written by Grinfill B. Holden, in 1884 and reprinted by William Spurr in A History of Otisfield, Maine in 1944
The story of the only homicide ever committed in Otisfield, as handed down by tradition, is so inaccurate that a more correct version of the matter is regarded as due to the accuracy of history.
George Peirce, the first settler in Otisfield, came from Groton under contract entered into in Boston with the proprietors of the town of Otisfield, to build mills, and settled with his family at what is now known as Edes Falls, on Crooked River in 1775. He had four children, all born in Groton, viz; Sarah, who married Benjamin Patch and lived in Otisfield, Levi, who was drowned in Crooked River, aged 19, Oliver, who married Sukey Haskell of Gorham, and Molly, who married Willoughby Scribner. Mr. Peirce was employed by the proprietors to run out the boundaries of the town and divide it into lots, to survey the ponds, cut out roads, to build bridges across Crooked River and at the outlet of Long Pond, to sell the proprietors lands, and in fact was the general agent of the proprietors of Otisfield. He also received a commission as justice of the peace as early as 1784 and did a considerable business in that capacity and was generally called “Esquire Peirce”.
Mr. Peirce had a neighbor, John McIntosh, a Scotchman, who came from Gorham, and who, tradition says, sought the hand of his youngest daughter, Molly, then nineteen, in marriage, whose suit the father regarded unfavorably.
This brief introduction will suffice to bring us down to the time of the fatal encounter, a digest of which is furnished by Honorable Joseph Williamson of Belfast who has made a specialty of “Early Capital Cases” and makes the following summary from the records as covering the material facts in the case.
“It appears that on the 7th of October 1789, McIntosh while intoxicated, went to Mr. Peirces house, and then after some words between them, attacked Mr. Peirce in a most violent manner; That Mr. Peirce in defending himself struck McIntosh on the head with a wooden mallet, which he was using in making a harrow, from the effects of which blow McIntosh afterward died, Mr. Peirce, or “Esquire Peirce”, as he is called in the depositions of the witnesses’, immediately surrendered himself to the authorities and was tried in the Supreme Judicial Court at the term beginning at Portland, June 29, 1790, and, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to eight months imprisonment, to recognize in the sum of 200 pounds, to keep the peace and be of good behavior for the term of seven years, and to stand committed until sentence was performed”.
The following additional facts are gathered from the official records in the case. It appears that the affray occurred between one and two o’clock on Wednesday the seventh of October after which Mr. Peirce, fearing his assailant might return with weapons to renew the assault, entered into his own house and barricaded the door; that McIntosh went to the house of Eleazer Bartlett who lived half a mile west of Peirces’ “and asked me” says Mr. Bartlett in his deposition, “to look at his head and tell him if the wound was mortal; and I looked, and told him I thought it was not mortal. Then he wanted me to go down to his house and get a cagg of Rum, and I went down to Johns house and got the ‘cagg of Rum”. On his way back, however, Mr. Bartlett met McIntosh and both returned to McIntosh’s house. At this time it seems that McIntosh was very much excited and in bad blood, that he went into another room and brought out his broadsword and wanted Mr. Bartlett to go and bring ‘Peircy’ as he called him, down to his house, and said he was bound to see him ” if he had to tear the boards off his (Peirces) house”.
Mr. Bartlett went to Mr. Peirces and told him of McIntosh’s condition and that McIntosh wanted him to go down to his house, but added, must not go; for he believed McIntosh, judging from his actions with his broadsword would murder him. Mr. Bartlett then returned to McIntoshs house.
(Mr. Peirce owned instruments for bleeding people and for extracting teeth, both of which he used when called upon.)
Subsequently, McIntosh sent Mr. Bartlett to call in Esquire Peirce, “and Peirce went over and tried to bleed him but was not successful in drawing blood, and the Esquire stayed with him until he died.”
His death occurred at half past nine the next day after the affray. Mr. Peirce now wrote a brief note which he dispatched to the coroner of the county, Captain David Barker of Windham, notifying him of the unfortunate occurrence, and saying he supposed it would be the coroners duty to call an inquest; and Captain Barker summoned the following named citizens of Windham as a coroners jury;
Timothy Pike, John Andrews, Edward Anderson, Thomas Trott, Richard Dole, John Chute, Thomas Chute, Benjamin Bodge, George Knight, Abraham Osgood, Caleb Read, Noah Read, Ezra Brown, Thomas Barker, Paul Little and Robert Hooper, who found that John McIntosh died from the effects of a blow given him by Esquire Peirce with a mallet.
Mr. Peirce surrendered himself to the justices, Josiah Thatcher, William Gorham, and Edmund Phinney, and was committed to jail in Portland to stand trial. The justices above mentioned, in sending up the papers to the Supreme Court, respectfully asserted their belief in Mr. Peirces innocence, saying that he had acted throughout with that propriety that anyone would be supposed to act who was innocent. On the 8th of December 1789 he was released on his own recognizance as principal, in the sum of 1,000 pounds, with Ebenezer Kollock of Otisfield as surety in the sum of 100 pounds, and Benjamin Patch of Otisfield and Asael Foster of Bridgetown, sureties in the sum of 200 pounds each, and Enoch Perley Bridgetown, in the sum of 500 pounds.
The court which sat on the 29th of June, 1790, was composed of Chief Justice Sargent ad associate Justices, Sewell and Paine. The case was managed on the part of the State by James Sullivan, Esq. attorney for the Commonwealth, who afterward became governor of Maine, assisted by William Wetmore Esq. And the court assigned as council for the prisoner Theophilus Bradbury and Theophilus Parsons, the latter of whom subsequently became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. With such eminent counsel we may conclude that the case was ably and skillfully managed, both on the part of the State and the prisoner.
The case was tried on the written depositions of the following named persons, taken and sworn to before David Barker, coroner, to wit;
Eleazer Bartlett, Isaac Bartlett, James Thurston, Elizabeth Bartlett, Jesse Farwell, Molly Peirce, Asenath Stevens, Eleazer Bartlett Jr.
The depositions in the case are very brief and fail to give many facts which we would suppose to be essential in so important a case. Tradition says that “Molly Peirce was the principal in the case, but that her testimony was not allowed because she looked through glass.”
For the purpose of showing that tradition is in error, and also for the purpose of giving a sample of the general character of the depositions, Miss Peirces deposition is copied in full as follows;
“Molly Peirce of full age testifies and says on 7th October she saw John McIntosh and Esq. Peirce talking together but did not know they were differing as it was through the window she saw them, but saw said John after a while go away with his hand up to his head but did not see the Esquire strike him, further saith not.”
The deposition of Asael Stevens is in the same words except the words “it was through the window she saw them” are omitted. But she was probably a member of Mr. Peirces family and saw them talking through the same window as Miss Peirce.
The most important testimony was given by Eleazer Bartlett and has already been copied in it most essential parts. The witness, Jesse Farwell was living at Mr. Peirces but was away from home when the affray occurred and only knew what Mr. Peirce told him when he came home at sundown. James Thurston who was living at Mr. Bartletts, gave important testimony as showing that McIntosh entertained feelings of hostility towards Mr. Peirce. Inhis affidavit he says; “Sometime past I saw McIntosh with his gun and sword, said he didn’t want to hurt the Esquire, but told me to tell the Esquire to come out and meet him halfway; and I went directly and told the Esquire of it, but the Esquire instead of going to meet him, set down and wrote him a line.”
The line referred to above and which was in evidence at the trail, was as follows;
“MR JOHN McINTOSH; I understand you are with your broadsword and by that I expect you are upon some ill design and in liquor. Therefore think it not prudent to come near you in such a situation. I do not intend to differ with you on any account, but shall defend myself in the best way I can.”
GEORGE PEIRCE
Otisfield Sept. Ye 3d, 1789
It appears from the evidence in the case that when McIntosh had his gun and broadsword he twice challenged Peirce “To meet him half way and settle accounts,” and several of the witnesses testified that they had heard him make threats against Mr. Peirce. But none of the witnesses ever heard Mr. Peirce make threats, and there was no evidence to show that he entertained ill feelings toward his neighbor.
The most plausible cause that can be assigned for whatever hostility there was existing on the part of McIntosh, was a difference between them on national politics. This is inferred from certain expressions in a letter written by McIntosh on the same day and in reply to Mr. Peirces note already quoted.
It was just after the Revolutionary War, and all the passions and animosities engendered by that long struggle, were still alive and were fruitful sources of disagreement. McIntosh was a subject of Great Britain and adhered to the British cause, and foolishly took it upon himself to defend the honor of his country, even in an American family in which he sought matrimonial alliance, and by his bold and outspoken language made his opinions obtrusive and his personal presence offensive.
Mr. Peirce believed the American cause to be right, and no doubt spoke of old England in such terms as seemed offensive, and aroused the hot blood of his British neighbor. This theory affords an explanatory key to McIntosh’s letter, which was in evidence, and gives force and meaning to the charges of complaint in it. I do not choose to copy the abusive letter in full, but its orthography, use of capital letters, and omission of words, suggest that the writer was either intoxicated at the time, or wonderfully apt at making blunders.
Some of his sentences verbatim are as follows;
“George a sqr I am not so much in Liquir but what I can return you answer, you have both chanalledge and defied the Nation of which I sprung. Come fitch your accounts and seese casting slur at the Nation before my face and behind my back. I had fare rather dye this day than Lev continualy in such a way. I will meet you anny where to settle accounts and pass Receppts, there is no better tim than now.
John W. McIntosh
Otisfield Sept. the 3d yr. 1789
Such is the substance of McIntosh’s letter written thirty four days before the fatal encounter, and which clearly shows that his cause of grief was insult, either real or imaginary, to the country of his birth. And apparently he was looking for trouble. Nothing more remains to be said. The substance of the evidence, the result of the trial, and the sentence of the court have already been given. Tradition, however, says that Mr. Peirce was acquitted and assigns his acquittal to various causes, one of which is that the testimony of the principal witness in the case, who saw the fatal blow struck, was ruled out because she looked through glass. Another cause of acquittal is assigned to “Masonic influence”. But the records show that Mr. Peirce was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to eight months imprisonment.
Soon after the unfortunate event above narrated, Mr. Peirce moved away from Crooked River and settled on the west side of Long Pond about a mile above the outlet where he built what is known as the “Brick house”.
But this sketch would not be complete without some reference to a superstition which prevailed at the time of which we write and which has an immediate connection with the subject of this history.
After Mr. Peirces removal to the brick house about 1792, the place on Crooked River was abandoned and for a period of more than thirty years no one lived there. Mr. Peirce’s old house was left standing empty and alone, and not far off stood the vacant hut of the unfortunate McIntosh. The mill dam had been carried away by a freshet but the old sawmill, all open at the sides, through which the winds shrieked and howled at will, was still standing, though tradition says it was not always standing still. For often at nightfall, when the winds were boisterous, and the lightning flashed and the rain fell in torrents the ghost of the departed McIntosh came forth, hoisted the gate of the old mill and set its machinery in motion, and all through the dark hours of the night, the mill wheel went around and the saw frame and saw went up and down sawing the empty air.
Persons of undoubted courage and credibility testified that they had often seen the mill in operation, and had seen the saw going up and down, hour after hour, and had heard the rumbling of the machinery and no visible person in the mill. More imaginative persons had heard strange noises, as of throwing down handspikes, or driving mill dogs into invisible logs, or perhaps heard the screeching of the file as the invisible sawyer sharpened his saw at midnight, and perhaps they heard the iron hands on the ragwheel; and their imagination filled the mill with invisible workers sawing out invisible logs for some mysterious purpose. Nor was it confined to the night alone, but often had the mill been seen in motion in broad daylight and through all the hours of the day, making its slow but regular up and down motions, never wearying in the performance of its invisible work. Just how much was seen and heard that was supernatural cannot now be stated, but tradition says “The place was haunted and men were afraid to go there after dark and the perturbed spirit of the departed McIntosh used to come and hoist the gate and set the mill running”.
The following deed is on record in Portland.
George Peirce to John McIntosh, October 8, 1787, for 11 pounds 5 shillings, Beginning on the west side of the Crooked River, at the edge of the water, running North 20° west from the N.W. corner of George Peirces dwelling house and near the upper side of the bridge over said river; thence south 33° west; four rods; thence north 50° west; 82 rods; thence north 72 rods; thence south 50° east 9 rods to said river; thence down the middle of the river to the beginning, with 3/4 of all the privileges and right to build a dam and sawmill across said river.
John McIntosh was buried on the above piece of land a few rods above the bridge on the west side of the road about 2 rods from the road, on the side of the hill and some common round stones mark his resting place.
Statement of Richard J. Chaplin March, 1886
The house, mill and barn were all standing when father came. Mr. Peirce left a quantity of hay in the barn that he never moved. Father said the old mill would start and stop and people said it was haunted. People were afraid to go there after dark he said. He said the mill would be running and when you got almost to it it would stop. I don’t know whether he ever saw it going or not. I never heard him explain the cause of its starting and stopping. I don’t remember hearing him say anything about the mill doing any sawing and I never heard him speak of a gristmill and don’t think that there was any. I have also heard Uncle Benjamin Chaplin say that the mill was reported to be haunted.
R.J. Chaplin March 30, 1886, says; I have heard my father say the mill is haunted. He said the mill would start and go and when Mr. Peirce started to go to the mill it would start, and Mr. Peirce went away and left everything, house, mill, and a barn full of hay. It was said he was afraid to come back.
A letter from Mrs. Arvesta Houghton, dated, Oshkosh, Wisconsin September 1o, 1887, says; “Mrs. Mary Hawks, my mother is living with me, now nearly 90 years old, is well and possesses a remarkable memory and good conversational faculties. She says her grandfather built and owned a sawmill and did sawing. She remembers hearing them say that Zachary Weston worked in the sawmill. She says it was reported that the mill was haunted but upon investigation it proved to be owls only.”