Thriller Thursday - Wrapping Up the Villers Trial, Part 12

In this installment of Thriller Thursday I'll continue with the articles on the Villers trial. Some drama (or should I say melodrama) takes place in Mrs. Tromer's testimony and some disjointed testimony given that will hopefully be clarified in other clippings.

Jamestown Weekly Alert - 20JAN1898, pg2

"On opening court Saturday morning the attendance was considerably less, not as many ladies being present as heretofore. Mrs. Tromer was carried in and answered questions through the interpreter on cross examination for a short time, when she began to cry out in a loud and wavering tone of voice uttering mournful cries sounding something like the wailings, or half singing of an insane person. She was at once removed to a waiting room and after a short time her cries were stopped and she again relapsed into quiet."

Ok...already starting out here I'm annoyed. I think the real drama is this woman. Seriously. Were the stays on her corset too tight? Did they still wear corsets? And am I the only one thinking that maybe she was finally silenced with a punch to the face? I get it. Horrible stuff happened to her and her husband, but there were quite literally years in between all this. It's normal to get a bit emotional, but I'd be pissed not hysterical. If someone killed my husband I'd be trying to rip his throat out not sobbing like a nub. Yeah. I'm a modern woman. Anyway...

Jamestown Weekly Alert - 20JAN1898, pg2

"On cross-examination

She said about the first time she met Villers was while living on the Kennison place when one day during threshing time Villers being at the house he attempted to put his hand on her breast. He had always tried to be familiar with her; her husband objected and was angry when she told him of these occasion (sic), as she always did. They incensed her greatly. These attempts were made before Tromer left; not every time she saw Villers, but often. (Here witness was removed from room.)

Little Hilda Tromer was called and stated she saw Villers pull her mother into his lap and attempt to kiss her; was not asked at LaMoure as to this. Her mother did housework alone for the family.

Otis Frazer recalled to testify to plowing for Villers about a month and a half in 1894.

Albert Eitell, also recalled, said he hand (sic) worked with Villers in fall of '94. Villers cropped the northwest quarter, near the house, that year. Louis Villers, he thought, worked it in '95; he threshed with him before Tromer left.

Mrs. Jos. Comber of Montpelier was the next witness. She had not been on the stand before and her testimony was anxiously hatened (sic) to by the audience. She said she knew Villers well in 1894; Villers and Tromer coming from Jno. Comber's place on day in fall of '94 and when they left her house went in direction of Villers' place. It was about 3 p.m. Villers came in to light a pipe and she asked him who was out in the buggy and he said Tromer."

Jamestown Weekly Alert - 20JAN1898, pg2

I understand they were trying to cram so much into these article, but the terrible grammar was really getting to me. It is unfortunate that there wasn't more detail as to the reason these questions were asked of the witnesses. While I'm sure those following the case intently in 1898 were familiar with the details, the lack of clarification as to why which fields were farmed isn't as clear to someone looking back more than 100 years.

"John Kenoskie of Adrian was next called. Witness' testmony (sic) objected to by defense as not having been included in information. States attorney on oath said evidence of witness was not known to him until after proceedings had been begun. Objections over-ruled, and witness statement received.

He said he had met Villers once, before Tromer disappeared; had with neighbors joined in search for the body. In company with Wm. Benjamin of Adrian, they had searched the grounds on the Villers place. Remembered seeing two straw stacks burning near there on the Sunday following Villers arrest. In searching for some clue of Tromer, he found a hammer lying in road by side of buggy track leading to Villers house; kept hammer at his own hause (sic) every (sic) since; it had been used some by himself and boy.

(Hammer here introduced in evidence and witness recognized it as same.) He said hammer was in same condition as when he had it and was found about a half mile from the culvert.

In interrogatories the defense here asked if the hammer might have been useful on a mowing or threshing machine. Witness excused."

So in this post we see some testimony reported, but nothing linked together. Nothing put into a nice package for consumption. I can only assume that they're building up to something, but only time will tell. 

Thriller Thursday - Wrapping Up the Villers Trial, Part 11

The Jamestown Weekly Alert, 20JAN1898, pg2

And on we continue! This week it's time to begin the prosecution's case against Villers.

"Said Villers Didn't Sleep at Comber's.

John Comber, recalled by the prosecution said he and his family and hired girl were at home the night of Sept. 14, and 15. Louis Villers reached the house between 2 and 3 a. m., sleeping behind the stove in the kitchen, M. J. Villers not sleeping in his house that night. On cross examination he said he fixed the date because that was the only night Louis Villers slept there. M. J. Villers left about the time the machine did and he didn't see him again that day. The crew slept at the bars.

While at the machine he saw a man going by, a stranger, the man called out to him but he, no knowing Mr. Tromer, could not say it was he. Carley came to his house to get Villers to thresh for him and the date, Friday, Sept. 14, was..."

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg2

Now this looks a bit disjointed, especially when you see the next clipping which is the top of the next column. It also doesn't appear that this would have continued anywhere on this page. The next title/subtitle looks like it could have finished this sentence. It certainly continues with the prosecution's case. Either way we'll continue...

"....Firmly Impressed Upon Him.

Didn't know any one called his attennion (sic) to the date - he knew when threshing was done at his farm. That Friday night - the entire week M. J. Villers was at his place - was the only night the prisoner did not sleep in his house and was the only night Louis Villers slept there in the kitchen.

Mrs. Jno. Comber had known Villers ever since he had been in Dakota and corroborated her husband's testimony except that she did not know at what hour of the night Louis Villers came to the house. On cross examination she said she was sick at the time but knew all that went on in the house, but not outside. Louis Villers left after breakfast the next morning. She was unable to do any house work, kept a girl, made no beds.

Said Villers Tried to Sell a Ring.

Ambrose Walsh of this city for fourteen years and acquainted with Villers for six or seven years stated Villers, in threshing season of '94, offered to sell him a plain gold ring, holding it out in his hand as they walked on Front street. He refused to buy it. On cross examination said the date might have been as early as August of first part of September; at time had not heard of Tromer's disappearance and didn't connect two events."

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg2

So from this testimony I'm assuming that when they said Villers slept at the house on the nights in question that information wasn't given by Jno. Cromer himself although that is difficult to tell with how the article was written. He did give some testimony so why the change now?

"The Afternoon Session.

The public was surprised at the unexpected termination of the trial without the appearance of Mrs. Villers as a witness. neither was Mrs. Tromer placed on the stand in rebuttal as at the morning session was stated would be done. The only witness was Mr. Villers and he but a few minutes.  A part of the testimony of Mrs. Tromer and other witnesses at the LaMoure trail was read by Attorney Ellsworth for the defense and made a part of the record.

There Mrs. Tromer testified she had seen Villers about the cows before they were taken back; Villers said he would send them to his place - didn't say her husband wanted that done; her husband had not stated anything about that.

The state, in its turn, also reading from a transcript of the evidence given by Joseph Villers at that trial stated when he went to his house that Sept 14, carrying Tromer with him on his way home, the witness found his wife baking pies and Frasier playing near the house. He then testified this was about 3 p. m. Tromer had left his oxen at the place that day intending to call for them later."

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg2

Can't make much out with the last paragraph. What transcript from which trial? The original one when he tried to kill the wife? More questions than answers in that paragraph!

"Ella Villers at that trial testified she saw Tromer sitting in the buggy with her father a little north of the house. Her mother, she thought, was digging potatoes. She did not remember where her father went after that; Tromer, she testified, went toward home on foot.

M. J. Villers was recalled to the stand in regard to the Haas letter; said he had a German friend, Victor Frecke, who lived in Milwaukee, who with two sons was thinking of coming to Dakota, northwest of LaMoure. Witness did not remember whether or not any mention of wife and children was made in the letter. The contents, the witness said, were about as follows:

'"Jamestown, North Dakota," I forget the date, "Mr. Victor Frecke, Dear Sir: If you wish to come on a visit to North Dakota don't fetch your sons with you now as the work is pretty well over but it will do about next July or so." For the business he wanted to put his son in I told him it would be riskey (sic) in this part of Dakota.'

I signed my name to it and sent it the next day, said the witness. I had further correspondence with him about his coming to the state but it was in French.'"

What exactly was the "Haas Letter" and why is it significant in this case? Was this the letter from the first trial that they claim Villers had written? It shouldn't be. That letter was alleged to be in English and the problem was that it wasn't written in German for Mrs. Tromer to understand. So what is this letter and why is there no better explanation? Hopefully it will be discussed in the newspaper later because it's a big question mark right now.

Until next Thriller Thursday!

Thriller Thursday - Wrapping Up the Villers Trial, Part 10

The Jamestown Weekly Alert - 20JAN1898, pg2

Continuing with the coverage of the Villers trial from the Jamestown Weekly Alert. We have finally made it to page two and the story certainly stays interesting!

This first image was at the top of page 2 although it covers what we already knew, since page 1 talked of the verdict and sentencing. My guess is that this was because the information for this issue was being compiled as the trial was winding down. It's not like our daily papers where all the information for the days news got in there within hours. The paper was weekly and this trial was sensational. They were getting every detail in there!

"Evidence all in

Arguments in Villers Case Made By Attorneys to Jury.

Unexpected Ending of Evidence - Important Testimony for Defense

End of Trial Approaching - Mrs. Villers, Not Placed Upon the Stand."

The Jamestown Weekly Alert - 20JAN1898, pg2

As we saw in last week's post the prosecutor mentioned how Villers' wife wasn't present at the trial. Seeing this would have made me wonder if she was instructed not to be there in case she had to testify...and then just didn't. Is that how things really are or is that just in movies? Also, wasn't it widely practiced that a wife couldn't be compelled to testify against her husband? Perhaps her testimony wouldn't have been helpful, but potentially could have been hurtful or twisted to be hurtful against her husband. There could have been good reason to not have her testify and if she did then she would have been available for cross-examination. Just like today the lack of testimony tends to be looked at by the opposing side and inferring guilt even though that isn't necessarily true.

The Jamestown Weekly Alert - 20JAN1898, pg2

"The first and only murder trial in Stutsman county approached its close at 2:17 p.m. Monday when Judge Fisk ordered the attorneys to proceed with their arguments to the jury. States Attorney Baldwin reviewed, commenting upon the evidence, directing attention to the most material points. He spoke less than three-quarters of an hour and then gave way to Attorney Ellsworth who made a strong plea for his client, M. J. Villers."

This clipping looks like it would have done better on the first page, but at least it teases us into knowing that whatever plea the defense made, it was a good one.

"Monday's Proceedings.

Louis J. Villers, son of Mr. Villers, corroborated the testimony of his father, saying he was at Comber's Sept. 14th. The next day he took his father's rig and came to Jamestown for some cylinder rings. He returned about 8 p. m. to Jno. Comber's where he saw his father; he supposed Mr. Villers slept in Comber's house that night. His father was troubled with a disease of the bladders since '93.

The Jamestown Weekly Alert - 20JAN1898, pg2

Mr. F. Carley of Montpelier, testified he was at Comber's to about sundown Sept. 14; said Villers bore a good character so far as he knew.

Peral Wright knew Mrs. Tromer in '92 when he (sic) saw her taken with a more violent nervous attack than any here in court. At the time she was at the store getting breakfast when she fell backward on the floor, frothed at the mouth, sobbed, cried and screamed and was not able to do any work afterward for three days. Also saw her in a nervous attack in '93, but not so severe. Photographs of the grave and surrounding topography, showing building, etc., taken by the witness were identified and introduced in evidence.

No cross examination."

I wish they would have clarified the "violence" more and why they phrased it that way. I don't think they were trying to say that she would have been the one to hurt her husband, but there doesn't seem to be a purpose to it. What was their point?

The Jamestown Weekly Alert - 20JAN1898, pg2

"Slept with Villers at Combers.

Louis Comber, son of John Comber, said he was at his father's place Sept. 15th, '94, and saw Villers there then. The cook shanty remained there until Sunday; didn't see Viller's bring any provisions to it. Villers slept that night in the kitchen, he (sic) sleeping with him. The witness is a sound sleeper but he remembered Villers getting up several times awakening him some of the times and was there Sunday morning.

No cross examination.

Jno. Comber said Villers threshed at his place Saturday, the machine next going to his brother's place, Joseph Villers was present at the machine, the cook shanty remaining to Sunday fore noon. Villers was at his house Saturday night, talking with him and family before going to bed. Louis Villers came during the evening bringing some cylinder rings with him. Louis Comber slept in the kitchen with Villers that night.

No cross examination."

So far none of the witnesses have been cross examined. I wonder if that was because their was nothing to gain and cross examination would have only helped to strengthen the alibi. They are set on that date too. I can only imagine that was because it's the date Mrs. Tromer claims that her husband went missing. Of course, Mr. Tromer could have been held and killed on another date. No saying it played out that way, but blowing holes in the case as it is presented in the newspaper is too easy. Especially when looking back from current times.

The Jamestown Weekly Alert - 20JAN1898, pg2

"Prosper Naze, Villers' son-in-law, was at Villers' home Sunday afternoon, Sept. 16th; saw Villers drive away southwest in his democrat wagon; was asked to accompany him to Tromer's for a sheep - did not go. Saw Villers return in same direction with meat or a sheep.

No cross examination.

Here it was stipulated by counsel that a mortgage, of which Exhibit 5 is a copy, was written Sept. 19, '93, by W. B. S. Trimble, and signed in his presence by Aug. Tromer, and the same day Trimble wrote a note of the same date for $296.96 payable to Octavia Villers which August Tromer executed in his presence.

Dr. Baldwin, recalled by the defense, said Mrs. Tromer first met him in his office the middle of July, 1893. Her health was then poor, she having spells of unconsciousness at times. He didn't know what was the cause of them. In summer of '94 she was brought into his store from Strong & Chase's where it was said she had fainted while trading. The day was warm and the doctor thought she had overtaxed herself. She was unconscious but a few minuted with no excitement or hysteria. Mrs. Tromer was much improved after her first treatment which was somewhat incidental, she not having come to the city for treatment. There was a deficiency of red corpuscles in her blood, she was very white and he prescribed accordingly. Hysteria is a disease of the nerves. First time he saw he she didn't speak any English and Mr. Tromer did the talking; now she can understand common English.

No cross examination."

I know I've mentioned it before, but her "nervous condition" is very irritating. A disgrace to women everywhere. Not that the men were much better. Oh how I wish I could really know what was wrong with her. Was there something wrong or was she just nuts? "Hysteria is a disease of the nerves"...oh for a proper diagnosis!

"Here the defense said it was ready to rest the case providing they were granted the privilige (sic) of placing Mrs. M. J. Villers, their last witness who was then unfortunately sick and quite nervous on the stand later. The prosecution did not readily consent to this, the defense rested and the state began the introduction of testimony in rebuttal no agreement for the taking of her deposition being secured."

Oh please not more nervousness! I hope that this was just that Octavia was nervous about taking the stand and was also sick. Two separate issues, but with the way women were and were viewed it's hard to tell. I found it amusing in a very hypocritical sort of way that the prosecution would be so against delaying Octavia Villers' testimony when they delayed the trial for Mrs. Tromer's hysteria. I supposed that's their job though. Still, with the comment about how Octavia Villers didn't testify I've got to wonder whether it was due to her being ill. Surely if they wanted to bring her back and the prosecution fought to prevent it that they would have noted that in the closing statements.

Next week I'll start on the prosecution's case which is much longer than what the papers presented for the defense. we'll see how much we get through. Maybe I'll find out more about the business Villers was in because I always thought it was farming and that he rented land from Tromer, but with all of these posts I'm thinking that may not have been the cut and dry of it.

Thriller Thursday - Wrapping Up the Villers Trial, Part 9

Mrs. Tromer and her children from The Jamestown
Weekly Alert, 20JAN1898, pg1

I wonder if I'll get up to "part 100" by the time this is all over? This is going to be a slightly longer post in an attempt to wrap up the first page of the newspaper.

I can't say that I feel better after transcribing the speculation presented here either. Even as this section of the newspaper wraps up we are told that feeling was so strong against Villers that they didn't think it was safe for him to be acquitted. Could he have even gotten a fair trial?

What was even curiouser was the belief that Mrs. Tromer changing her story multiple times somehow showed that she was telling the truth and that it is more suspicious that Villers did not change his story over the years, therefore it was rehearsed. You can't win, can you? Those, of course, were assertions of the defense so they're lines of argument that would be expected.

Living in a time of women's liberation I was particularly annoyed at Mrs. Tromer's constant melodrama and fainting. I was even more irked at the defense saying that if a woman had presented her story in a bold manner like a man that it would have been more questionable. Lucky for that attorney that I didn't live back then. Even as a child I wasn't meek.

The Jamestown
Weekly Alert, 20JAN1898, pg1

"Speaking of the motive of the crime he said it was not cupidity. It was a delicate subject and he did not like to speak of it but the jury understood. He pictured the prisoner stealing up to a window early in the evening just after the sun had gone to rest in the country where she thought her husband was; stealing there after the light had gone out of the heavens and while the wife was seated by the light of chips upon the stove listening to the children lifting their prayers and saying 'forgive us our trespasses and deliver us from evil' while he, with murder in his soul, looked on and then say he would not kill a man for $48 or any other sum.' Here the audience applauded and the judge had to rap sharply for order and state that no such demonstration would be allowed again. She had confessed and the weight had been lifted from her mind she went out of the court room singing psalms and for hours after was singing hymns. She believed herself to be in heaven beside her old husband to whom she held up her hand and swore never to divulge her secret. For the first time in three long years she was free from this oath. You say she didn't tell the truth? The truth was that before Villers ever entered into this scheme he made a criminal of this poor family.

The Jamestown
Weekly Alert, 20JAN1898, pg1

I know that Mrs. Tromer's story is not the best of most connected. It is strange that she was ever here to tell the story at all. But it required those inconsistencies to prove the truth of her utterances. She has testified differently at other times and said things which were contradictory. But because she did that we know she told the truth. I had rather believe one who would tell such a story than a woman who would bare her face to the audience and tell in a brazen and manly way a story so straight that you could not find a flaw in it anywhere. These are the kind of stories that bear on their face the impression of having been doctored. 'And that is the matter with your story, Joe,' said the attorney turning to the prisoner suddenly. 'Three long years in the pen, time enough to study over this matter and think it all out.' The turning to the jury: 'Who ever expected he would testify other than he did?

But Mrs. Tomer's story was different. Portions of it she had forgotten, but God Almighty saved her to tell what she did tell, as God Almighty put the badgers down to say where Tromer was buried. An all-wise providence and God saved to use Mrs. Tromer, and her little children, to tell the story.

The reason why the story she told is true is because she never left the direct point of issue.  No power on earth can ever remove from her the idea that she received three letters through the hands of this defendant.

Why would Villers be concerned about the disappearance of Tromer? He was concerned and worried about him. He talked to the neighbors and to other people. Told them he knew August Tromer was alive, he had received letters from him. He didn't because Tromer was dead. His object and motive was to conceal the fact that he had killed him. Then he would kill Mrs. Tromer to conceal the evidence that she would hold in her breast against him that would tend convict him of this crime.

The Jamestown
Weekly Alert, 20JAN1898, pg1

Why did Villers get Mrs. Tromer to write that placard that she had left the country? He had all their property and he could not accomplish anything with her alive. He wanted her out of the way also.

There is nothing perplexing about his case. There is no question in the world as to who killed this man. I know it is an awful thing for you to say by any act of yourselves that Joseph Villers should hang. A poor helpless individual whose wife I have not seen by his side during this trial. And I would not by act or word detract one thing from his daughter, who has been here, however. She could not have done otherwise and I do not see why she didn't make her story stronger; could as well as not.

How Mrs. Tromer Received the News

Shortly after the verdict had been announced the news was carried to the Farmers' Home where Mrs. Tromer is staying. She either misunderstood the verdict or the news was too much for her enfeebled condition for upon its announcement she made some exclamation, I, or he, is not known, is free, and fell a swoon. Her heart stopped beating and her condition for a time was extremely serious.

It was feared that she would not survive but after extreme exertions she revived and asked what the finding of the jury was. She was completely prostrated and unnerved and unable to leave for La Moure today as she expected.

The Jamestown
Weekly Alert, 20JAN1898, pg1

Mrs. Tromer is still very weak. Her nerves are completely shattered and it is by an effort that she is up and about. Her children are her greatest anxiety. The little boy, Hedo, has been adopted by Mr. and Mrs. J. J. Peterson of Barnes county, near Clark City, and Mr. and Mrs. Bonnet of Sunburn have taken little Rosa with a view of adoption. The necessary papers will be made out shortly. Little Hilda, who says she is 'going to be eleven years old', will probably remain in the city several families being desirous of caring for and educating her.

Mrs. Tromer reluctantly gives them up, she knows she is unable to provide an education and care for them as she would and it is a great effort for her to see them go. They were the pride of her husband.

The son Edward, returned today to Dickey and Mr. Orderer's where he is staying this winter. The two oldest boys are now young men.

While little has been said about it in the press, it has been known that so strong was the feeling against Villers with many, that an acquittal might have been risky for his personal safety. The conviction of his guilt is too strong in this and LaMoure counties, where the details of the case are known, to make a second trial of the case in either county a probable event - if a new trial should be granted by the court.

The Jamestown
Weekly Alert, 20JAN1898, pg1

The trial of the case was a rapid one and without any unnecessary expense. The only delays were from sickness of the chief witness.

In terest in the proceeedings (sic), both in and outside of Jamestown, was great. The Alert sold out its extra issues here each night, and booked new subscribers from every town in this county and from several towns in LaMoure, Barnes and Foster counties, knowing they could get the full reports in the Alert.

The photograph of Mrs. Tromer and her three little children, from which the picture published in this issue is engraved, was taken after her arrival here as a witness in the trial."

Well that was certainly more excitement and dramatic than in previous editions of this series. We've finally gotten past most of the boring stuff and seem to be getting into the information presented...or at least the information the newspaper and courts shared with the public. Next week we hit page two and I can promise you that it doesn't get boring again. At least not at first glance. This next page appears to have testimony given on behalf of the defense by the accused's children. For me that will be of great genealogical importance. I look forward to jumping into it and I hope you are enjoying the posts as they get more exciting!

The Jamestown
Weekly Alert, 20JAN1898, pg8

Thriller Thursday - Wrapping Up the Villers Trial, Part 8

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg1

Last week we read about the defense's arguments. They weren't exactly the strongest arguments and I think you'll see that the prosecution's arguments in this post aren't much better. I would even say that the prosecution made some fairly wild claims/connections, but something must have stuck to win a guilty verdict.

"The State.

Attorney Guthrie made the final address to the jury and said, in part: Mr. Villers, prior to this transaction, bore a good reputation; he was respected and known throughout this county and trusted in many different ways. You, perhaps, have heard of Margaret, who was called the mother of criminals. There were some 800 direct and indirect descendants of that family. More than 700 of them were at some time in their life in the penitentiary for larceny.

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg1

He who steals has a motive. Criminals are classified. He who commits larceny would not burn a house and he who steals watches perhaps would not steal revolvers. They are like the descendants of Margaret. One was guilty of larceny; all were thieves. There is a system connected with it.

There is something peculiar about the life and character of Martin Villers. How very strange he should have a fire in Wisconsin and lose his home in Kewaunee county. How very strange that a fire follows along in the trail of his whole life. how strange that Peter Sterling should be killed and burned his body was that kind of a murderer. How very strange that the machinery barn of M. J. Villers should burn up; how very strange that Mrs. Tromer's barn should burn and she underneath it in an attempt to burn her body.

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg1

This plan of killing and burning bodies is of a certain kind of a criminal. August Tromer, killed, placed in the ground and a straw stack burned over his grave. There's one of the strongest facts against this defendant. If I had heard of Tromer being killed and a fire kindled over his corpse the first thing I would have said, where is the man who kills people that way?

Attorney Guthrie call the attention of the jury to the settlement had with Tromer that fall. The proposition was settled upon by the defense that Tromer owed Villers $396. This was the starting point. Liens in evidence showed that in '92 Tromer had 1,860 bushels of wheat which at seven cents a bushel would make the threshing bill $130, and Villers says Tromer paid him some money. In '93 he had 1032 bushels of wheat and the threshing bill came to $75 Tromer had paid money both years and didn't owe a dollar for anything else. In '94 he owed $50 for threshing wheat, leaving out the oats, barley and flax making a total of $255. In those years Mr. Tromer threshed about $1,500 worth of wheat - at 40 cents a bushel, about the prevailing price - and this without reference to any other crops.

This crime that Mrs. Tromer talked about and that she finally divulged began way back in '92. This cattle mortgage was a bluff for the purpose of assisting Mr. Tromer to cheat and defraud his creditors. They would believe Mr. Tromer an honest man because he did that, but when he left home he was a criminal.

Why was he chosen? Because Mr. Villers, a smart and wily politician, chosen by the political parties of this county because of his smoothness and ability to get around men and to weave them into believing things he wanted. Because of the fact that this Wily, smooth and smart defendant here taking hold of this poor Dutchman, ignorant and out upon the prairie alone with nothing to think of, he did these things because Villers talked him into it. This mortgage was a bluff. $1,500 worth of wheat and Villers got every bit and Tromer still owed him $72.

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg1

He says he had $148 when he left home that evening. The man who would kill a woman would kill a man for $148. There was a motive sufficient for him to kill and burn."

OK. My husband will be the first to tell you that when financial stuff is brought up I get all glassy-eyed and start to drool all over myself. This last bit of his rather unusual argument to my now addled mind is essentially saying that Tromer kept paying and paying and paying Villers yet Villers kept insisting there was more money owed. I'd like to know more about this "cattle mortgage" that was mentioned above too. It really hasn't been covered and it isn't very clear to me what went on. It's easy to take something that Tromer may have been doing illegally and pinning it on the guy you're accusing of his murder. Anything is possible, but this argument is missing something.

Also, the prosecution wants to paint MJ Villers as this highly intelligent, slick man. Well, I suppose it's better than being called an idiot, but if he was that smart he wouldn't have killed a man that he was getting money from for years for $148. Sure it was worth a LOT more back in the late 19th century, but considering the swindle they're claiming he got from him, why would he kill him for so little after all that? Again, it's possible, but not intelligent. Burying a man that you allegedly killed in a shallow grave on your property isn't very bright either and if he was such a pyromaniac why didn't he just burn the body? It seems like the property was a bit secluded. It was farmed. There are easier and more thorough ways of disposing a body than burying it and setting a haystack on fire. That's just dumb.

I suppose your argument doesn't have to be completely lucid. As long as the jury believes it. And I'm not saying he was innocent. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence, but for everything I've transcribed and read in all of these clippings (old and newly discovered) there is also something not right with the Tromer couple. Perhaps when this series is over I will have a new subject to research!

Thriller Thursday - Wrapping Up the Villers Trial, Part 7

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg1

This week we actually get into some of the details of the case. Well, when I say details I mean that there is a summation of the defense. The clipping praises the defense attorney for doing a good job despite being on the unpopular side. The defense, as far as what is presented, isn't extraordinarily strong.

"Plea For Defense.

Attorney Ellsworth made a strong plea for his client. He attacked the circumstantial evidence in detail, going through it step by step and estimating its worth. He handled the case throughout without assistance showing good generalship and most honorable methods. His was not the popular side and in this he was hampered from the outset.

He dwelt upon the mightiness of the state to prosecute, secure witness and evidence no matter what the cost; and to secure the best legal talent to conduct the trial to a conclusion. The fact that the soil over the body in the grave was loose indicated to him the body had been interred but a short time; no one had testified a straw stack had ever stood there even though cinder of some fire were plowed up upon the site of the grave. Portions of a human body were found and what more natural that the skull and body had been torn and broken by the badgers as testified they were very powerful animals and had burrowed into the grave. Other men had disappeared from that locality and who could say this was the body of Aug. Tromer or Jacob Walker? The age, sickness and good character and reputation of the witness were all in favor of the prisoner, who must be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The presumption was such until beyond a reasonable doubt he was proven guilty. Cupidity was not a motive as Tromer was in debt to him for $72. It could not have been in anger for they were on friendly terms."

An understandable defense to claim that the body may not have been Tromer's, but with Villers' luck it still would have been blamed on him. Using the loose soil as a sign that the body had been recently buried could have been helpful to his defense since Villers was in jail and if it had been buried recently, he couldn't have done it. Unfortunately he was in jail for the attempted murder of Tromer's wife so it would be more believable to the jury that any loose soil was caused by the badgers mentioned. The statement that somehow Villers couldn't have killed Tromer because the latter owed him $72 is ludicrous. Tell that to the numerous people that have been killed by organized crime lords for not paying their debts. As for anger, well there was a previous article that I had come across a few years ago that speculated that it could have been self-defense on Villers' part because Tromer was known to be the sort of person to fly off in a rage. I did a quick search on my blog and didn't find that article. I'll add it to the list of things I need to post.

Thriller Thursday - Wrapping Up the Villers Trial, Part 6

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg1

We are getting there. This is the last Charlie-Brown-teacher-talking post. At least I hope it is. The clipping today continues to talk about circumstantial evidence and the role it can play in a case. Now, I'm no lawyer and I've always heard that convicting someone on circumstantial evidence is a no-no, but perhaps that was just an ideal rather than a legal reality. Apparently you can.

"The Conclusion Not Forced.

'Circumstantial evidence, therefore, is found on experience and observed facts and coincidences establishing a connection between the known and proved facts and the fact sought to be proved. From this view it is manifest that great care and caution should be used in drawing inferences from proved facts. It must be a fair and natural and not a forced and artificial conclusion; the inferences to be drawn from the facts must be a reasonable and natural one and of a moral certainty and certain one. It is not sufficient that it is a probable one; it must be reasonably and morally certain. The next consideration is that each fact which is necessary to the conclusion must be distinctly and independently proved by competent evidence. It may and often does happen that in making out a case on circumstantial evidence many facts are given in evidence not because they are necessary to the conclusion sough to be proved but to show that they rebut, not control presumption.

The several circumstances upon which the conclusion depends must be fully established by proof. They are facts from which the main fact is to be inferred; and they are to be proved by competent evidence and by the same weight and force of evidence as if each one were itself the main fact in issue.

Also that all the facts proved must be consistent with each other and with the main fact sought to be proved; that the circumstances taken together should be of a conclusive nature and tendency leading to a wholly satisfactory conclusion and producing in fact a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no (sic) else committed the offense charged. It is essential, therefore, that the circumstances taken as a whole and giving them their reasonable and just weight and no more should to a moral certainty include every other hypothesis.

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg1

The guilt of the accused may be established from circumstantial evidence alone, provided you first have all direct proof beyond a reasonable doubt that August Tromer was killed as charged in the information and provided the facts established by circumstantial evidence are inconsistent with any other view than the the defendant's guilt. To find the accused guilty on circumstantial evidence the facts proved must be wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that he is guilty.

Three verdicts were given the jury. One finding the prisoner guilty and fixing the punishment at death; another finding him guilty, but placing the penalty at life imprisonment; and the third finding the prisoner innocent."

So we've reached the point where the judge's instructions have been given fully to the jury and he made it pretty clear that you can convict on circumstantial evidence. We already know that he was found guilty so now I'll have to wonder if the reason the death penalty wasn't handed down by the jury was because of the circumstantial nature of the case. Saying that someone is guilty and putting them in jail is much different than saying they are guilty and executing them. Perhaps one of the future posts will deal with the jury. We'll find out together.

Thriller Thursday - Wrapping Up the Villers Trial, Part 5

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg1

OK. Sadly this is more on defining evidence from a quick glance. Let's get this out of the way. Perhaps when I'm done transcribing it we'll discover something new...

"What is Circumstantial Evidence?

The evidence offered by the state tending to connect Mr. Villers with the offense charged is what is known as circumstantial evidence. It therefore becomes important to inform you what circumstantial evidence is and to point out the distinction between that and direct evidence in order to give you an idea of the mode in which judicial investigation is to be pursued by the aid of circumstantial evidence. I cannot do better than to quote from the charge of an eminent jurist:

The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is this: Direct or positive evidence is when a witness can be called to testify of the precise fact which is a subject of issue on trial. That is, in cases of homicide that the party accused caused the death of the deceased. Whatever may be the kind or force of the evidence this is the act to be proved. But suppose no person was present on the occassion (sic) of the death and of course that no one can be called to testify about it, is it wholly unsusceptible of legal proof? Experience has shown that circumstantial evidence may be offered in such cases; that is, that a body of facts may be proved of so conclusive a character as to warrant and form the belief of the fact quite as strong and certain as that on which discreet men are accostomed (sic) to act in relation to their most important concerns. It would be injurious to the best interests of society if such proof could not avail in judicial proceedings. If it was necessary always to have direct evidence how many criminal acts committed in the community, destructive of its peace and subversive of its order and security would go wholly undetected and unpunished.

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg1

The necessity therefor of resorting to circumstantial evidence finds a safe and reliable proceeding as obvious as absolute. Crimes are secret. Most men conscious of criminal, and who purpose the execution of criminal acts, seek the security of secresy (sic) and darkness. It is necessary, therefor, to use all other modes of evidence beside that of direct testimony provided such evidence may be relied on as leading to safe and satisfactory conclusions and thus a beneficent providence, the laws of nature and the relations of things to each other are so linked and combined together that a medium of proof is other thereby furnished leading to inferences and conclusions as strong as those rising from direct testimony. Perhaps strong circumstantial evidence in cases of crimes like this committed for the main part in secret is the most satisfactory of any other to draw the conclusion of guilt; for a man may be seduced to perjury by many base motives to which the secret nature of the offense may sometimes afford the temptation; but it can scarcely happen that many circumstances especially if they be of such over which the successor should have no control forming together links of the transaction should all unfortunately concur to fix the presumption of guilt on an individual and yet such a conclusion be erroneous. But in the case of circumstantial evidence where no witnesses can testify directly to the fact to be proved it is arrived at by a series of other facts which by experience have been found so associated with the facts in question that in the relation of cause and effect they lead to a satisfactory and certain conclusion."

Do you feel like you were just listening to the teacher on a Charlie Brown cartoon? I felt that way typing this. At one point I completely disengaged the comprehension part of my brain and was essentially just typing letters without grasping their meaning.

Thriller Thursday - Wrapping Up the Villers Trial, Part 4

The Jamestown Weekly Alert
20JAN1898, pg1

OK. OK. I finally finished that discussion post for my Lighting class. It wasn't as bad as I expected either. Now I'm just waiting until my kiddos get home from school and until it's time to head out to caucus (it's Super Tuesday as I write this). So I'm going to pick back up where I left off and we're going to hear about the evidence that was presented in the case of North Dakota vs Martin J. Villers.

 "Evidence.

From the foregoing provisions of our code it will be noticed that the death of August Tromer must be established by direct proof. Evidence is of two kinds: direct and circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence is the evidence of witnesses who either saw or head the facts about which they testify or otherwise perceived their exsistance (sic) by some of their senses. You will remember what the testimony is bearing upon the fact of the death of August Tromer and if you find from the direct proof in the case beyond a reasonable doubt that he was killed on or about the day charged in this information, the exact date being immaterial, then you will pass to the other question in the case as to whether or not this defendant Martin J. Villers, is the person who did such killing. And whether or not he had a premeditated design to effect the death of the said August Tromer.

The Jamestown Weekly Alert
20JAN1898, pg1

Before you can find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in this information it will be necessary for you to find from the evidence in the case beyond a reasonable doubt that August Tromer was unlawfully killed about Sept. 14, '94 and that this defendant killed him in the manner charged in the information and further that at the time of said killing, this defendant had a premeditated design to effect the death of August Tromer and unless you find all of these facts to be true from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt you must acquit the defendant.

The fact that the states attorney of county has filed this information accusing Mr. Villers of the crime charged against him is no evidence whatsoever of his guilt and must not be so construed by you. The defendedendant (sic) comes into this court clothed with the presumption of innocence and this presumption continues throughout the trial until overcome by proof of hi guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Well...so much for the actual evidence...this only defines it. I imagine they'll get into the actual evidence at some point. What this does do is let us know that the jury was supposed to only find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Still the same as today, but still nothing about that whole unanimous decision.  I'll keep it short and sweet and jump into at least one more section next week.

Thriller Thursday - Wrapping Up the Villers Trial, Part 3

The Jamestown Weekly Alert, 20JAN1898, pg1

Back at it again this week with the third installment in the multi-page transcription of the Villers Trial/Verdict saga. For you another week has passed. For me, not so much. I'm procrastinating doing the discussion post for my Lighting class that I mentioned in my very first post. Instead I'm transcribing some more. Why? Because the post topic is BORING!!!!!! I know I'll have to do it anyway, but I've got a day to try to cope with a topic that makes me want to stick a pencil in my eye.

Well with that charming thought let's tackle this next bit...

"Judge Fisk's Charge

In his charge Judge Fisk said in part:

Gentlemen of the Jury - Before charging you upon the law of this case, I desire first to compliment each of you upon the very close and careful attention you have given to the evidence throughout the trial and to congratulate you upon the fact that this unfortunate controversy is drawing to a close. The duties of the advocates have been discharged in a faithful and able manner both for the state and for the defense, and all that now remains is for me to call your attention to the rules of law that will govern you in arriving at a verdict in this case. After which the responsibility of doing justice between the State of North Dakota and the prisoner at the bar will be with you. That you will discharge this grave responsibility in as able, careful and fearless manner I have no doubt.

The Jamestown Weekly Alert, 20JAN1898, pg1

Under the code of this state every person who destroys the life of a human being either with a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed, or of any other human being, or by any act iminently (sic) dangerous to others evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, or without any design to effect the death by a person engaged in the commission of any felony, is guilty of murder. According to the facts and circumstances attending the killing, murder is deemed either murder in the first, or in the second degree. Here by defined murder perpetrated by means of poison or by lying in wait or by torture or by other willful, deliberate or premeditated killing or in committing or attempting to commit any sodomy, mayhem, arson, robbery, or burglary to be murder in the first degree. All other kinds of murder is murder in the second degree.

The Jamestown Weekly Alert, 20JAN1898, pg1

I charge yon at the outset that under the evidence in this case the defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree or he is innocent of any crime.

A design to effect death is inferred from the fact of the killing unless the circumstances raise a reasonable doubt whether such design existed.

A design to effect death sufficient to constitute murder may be formed instantly before committing the act after which it is carried into execution.

No person can be convicted of murder unless the death of the person alleged to have been killed and the fact of the killing by the accused as alleged are each established as indedependent (sic) fasts; the former by direct proof and the latter beyond a reasonable doubt. Every person convicted of murder in the first degree shall suffer death or be imprisoned in the penitentiary for life. The foregoing sets forth substantially the provision of our code bearing upon the question of murder and you must be governed thereby in arriving at your verdict in this case.

The prisoner at the bar, Martin J. Villers, is charged in this information with the willful murder of one August Tromer committed on or about the 14th day of September, 1894, in this county and state.

This charge divides itself into tow principal (sic) questions: Whether August Tromer, alleged to have been murdered, came to his death by act of violence inflicted by any person and if so, whether the act was committed by this defendant. We are to ascertain whether August Tromer is actually dead and whether he died within on year and one day from the date of the alleged assault upon him; and if so whether the evidence is such as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt the supposition that such death was occasioned by accident or suicide and show it must have been the result of an act of violence."

Well I suppose that answers one question I had regarding my last post. It is supposed to be guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is more than clear. What isn't so clear is the whole unanimous verdict thing. Nothing is mentioned and from the last article we can see that there was one holdout in both the verdict and sentencing deliberations. Perhaps this will come to light in further transcriptions. Next week we tackle the evidence (or perhaps in the next few minutes for me if I don't start that discussion post for school)!

Note - I've changed the posts from Amanuensis Mondays to Thriller Thursdays because the entire trial was rather sensational at the time and because over the next several Amanuensis Mondays I'd like to start sharing and transcribing the names from the Fallen Firefighters Memorial in Colorado Springs. There are quite a lot of panels at the memorial and there is still quite a lot of information on the Villers' trial to share so I'm making this slight change.

Amanuensis Monday - Wrapping Up the Villers Trial, Part 2

This week I'll be continuing with the pages of information on the Villers trial that appeared in the Jamestown Weekly Alert on January 20th 1898. This post will be fairly short and sweet and deals with the jury's deliberations regarding guilt or innocent and sentencing...

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg1

"How the Jury Reached a Verdict.

Bailiffs S. Hager and G. Masters were sworn in again at 9:30 p.m. Monday and then conducted the jury to their room. The first ballot on the guilt or innocence of the prisoner resulted in seven for and five against conviction. The next vote stood 11 to 1 for conviction and at this it remained for a long time, eleven ballots being necessary to decide this point.

As was expected there was a fight on the question of penalty. Eight of the jurors on the first vote were in favor of hanging; the second ballot showed but four. The value of the circumstantial evidence was discussed at length, other votes taken, but no material change on any ballot secured. Finally toward morning the jurors lay down and slept. At 3 a.m. the vote stood 11 to 1. About 4 o'clock they arose and balloted again, and at 4:30 a.m. decided on imprisonment for life. They were out 12 hours and reached a verdict in seven hours."

I always thought that to find someone guilty it had to be unanimous, at least in a murder trial. Were things different then or is my civics knowledge that rusty? I'm fairly certain that today for the death penalty it must be unanimous, and it would appear that it was also the case back then. And is it just me or did it seem like they just wanted to get the verdict and sentencing over and done with. Also in modern times the sentencing part of the trial is separate in cases like these from the verdict. It doesn't really surprise me that this would be different, but it's interesting to note.

The fact that there was a lot of circumstantial evidence is something else worth noting as is the fact that one person wouldn't budge on his guilt. I'm not saying he was innocent. The juror might just have been holding out due to the circumstantial evidence. Perhaps he felt that there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That was always the case...wasn't it? Perhaps it wasn't. Laws change. Maybe I'm taking that part for granted. It's a question I'll have to pester my sister-lawyer about and see what she thinks! Until next week....

Amanuensis Monday - Wrapping Up the Villers Trial, Part 1

I've blogged about Martin Joseph (MJ) Villers before. I've shared articles and documents from his attempted murder trial as well as his murder trial. I thought I was done, but then I was contacted by, Guinn Hinman, who is currently researching the historic Stutsman County Courthouse in North Dakota (like their FB page!). In her research she found two things of interest to me. First she found my blog which referenced MJ Villers and the trial at the courthouse, and second, she found a photograph on the front page of a newspaper of MJ Villers! Yes, morbid curiosity made me want to know what this man looked like and now I know...

...but this is an Amanuensis Monday post so what am I transcribing? Well when Ms. Hinman told me about this photo and an article I never expected what I encountered. There wasn't just an article, but all of page 1, 2, 3, and parts of 4 and 8 were about the trial!

Now that's a lot of information so I can't possibly share it all here, so I'm going to tackle this elephant bit by bit over the next several weeks (possibly months) of Amanuensis Monday posts. I've always wanted to know what made this man do what he did. His family was highly respected and he had even once been a police officer in Wisconsin. Why did this happen?

Well I haven't read all of the articles in this paper. I'm too busy with school right now, but I think I can commit to transcribing a little for each week until my term finishes at the end of April. We'll discover it all together.

These articles are from the January 20th 1898 edition of The Jamestown Weekly Alert which can be digitally found on Chronicling America.

Headline - The Jamestown Weekly Alert, 20JAN1898, pg1

"Imprisonment for Life

The Jury Finds M.J. Villers Guilty of Murder in the First Degree and Fixes Punishment at Imprisonment for Life.

Stay of Proceedings to February 1st is Granted to Give the Defense Time to Prepare Argument for a New Trial.

The Judge's Charge to the Jury, - Sketch of the Concluding Testimony - Pleas of the Attorneys - Satisfaction With Verdict."

The Jamestown Weekly Alert, 20JAN1898, pg1

"State of North Dakota, pelt. vs. Martin J. Villers dfdt. We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in the information and fix his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for life. (Signed) M. Watson, Foreman.

The above is the verdict rendered by the jury in the trial of M.J. Villers for the murder of August Tromer Sept. 14th, '94. The verdict was read at 9:50 a.m. in open court and then the jury polled at request of defense. Each juryman responded firmly and distinctly that that was his verdict.

Judge Fisk thanked the jury 'for the careful manner in which you have discharged your duty - have done so in a very able and conscientious manner. I believe as you go to your homes you will do so feeling that you have discharged your whole duty, both to the state and the defendant.' They were then excused for the remainder of the term.

A stay of proceedings was granted by the court to Feb. 1st to give the defense opportunity, if so desired, to prepare a motion for a new trial. A request for a copy of the proceedings was made by the defense and argued Tuesday p.m. This was granted by the court.

During the reading of the verdict the prisoner sat behind his attorney closely watching proceedings. He remained unchanged when his fate was announced. On his return to his cell, however, he was not in the best frame of mind and threatened in regard to the delay of his physician in arriving."

I'll try not to be the grammar police, because I'm sure they were trying to get a lot into these pages and it was quite the sensational story of the time, but the phrasing of that last sentence is puzzling. I can understand him not being in the best frame of mind, but the "threatened in regard to the delay of his physician in arriving"? He felt personally threatened by that or he felt that his health was threatened? Or was it another threat? You may say that I'm reading too much into this, but there were allegations that he tried to kill himself in another article I transcribed and he was not a healthy man at this point in his life. This life term he received would end within 6 years with his death. Many thought he was faking sickness for pity from the jury. I guess he had the last laugh there.

The Bismarck Weekly Tribune 01MAR1985, pg8

Jumping a little off track to illustrate what I just mentioned, this article was taken from The Bismarck Weekly Tribune on March 1st 1895 when MJ Villers was on trial for attempted murder (he tried to kill the wife of the guy he killed...yeah...this story has some drama).

"Has His Nerve

M.J. Villiers (sic), who is confined in the LaMoure jail awaiting trial for a murderous assault on a woman, Mrs. Tromers (sic), made a desperate attempt at suicide last Friday. Being allowed to leave his iron-grated cell for the purpose of exercise, Villers took advantage of the opportunity to secure the poker from under the stove, and returning to his cell, extinguished the light and attempted suicide. It appears that he placed the poker against the wall and with a wonderful display of nerve forced the sharpened point through his body at a point a few inches above the navel. The force used was sufficient to penetrate the body at least for or five inches, and, as Sheriff Jones entered the jail at this very moment, Villers, not to be baffled in his purpose, grasped the handle of the poker and drove it upward toward the heart. He then coolly drew the steel out, dripping with blood, and threw it under the cot in his cell. Villers' condition was not improved, and, in fact, considerable (sic) worse. His injuries were fully as serious as reported, and in his weakened condition it is not improbably that death may result."

This is all I'll transcribe for this post. It's time that I jumped into my discussion post for the week for Lighting 1. This class is going to be challenging. Right now all the terminology is just swimming around in my mind and not really clicking. Hopefully that changes because a photographer that doesn't grasp lighting won't be very good. Here's hoping that I keep up the posts with school in session. I haven't for the past few months because school was just too overwhelming. This, however, interests me enough to take a small break to transcribe. Until next Monday!

Sunday's Obituary - Mary Frances Villers...nee Villers

Clipping from family
scrapbook

Yes...Villers nee Villers, but I'm not going there completely right now. I'm ramping up to it just stay with me.

"Mrs. Louis Villers Dies Suddenly Friday

Mrs. Louis Villers, 76, 1470 E. Mason St., died suddenly at her home Friday afternoon. She was a lifelong Green Bay resident and a member of the Cathedral St. Ann and Mission Societies and the Daughers of Isabella, Our Lady of Perpetual Help Circle.

Besides her husband, survivors include a daughter, Mrs. Edward Van Benadeno (sic), one granddaughter and five great grandchildren; a brother, Joseph; and a sister, Mrs. William Wendricks,* Green Bay.

The body will be at the Schauer and Schumacher Funeral Home at 2 o'clock Sunday afternoon. The Daughters of Isabella will say the rosary at 4 o'clock Sunday afternoon. The St. Ann and Mission groups will say the rosary at 7:30 in the evening. The Rev. John Gehl will say the rosary at 8 o'clock Monday evening, and will offer the solemn requiem mass at 9:30 Tuesday morning in the Cathedral. Burial will be in Allouez Cem-"

This clipping is from a family scrapbook that was passed on to me from my in-laws. The obituary cuts off there. I imagine that not much followed except "-etery" or whoever did the clipping would have thought to paste it on there.

Clipping from family
scrapbook

Her funeral notice was scarce with the ancestral information as well noting only a brother, Joseph Villers, and sister, Mrs. William Wendricks.*

"Villers' Rites To Be Held Tuesday  Morning

Funeral services for Mrs. Louis Villers, 76, 1470 E. Mason St., who died Friday, will be held at 9:30 Tuesday morning in the Cathedral. The Rev. John Gehl will offer the requiem mass and burial will be in Allouez Cemetery. The body is at the Schauer and Schumacher Funeral Home where Father Gehl will say the rosary at 8 o'clock this evening. Mrs. Villers is survived by her husband; a daughter, Mrs. Edward VnBenaden (sic); one grandchild; a brother, Joseph Villers, and a sister, Mrs. William Wendricks,* Green Bay."

So her brother's name is Joseph Villers. That's not really proof that her maiden name is Villers. Obituaries/Death Notices in the past weren't always clear with siblings. I've seen notices that say "brother" or "sister" when they meant "brother-in-law" or "sister-in-law." In this case Joseph Villers is her actual brother.

As in the short and not-so-sweet Funeral Notice posted for her husband, Louis, I mentioned that the statement "lifelong Green Bay resident" isn't accurate. Neither of them were born in Green Bay. They may have lived there for a good chunk of their lives, but not before their marriage in 1896. A marriage that isn't mentioned in their obituaries. Their parents aren't mentioned either. No worries. I know who they are and I have a copy of their marriage certificate.

Excerpt of the marriage record for
Louis Villers and Frances Villers

Louis Joseph Villers and Mary Francis Villers were married on March 26th 1896 in Lincoln, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin. Louis was the son of Martin Joseph and Octavia Villers nee Waguener. Mary Frances was the daughter of Pierre Louis and Emerence Villers nee Jadean. The parents of Martin Joseph and Pierre Louis were Eugene and Mary Teresa (maiden name unknown). So their parents were siblings making them first cousins. They weren't married in the church, but by a justice of the peace.

Louis and Frances had one child, a daughter. She is only referred to as "Mrs Edward Van Benaden" in the obituaries, but her name was Eva. Eva was born on December 28th 1896 and died on May 3rd 1974.

Finding cousins that married each other happens in genealogy. It certainly makes us question our research when we reach that conclusion because we assume it doesn't happen much. We make that assumption because it's looked at today as being wrong. I don't know how it was viewed in the late 19th century. Was it frowned upon then as well? Was this why the wedding wasn't performed in the Catholic Church? The reasons don't really matter nor should we view it as scandalous. Royalty had been doing it for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

When you think you have a marriage in your family tree that involves someone that's already in your tree, don't panic. Just carefully review your research and confirm your suspicions. Your genealogy program will permit you to add someone that's already in there because genealogists know this happens. I have a great uncle whose surname is Brown and his wife was also a Brown. I just haven't discovered if they were related yet and if so how.

Just verify your research and breathe.

*Wendricks should actually be Hendricks.