 |
S. Moore Family, Udall
Note: It appears that the “S.” stands for Seaborn, but only when legal matters popped up did that name appear. This poor man had his problems with a young daughter. MAW
[UDALL. “O.”]
Winfield Courier, Thursday, January 1, 1885.
The growth of Udall for the year of 1884.
[Structures listed are followed by Valuation.]
Moore. $300.00.
UDALL. “G.”
Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 26, 1885.
S. Moore was awarded the contract for building the mill at this place, to be of stone, three stories high, with mansard iron roof, to be completed within sixty days from date. Udall doth boom.
UDALL. “G.”
Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 9, 1885.
Our city election passed off quietly with the following ticket elected.
COUNCILMEN.
S. Moore, J. R. Staton, W. H. Gray, O. Jewitt, and Geo. Knickerbocker.
LOVE’S YOUNG DREAM.
A Youth of 21 and a Girl of 13 Elope from Udall. Intercepted by Her Pa.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 18, 1885.
Udall is putting on city airs! She now comes forward with an elopement case of no small dimensions. Four months ago, Joe Marvin, a youth barely twenty-one, came to Udall from Illinois and hired to S. Moore, a stone mason, and a respected citizen. Mr. Moore has a girl of thirteen, Leona, remarkably well developed for her age, pretty and smart, and in appearance almost a woman. Joe and Leona soon became infatuated with each other—got a very acute attack of struckology. Joseph braced up to his darling’s “pa,” but he wouldn’t listen to matrimony. Mr. Moore talked very kindly to the young lovers—told them how silly it was for a girl of Leona’s age to talk of getting married. Both mother and father offered their consent and all the pecuniary assistance they could give them if they would wait two years before marrying. All went well for a few days, but in a conclave the young couple decided not to wait—got romantic and determined to elope and get married. Accordingly, the young Lothario hied himself to a hostelry in the early morn of yesterday, and secured a team and buggy for the coming night. Last night, after milking the cows and doing his chores, and while the old folks were away, they quietly stole into the buggy and started for this city. He expected, he says, to get here in time to be joined in wedlock last night—in time to secure eternal basking in the sunshine of his charmer. But they didn’t reach here until eleven o’clock, and went to the Commercial hotel. He registered, “John and Fanny Morgan, city,” represented that they were brother and sister, and they were shown to separate rooms. Their absence from home excited the parents, when they returned early in the evening, and learning that the couple had got a livery rig and gone south, the father sent a trailer after them. This investigator got here after midnight, found where the young lovers had stopped, and early in the morning, with our city officials, bearded the young man in his room—to find matters much worse than anticipated—a state of affairs that will give the young man a term in the “pen,” if not speedily straightened up. One room was empty. Marvin was arrested and placed in jail, where he yet remains. The parents were telegraphed for and arrived at noon. The daughter at first seemed determined in favor of her lover, writing him a note saying that she was sorry she wasn’t in prison with him and that nothing could keep her from marrying him—a very affectionate note. But the presence of her parents brought tearful remorse, and she at once consented to return home with them. The father swore out information against Marvin and is determined to make it warm for him. There seems to have been no persuasion on either part—their first love infatuated them and both readily agreed to elope. But the young man is deserving of deep censure. The girl is innocent, young, and confiding—almost a child. He is a young man of good intelligence and appearance—one who knows the ways of the world and knew full well the crime he was committing. He simply took advantage of youth and innocence. He was determined to get ahead of parental refusal. He didn’t know that he couldn’t procure a license without the parents’ consent. He wanted to marry the girl today, and thus settle the matter, but the father sternly refused, and Marvin will have to stand the consequences.
THE UDALL ELOPEMENT.
The Young Couple’s Pleadings Have No Avail and Joe is Bound Over.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 25, 1885.
Joseph Marvin, the youth of twenty-one, whose elopement with Leona, the thirteen-year-old daughter of S. Moore, of Udall, was chronicled in THE DAILY COURIER Wednesday, was brought into Justice Snow’s court Wednesday, charged by Mr. Moore with “unlawfully, wilfully, and feloniously abducting and defiling” his daughter. The father at first sternly refused to have anything to say to the youth, but upon repeated importuning, finally consented. Both Marvin and Leona begged tearfully to be allowed to marry—said they loved each other and couldn’t bear separation. Mr. Moore argued the silliness of such a child as Leona marrying, and would countenance no such proceedings—said that Marvin had brought disgrace upon his daughter and his family and must suffer the penalty. The lovers were not allowed to see each other—all the pleadings of the girl were of no avail. Marvin, seeing no way to compromise the matter, broke completely down, plead guilty, and was bound over to the District Court on $500 bond, and was returned to the bastille, where he will have three months time for silent repentance before his trial, and much longer afterward. The penalty for the offense is six months in the county jail, with a fine of not over one thousand dollars, or not less than two or more than twenty-one years in the penitentiary. Leona is a bright, pretty girl of remarkable physical development for one of her age—appearing like a girl of sixteen. This infatuation completely possesses her mind, and its result so far can likely never be shaken off—will follow her through life. “To err is human, to forgive divine,” and we find very little of divinity’s reflection on earth for the erring girl or woman. She is ostracized by her own sex, refused employment by the public, and almost driven to continue in her evil course until death claims her for its own. Marvin has committed a grave crime—taken advantage of girlish innocence and confidence. But he claims an equal infatuation with the girl. Both beg to be allowed to marry. Would it not be better for the girl’s parents to consent to marriage, forgive, and assist the erring couple to an upright future? Both are young and no doubt capable, if given an opportunity, to atone for the past and make an honorable, happy couple.
MARRIAGE ENDS ALL.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 25, 1885.
The youthful Udall elopement has reached its sequel and Joseph Marvin and Leona Moore are man and wife. Twenty-one and thirteen seem a young couple to knock against the rugged steeps of life, but it is all for the best. The mother of Marvin came down Saturday, said Mr. Moore had relented, and she wanted her boy’s freedom. Our county attorney dismissed the case against Marvin, went to the probate judge’s office, got a marriage license, and placed it in the mother’s hand. Joseph was released from jail and that evening Rev. F. A. Brady made Joseph and Fanny one—their ardent desire. This is wisdom on the part of the parents. It was the only sensible thing to do under the circumstances. That week’s chastisement will be a lesson that Joe will not soon forget. The young couple have taken up their abode with Joe’s mother. Thus ends Cowley’s first elopement case.
Arkansas City Republican, June 27, 1885.
MARRIED. Joseph Marvin and Leona Moore, the eloping couple from Udall, have been married. One day last week they left Udall for Winfield, took rooms at the hotel, intending to be married next day. Leona’s father appeared on the scene next morning and prevented the marriage. He had Marvin arrested. The old gentleman finally consented, as it was the best thing to be done under the existing circumstances, to allow the marriage to come off. Marvin is 21 and Leona only 13 years of age.
[Note the difference in the name of person suing Seaborn Moore: 1st time, McCruis; 2nd time, McCush, 3rd time McCuish. I have no idea what the name should be. MAW]
DISTRICT CLERK PATE’S GRIST.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 25, 1885.
The petition of Peter McCruis vs. Seaborn Moore and the Udall Milling Company, to recover contract labor, has been docketed.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, August 27, 1885.
CRIMINAL DOCKET.
2139. Peter McCush vs Seaborn Moore et al. Hackney & Asp for plaintiff; McDonald & Webb for defendant.
LITIGATION’S LENGTHY LIST.
The Grist in Waiting for the December, 1885, Term of the District Court,
Beginning Tuesday, the 15th.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, December 10, 1885.
CIVIL DOCKET. SIXTH DAY.
Peter McCuish vs Seaborn Moore et al, Hackney & Asp for pros; McDonald & Webb defense.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, January 21, 1886.
Udall again has two first class hotels, S. Moore having taken charge of the Devore House and doing a good business.
The boys at the City Hotel are determined to keep the stove warm. Ask Moore about it.
