occasion he swelled up and said he did not want the Board to get the idea into their heads that they were going to control prosecutions in the future. If not in the future, why now?
We have asked the commissioners for their version of the matter. They say they told the county attorney that in their opinion he did not have a case, after consulting with other lawyers. They objected to the great expense of the nurse hire and other labor at the Graham home which expense they intimated they would not assume. They at no time ordered him to dismiss the case because they knew they had no such power.
There has been some disposition to inject the sheriff's office into this proceeding. Such a procedure is entirely unwarranted. The sheriff is purely a ministerial officer. His duties begin and end with serving papers and he is not supposed to inquire into the sufficiency of evidence or the law applicable to any case. We do not see how he can in any way be made responsible for any part of the proceeding.
Thus endth the chapter. The county Attorney is a little wiser and the county pays the tuition.
On Monday Samuel Griffin, attorney for S. D. Graham, applied to Probate Judge Gleason for a writ of habeas corpus to release Mary Graham from jail, who is held on a charge, sworn to by the county attorney, of assisting John Tyree to escape trial and punishment. After several hours were consumed in presenting the law Judge Gleason denied the writ on the ground that the girl had waived preliminary examination. At the time of her arrest, the girl, through Ed Sample who represented her, waived preliminary examination without the knowledge of her father and he sought to get possession of her under a writ of habeas corpus. The girl is a minor and has no guardian other than her parents.This is the girl who is held in custody to testify against John Tyree in October on a charge of rape. She was at first committed illegally as a witness and subsequently released on a writ of habeas corpus. Before she was released, however, she was arrested on a charge of a felony, a trumped up charge, by the way, and on account of her tender years and ignorance in waiving preliminary examination, it seems that she can not be released.
It was demonstrated at this trial that Ed Sample has lost none of his old time cunning. He took charge on the case personally in the absence of A. L. Nobel, and resisted the writ.
On Friday C. B. Currie and R. H. Clay offered to qualify on a bond to release Mary Graham from custody, now being held on a charge of assisting John Tyree escape jail, but the sheriff, on the advice of the county attorney, refused to accept the bond. The county attorney claims that since the child did not sign the bond, it is not valid even though the bondsmen are furnished by her parents.Messrs. Clay and Currie could easily qualify on a bond for $50,000.00, or even $100,000.00, and we don't think that the claim is made by anybody that they are not good for $500, the amount fixed by the justice of the peace at the time the girl was committed to jail.
The county attorney desires to have it understood by the public that he, not the sheriff, is wholly responsible for the refusal to accept the bond. There will undoubtedly be further developments in the case this week.
Sheriff Haun and County Attorney Tincher and Samuel Griffin and Seward I. Field went to Anthony yesterday to fight another legal battle in the Graham-Tyree affair. About two weeks ago C. B. Currie and R. H. Clay volunteered to qualify on Mary Graham's bond, who is in the sheriff's custody against her father's wish, but the sheriff, on the advice and demand of the county attorney, refused to accept the bond on the ground that the girl did not desire her freedom. The attorney's for Graham now bring habeas corpus proceedings before Judge Gillett in chambers at Anthony. The position of Messrs. Griffin and Field is that the father has absolute custody of the girl, while the county attorney contends that the girl can act for herself after the age of 14 years. The application for the writ was argued last week.Mary Graham is in custody of the sheriff on the trumped up charge of assisting John Tyree to escape jail, in order to keep her parents from talking with her. She is expected to testify against Tyree on the charge of rape. Tyree is her sister's husband.
The first trial for the October term of court was that of the State vs. John Tyree, charged with committing rape on the person of Mary Graham, his wife's sister. It was on Thursday. A L. Noble and J. N. Tincher prosecuted. Samuel Griffin and Seward L. Field defended. He was found guilty by the following jury:E. L. McCracken
G. T. Evans
M. A. Davis
J. H. Marshall
Henry Warnstaff
Olaf Olson
A. D. Baldwin
T. S. Greesham
F. C. Colborn
E. T. McMillian
J. L. Albright
S. J. ColeProbably the most interesting feature of the trial was the question of personal feeling between the county attorney and the defendant. The evidence disclosed the fact that they were school boys together back in old "Mizouri" and that the sun scarcely ever shown on a day that they did not have a fight. It was agreed that Mr. Tyree wore the belt on every occasion except one. In that instance Mr. Tincher insists that he won out but he is willing to admit that it was more on account of Tyree's unfortunate predicament on that occasion than his own physical powers. According to Mr. Tichner's story the battle was fought soon after a Missouri orchard had been invaded and Tyree was burdened with more than a convenient number of red apples, which did not only affect the inner man but added to the weight of his wearing apparel as well. In this way he was handicapped.
The case as it applied strictly to the offense was up to the average for immorality and debauchery. The evidence would not lead anyone into the belief that any member of the family was entirely blameless and that some of them were equally as bad as John Tyree. Mr. and Mrs. Graham, the parents of Mary Graham and Mrs. Tyree, were not present at the trial, and so far as is known have left the country. Tyree was not prosecuted on their demand nor the girl's. They were seemingly satisfied with what had been going on.
The trial threw no new light on the disappearance of the child to which the girl gave birth. That incident still remains a matter of conjecture. The rape was committed in a barn near Pixley some time last November, December or January - the time was not definitely fixed.
Under the indeterminate sentence law passed by the last legislature the court does not fix the term of a prisoner in the penitentiary except in cases of murder or attempt to murder. That is now the duty of the penitentiary board, hence the board of directors of the penitentiary will fix Mr. Tyree's term. However, it cannot be less than five years nor more than twenty one. Under the law the judge and the county attorney file a report with the board which relates the prisoner's life's record, his character and his tendencies and the board uses the report in their deliberations.
Mr. Tyree has a wife and a baby a few months old. Her condition is indeed pitiable and an object of charity. The whole affair was very unfortunate and very expensive for Barber county and it is hoped that there will be no more like it.
(District Court Cases, Barber County Index, October 21, 1903.)
The case of the State vs. Mary Graham was dismissed on motion of the county attorney. Mary Graham was arrested on complaint of the county attorney in August. She was charged with trying to assist John Tyree to get away and escape punishment. There was never the remotest idea in anybody's mind that he was guilty, for Mary was Tyree's avowed enemy ever since she was in official custody. The fact of the matter is that the county attorney failed to commit her as a witness properly at the time of Tyree's arrest and the felonious charge was trumped up in order to hold her. The arrest was a great injustice to the girl and an inexcusable cost to the county.(District Court Cases, Barber County Index, October 21, 1903.)
Sheriff W. H. Haun on Monday filed suit against the county commissioners for $38.45 fees which they refused to pay at the October meeting. The items which the Board rejected are as follows:Boarding Mary Graham ------$8.40
Money paid Mrs. Roberts for caring for Mrs. Tyree ----- $10.00
Same, Joe Shannon ------ $5.25
R. H. Clay, service in Tyree arrest ----- $2.00
Boarding Mrs. Henningsen's child ----- $12.80The board rejected these bills on the ground that they were unauthorized. The Graham bill was rejected because the girl was not legally committed. The Roberts, Shannon and Clay hire, they say, was not authorized by them, and they claim that the Henningsen child was not a prisoner and therefore the sheriff had no authority to keep it in custody.
Sheriff Haun, on the contrary claims that the Kiowa justice committed the child with the mother, that it was so small that it could not have been otherwise provided for. The Roberts and Shannon bills, he claims, were made necessary because the Tyree woman's condition was such that she had to have immediate attention, and since all other people around the place were under arrest and in jail, he had to employ somebody to take care of the woman.
The county attorney advised the Board to pay these bills, and it was partly on his advice that they were contracted. It is probable that he will not resist the suit. There are some close legal points connected with the case. E. Sample is Sheriff Haun's attorney.
Thanks to Shirley Brier for finding, transcribing and contributing the above news article to this web site!