Tredyffrin Easttown Historical Society
History Quarterly Digital Archives

Source: January 1983 Volume 21 Number 1, Pages 27–37

When Harry and Abbie James were Found Murdered near Berwyn

Bob Goshorn

• Sources

Page 27

On the afternoon of Tuesday, January 26, 1909, Harry B. James, a locally well-known farmer, and his wife Abbie, left their home in the extreme southwestern corner of Easttown Township. They drove in their one-horse buggy to visit the family of Benjamin Forrest, near the old Friends' Meeting House at Newtown Square. From there they went to a church social at the Baptist Church at Newtown Square, of which Mrs. James was an active member. On their way home from the social, they met George A. Johnson, James' brother-in-law, and his wife. With them, they stopped off at the farm house of Henry Wilson, at the Leopard, for a brief visit, leaving there at some time about half-past seven or so.

At about 11:30 the following morning their lifeless bodies were found in their barnyard, on the south side of the barn, under an overshoot. They both had been brutally beaten and hacked to death in what was later described by the District Attorney as "the foulest murder ever perpetrated on Chester county soil". James was 60 years old; his wife was 58.

The bodies were discovered by William Johnson, a nephew of the murdered couple. With his cousin, George V. Johnson, and a farm worker named John Wright, he had driven to the James farm to borrow a team and wagon to haul some hay. As the three men arrived at the farm, they also met Constable Edward Mullin, of Berwyn, who by coincidence happened to be in the area at the time, looking for a suspect in a desertion case.

Page 28

Finding no one in the house? Johnson went to the barn, where he found James' body up against the barnyard wall; the body of Mrs. James lying near it. James' skull was indented, as though it had been hit with a large stone, and the heads of both victims appeared to have been cleft at the top with an axe. A portion of the barnyard was covered with blood. They were still in their overcoats, A purse in James' pocket, containing $30 in cash, was undisturbed, as were Mrs. James' gold watch, on a fine gold chain. There were rings and other jewelry. Keeping watch over the two bodies was the James' pet setter, Jack, crouched between them.

Johnson immediately notified relatives and a physician by telephone. Shortly afterwards Robert O. Jefferis, the County Detective, arrived and began efforts to locate a Coroner. In the meantime, photographs of the bodies were taken by Joseph W. Belt, of West Chester, who had accompanied the County Detective. After a number of calls, Jefferis finally was able to locate Deputy Coroner Thompson Hudson, of Hopewell, who agreed to come and take over the inquest.

At a nearby wood pile, a blood-spotted axe was found by a neighbor farmer, Penrose D. Vernon. While attempts had apparently been made to wash it under the pump, in the eye of the axe-head, where the handle fitted into it, were clots of blood, with blood spots also still on the handle. A little later, several deep foot prints, apparently made by heavy work shoes, were found in the mud in a low field, about seventy-five feet behind the barn.

After hearing from seven witnesses (including the three men who had first arrived on the scene, and Constable Mullin; George A. Johnson, the father of William Johnson and a former postmaster in Berwyn, with whom the Jameses had visited the Wilsons; Dr. Joseph Scattergood, the Coroner's physician; and Detective Jefferis), a six-man Coroner's Jury the next day returned a verdict that the Jameses had met death "by violence at the hands of some unknown party".

Funeral services for the deceased couple were held at half-past two o'clock the following Saturday afternoon, at the Newtown Baptist Church. They were conducted by the Rev. A. W. Quimby, pastor of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Berwyn, and the Rev. H. C. Dooley, the pastor of the Newtown church. In spite of a snowstorm and severe wintry weather, the little church was filled to overflowing, scores standing in the aisles and several hundred others unable to get inside. "The little church was crowded to the doors," it was reported in the West Chester Daily Local News, "and hundreds stood in the snowstorm and chilly winter winds so that about 1000 persons were at the scene. The entire countryside set aside the ordinary duties and labors and congregated at the church, and soon after the noon hour relatives and friends of the murdered farmer and his wife began to gather at the church. ..."

Page 29

Already, there had been much speculation concerning what had happened and why. Even before the verdict of the Coroner's Jury, Frank Epright, another brother-in-law of James (and, incidentally one of the pall-bearers at the funeral) and among the first to reach the James farm after the bodies had been found, concluded, "My theory is that upon arriving at the farmhouse Mr. James opened the house door to let his wife in, and then got the lantern. He then unharnessed the horse and led the horse to the barn, tied it in its stall, blanketed it, and started to return to the house. The moment he stepped out of the barn he was struck down and killed. James was old and rheumatic. His wife wondered at the delay, and before she had removed her outer wrap, went to the barn to see what had happened to him. There she came upon the murderer, who knew he was recognized and killed the woman, fearing exposure." That James had been killed first and his wife afterwards was indicated by the fact that Mrs. James' false teeth were lying on James' trousers when the bodies were found.

Although the lantern was not found, it was believed that robbery was not the motive for the crime, as indicated by the fact that neither the money nor the jewelry had been taken from the bodies after the couple had been slain.

It was also speculated that the crime was committed by someone who was familiar with the James' farm and known to the Jameses. In support of this theory, it was pointed out that while the barking of dogs was heard in the neighborhood during the night, no one recalled having heard the James' dog bark. It was also noted that the murderer apparently not only knew where to find the axe, but also knew the location of the pump, where he went to try to clean off the axe after using it. And it was also observed that someone had recently been sleeping in the hay mow of the barn, a sleeping place used on occasion in the past by some of James' farmhands.

While a Willie Thomas, of Berwyn, just recently released from the County Prison the previous month and described as "classed by the people of this section as being a 'bad man", was arrested for possible connection with the case, suspicion soon centered on a Jan Choqwiskie, a 32 year old Polish laborer who had worked for the Jameses on several occasions, including a short time in October and November of the previous fall.

"It is said," it was reported in the Local, "that he left in a bad humor and that a small sum of money was due him. On the night that he left, the house was entered and an overcoat and some eatables were taken. Three months ago one thought that a shot was heard near the house, and a little later Choqwiskie knocked at the door and asked the privilege of sleeping in the barn. The same man was about the place last Thursday [the Thursday preceding the murders]] and was to return on Saturday to get his money. While these statements were not verified," it was also reported, "they were accepted for what they were worth by the officials."

Page 30

When Jan Choqwiskie, who lived in Chester, could not be found for questioning, his cousin, Joe Choqwiskie, who worked for Dr. Lapp in Berwyn, was booked and brought into West Chester, in an attempt to learn the whereabouts of his cousin. He was reportedly put into "the sweat box of Police Headquarters" and questioned by District Attorney Robert Gawthrop, W. W. MacElree, and J. Paul MacElree, with Joseph Skorup as an interpreter. However, no additional information was obtained.

The next day Jan Choqwiskie was located by Skorup in Chester, and was arrested and taken to the City Hall for questioning. With the discovery over the next few days of additional evidence presumably connecting him with the crime, on February 8th a formal hearing was held in the packed office of Justice S. M. Paxson. At this hearing, Choqwiskie was committed to the Chester County Jail for trial in the Quarter Sessions Court for the murder of Harry B. James.

The case was called for trial on April 28th, with District Attorney Gawthrop representing the Commonwealth and William B. Harris the counsel for the defendant. Judge Thomas S. Butler presided over the crowded court room.

Selection of the jury extended into the afternoon of the first day of the trial. Described later in the Local as "an unusually intelligent one", it included only one farmer, the defense having challenged farmers generally, in favor of business men and tradesman. It was also noted that there were "only three grey-haired men on the panel".

The prosecution called more than forty witnesses in the presentation of its case against Jan Choqwiskie. District Attorney Gawthrop began by stating that on January 26th Harry B. James, a farmer of Easttown Township, and his wife were murdered. He also pointed out that the defendant had at one time resided with them and worked for them.

"Harry B. James and his wife," he continued, "on the day mentioned, were away from their home and left friends, as they went home, about 8:30 p.m. On that night dogs were heard howling, and the next morning Harry B. James and his wife were both found, foully and brutally murdered, lying near their barn, the wife lying close to the body of her husband. Naturally, the authorities who were notified sought for the murderer. The defendant, it was learned, has made threats against Mr. and Mrs. James. It was also found that the defendant, who resided in Chester, told persons he was going to take a walk, and left.It was also found that the defendant was seen on the public road near the James farm.

"It will also be shown," Gawthrop continued, "that shoe marks in the mud corresponded to the size and character of the shoes worn by the defendant; also that there were blood marks - that of a human being - found on the shoes the defendant wore when captured.

Page 31

It will be shown that a razor and pocket book owned by Harry B. James were found in the possession of the defendant. It will also be shown that while the defendant averred that he was at Chester on the night in question, that those who know him denied the fact, and that he was not at the brickyard, as stated, except on the Monday previous to the murder. It will also be shown that the defendant, while reading a paper, said that he expected to be charged with the crime, as he had lived at the scene of it."

To open the case, evidence was presented on the location and layout of the James farm, with testimony by Nathan B. Rambo, the County Surveyor, The photographs of the two bodies, taken after their discovery, uere then shown and identified by Joseph W. Belt, the photographer, and George V. Johnson, one of the three men who had gone to the James farm to borrow the team and wagon. Testimony concerning the discovery of the bodies was also given by both George V. Johnson and William Johnson, and also by Constable Mullin.

Dr. Joseph Scattergood, who had conducted the postmortem on the bodies, testified to the facts of the postmortem and "minutely described" the wounds received by the couple. He also gave testimony about the discovery of the axe allegedly used in the assault and the blood spots on its handle, as did Penrose Vernon.

The foot prints in the mud in the field were also described in the testimony of George V. Johnson, who stated that he had discovered them, and noted that the imprint indicated a patch of the sole of one shoe. The appearance of the "particularly well-defined "mark" was also described by Caleb Taylor, and J. Paul MacElree testified that he had taken a pair of shoes belonging to the defendant and worn by him at the time of his arrest to the James farm and that the right shoe "fitted perfectly". The shoes wore identified as belonging to the defendant by both Thomas Berry, County Detective for Delaware County, and Edward Morton, Chester Chief of Police, who had questioned Choqwiskie at the Chester City Hall following his arrest.

To establish that the stains on the shoes were human blood, and not the blood of chickens as Choqwiskie had contended, the prosecution called on the expert testimony of Dr. Alvin H. Davison and Dr. Scattergood. Dr. Davison, a professor of biology at Lafayette, and a graduate of Princeton and the University of Freiberg, identified himself as a specialist in blood tests and then described how he had used the "Hernin crystal test" (or precipitation test) to analyze the stains on pieces of leather cut from the shoes. As a result of this test, he testified, he could say that the stains were either human or monkey blood. After going into some detail on the way in which the tests were conducted, on cross-examination he also stated that while the test method was new, it had been used by "a half-hundred people" with consistent results, and had been used in trials in Europe.

Page 32

Dr. Scattergood also testified that analysis of the blood on the shoes under a microscope indicated that it had round corpuscles, a characteristic, he testified, of the blood of mammals (except camels), in contrast to the oval, corpuscles of chicken blood.

Several witnesses were called to identify a razor and pocket book found in the defendant's possession as the property of Harry James. Bessie James, his daughter, testified that the pocket book "looked like" her father's, and that the razor looked like one he owned and used. George A. Johnson similarly identified the pocket book, and testified that the razor looked like one he had seen at the James' home, as did his son. J. C. Bartholomew, a neighbor who lived about a mile and a half from the James farm, also stated that he had seen James' pocket book, and identified the one shown him as being like it (though on cross-examination he admitted that he had also seen others like it, but could not tell who had one). Both Bessie James and George Johnson also testified that James carried his pocket book with his pipe and tobacco, and Johnson observed that the pocket book shown him smelled of tobacco, an observation that became relevant when Detective Jefferis later testified that Choqwiskie had said, during pre-trial questioning, that he had not smoked for a year.

That there were dogs barking on the night of the crime was stated by two other neighbors, Mrs. Anna Van Meter and F. A. Lockwood. Lockwood adding that the James' dog "was a great barker but did not make any noise the night of the murder". (William Johnson had earlier testified that his uncle's dog barked at strangers, but knew the defendant.) Mrs. Van Meter also reported hearing cries and sounds that night that she would never forget as long as she lived.

Witnesses were also called to establish that the defendant had been in the area of the James farm on that afternoon and evening. After Robert Thomas, a neighbor living only a quarter of a mile from the James farm, had testified that he had known Jan Choqwiskie for about four years as he had "worked around that neighborhood", and that he "had a queer walk - a sort of rocky walk". Several others living in the vicinity gave testimony that they had seen a foreigner with a strange gait, wearing an overly large derby hat, on that Tuesday afternoon. The times and places at which he was reported seen by the different witnesses also indicated that the man was walking in the direction of the James farm. The witnesses included William Baker, who, when shown a photograph of the defendant taken at the time of his arrest, stated that it looked like the man he had seen; Daniel Green, who had "no doubt about this being the man"; William Poinsett, who said that the photograph of the defendant "resembled very much" the man he saw; and Caleb Loper, who previously had identified Choqwiskie in a lineup at the jail.

Thomas also testified that he had heard Choqwiskie threaten "to knock James in the head" if he did not pay him more money. Under cross-examination, however, he also stated that the defendant did not seem "cross" when the threat was made, but added that he did not consider it to be just a "joke". Thomas Wright and Mrs. Thomas also reported having overheard similar threats.

Page 33

The prosecution also called several witnesses who testified that while they had seen the defendant in Chester on Monday they had not seen him there the following evening. Among them were John Cukeviski, Dimetto Artimvitch, Peter Urban, and, according to the report in the Local, "several other foreign-born laborers ... with unpronounceable names", John Horoski also testified that on the Tuesday in question the defendant had told him that he was going to take a walk, and left.

Skorup was also called to testify on certain inconsistencies between statements made by the defendant during questioning after his arrest and statements made by him later.

After testimony from several other witnesses, on the afternoon of the second day of the trial the prosecution offered in evidence the defendant's passport, several photographs of the defendant, the photographs taken of the bodies in the barnyard, and the shoes, pocketbook, and razor referred to in the testimony, and rested its case.

In his opening remarks for the defense, Harris stated that the defense would prove an alibi by the testimony of several witnesses who saw the defendant in the brickyard in Chester on Tuesday night, that the defendant himself owned the razor and pocket book that had been found in his possession, and that he had not threatened to kill James.

To establish the alibi, Harris called a half dozen witnesses to testify. All of them stated that they had seen Choqwiskie in Chester on either that Tuesday night or early the next day. Among them were Frank Smith, who stated that on Tuesday night he had seen a man asleep in the brickyard, lying on the bricks, and that it was the defendant; Jospehy Snyder, who testified that he had seen a man sleeping in the brickyard and that "Choqwiskie looks like the man I saw asleep"; and Mary Savitch, who testified that she had seen the defendant in his home in Chester at 6:05 Wednesday morning, adding that he did not appear excited. None of the witnesses was in the court room when another was testifying.

Harlan Hall, an undertaker at the jail, was called to challenge the testimony of Caleb Loper for the prosecution, with testimony that it was only after Loper came in, went out, and came back in again that he had identified the defendant in the lineup.

But the principal witness for the defense was the defendant himself. On the night in question, he testified, he had walked to the brickyard where he spent the night, waking up early the next day while it was still dark, and on his way home stopping briefly to see "a woman I used to board with". Wednesday night he was in his home, he said, and on Thursday morning, while reading a newspaper, he was arrested. He also added that in going between Chester and the James farm when he worked there, he always went on the cars and never walked.

Page 34

Concerning the shoes, he testified that he had not put them on until Thursday, the day he was arrested, having worn a pair of yellow shoes earlier in the week. He also testified that he had worn the same patched shoes when he had worked on the James farm in the fall. The blood stains on the shoes, he claimed, were from chickens he had killed at Christmas time; that was all he knew about it.

He also testified that the razor looked like his, and that he had bought it in Philadelphia; while the pocket book was one he had purchased in the White Horse Store the previous year. While he had given up smoking in February a year ago, he testified, he did smoke or chew sometimes still when he had sore teeth.

Choqwiskie also denied that he had threatened to kill James, though on cross-examination he did admit that he had told someone that he "would knock him down", but that it "was a joke".

Harris opened his closing argument by questioning the prosecution's evidence that the defendant had been on the highway near the James farm on the afternoon in question.

He then assailed the expert testimony identifying the blood on the shoes as human blood. "Then they come along with a professor with a new theory," he argued, "of which we never heard before, to test blood. ... The old test has been put aside, but the new one is too new to be relied upon in a murder case. You don't know what will become of the theory after while. A family physician uses the old microscope test, but he only says that the blood wasn't chicken, but doesn't say it's human blood."

Next, he commented on Choqwiskie1s alibi and the evidence presented to corroborate it, adding that his actions on the next few days were not such as to indicate that he had committed murder. As to any discrepancies in the defendant's testimony at different times, he explained, they were due to the fact that he was "scared" and confused when arrested.

Harris then questioned the identification of the pocket book and razor as James': "How many pocket books," he asked, "do you remember the earmarks of? ... And the tobacco smell. How many men use tobacco? ... And the razor? They are manufactured by the thousands."

Finally, he commented on the appearance of the defendant: "He has no hang-dog look," he pointed out to the jury. "He is straightforward and looks straight at you. We read of murder, but the murderer gets out of the way, but Jan did not do this. The innocent do not flee. Actions speak louder than words. How can you say he is guilty and the Commonwealth has proved beyond reasonable doubt a case? ... It is all circumstantial evidence and not satisfactory.

Page 35

It is a merest guess as to motive, and as to the defendant's guilt. The tracks are not reliable enough as evidence of guilt to convict."

Describing the prosecution's testimony as "very misty evidence of guilt", he asked for a verdict of not guilty.

In his summation for the Commonwealth, Gawthrop again reviewed the evidence presented. "Go straight down the road as the evidence was presented," he advised the jury, "as to whether Jan Choqwiskie was at the James farm and committed the foulest murder ever perpetrated on Chester county soil."

He then commented on the foot prints, and the fact that the defendant's shoes fitted them, the evidence that the blood on the shoes was not chicken blood as Choqwiskie contended ("If it isn't [chickenblood]," Gawthrop observed, "Jan Choqwiskie told what is not true, and [this] is an incriminating circumstance"), the defendant's knowledge of the James farm, the identification of the pocket book and razor, the admission by the defendant that he had made threats, and the weakness of the defendant's alibi.

"It is also said," he observed, "he doesn't look like a murderer, but some of the most dastardly crimes are the coolest." Noting that "Man who commit murder do not generally take witnesses with them", Gawthrop reminded the jury that crimes of this sort must be decided on circumstantial evidence. "The case is in your hands," he concluded." Do justice to Jan Choqwiskie and aged Harry James and his wife, whose souls cry out for justice."

After a lengthy charge by Judge Butler, which took more than twenty minutes to read, reviewing the evidence and outlining the law concerning homicide, the jury retired at just before nine o'clock on the evening of April 29th to begin its deliberations. It was not until the morning of May 3d that it reported that it had agreed upon a verdict: guilty of murder in the first degree.

The prisoner was led back to jail, wearing his derby hat that was described as "evidently too large for him". It was reported that he would now be given a "double watch", though there seemed to be no fear that he might harm himself as he reportedly appeared "unmoved" by the verdict.

"Never did a jury in Chester County," one newspaper observed editorially, "render a verdict that caused as much surprise to the people as the Jan Choqwiskie verdict. Out of ten persons spoken to on the street, nine would say, 'I don't believe they have the right man,' and no better evidence is needed than the fact that for three days some of those who held his life in their hands did not believe him guilty, or an earlier decision would have been arrived at. ... While he was convicted, and while he may be guilty, there is no gainsaying that the preponderance of public opinion from the center to the circumference of the county is that he is not guilty."

Page 36

Harris immediately filed a motion for a new trial. In argument before Judge Hemphill and Judge Butler on June 15th, he argued a number of points in support of his motion: that new evidence indicates that the testimony of Caleb Loper and his identification of the defendant was unreliable; that the defense was taken by surprise by the testimony concerning the pocket book and is now able to produce witnesses who saw it over a month before the murder; that the Court erred in allowing photographs of the defendant to be introduced in evidence; that it also erred in its instructions to the jury concerning certain points made by the defense; that since the indictment under which the case was tried charged the defendant only with the murder of Harry James the Commonwealth, in its reference to the deaths of both James and his wife "unjustly and unfairly" prejudiced the jury against the defendant; and that the defense had learned since the trial that the foot prints allegedly made by the defendant in the field behind the barn could not, in fact, have been made at that time since the ground was frozen hard that night.

In a rather unusual argument, Harris also pointed out, "The time of the marriage or wedding of one of the jurymen in the case was fixed at a time only two days after the day on which the verdict was agreed on, so that the said juror's anxiety to be relieved from jury duty as soon as possible in order to complete preparations for the wedding so near at hand would necessarily render him unable to act properly as a juror."

On June 28th the request for a new trial was denied. Appeal to the State Supreme Court was similarly unsuccessful, as the Court refused to interfere with the judgment of the local court.

On July 6th Judge Butler sentenced Jan Choqwiskie to be hanged; the date for the hanging was set for December 2d.

Harris still continued his fight for his client, predicting that it was "certain he will not be hanged for a long time, and probably not at all". An appeal was filed with the Board of Pardons for a commutation of the sentence. In the hearing before that Board in late November, Harris and A. M. Hodding again reviewed all the testimony in the case, and also presented a petition signed by "over 200 prominent persons" and letters from a number of people, including one signed by a representative of the Austrian consul in Philadelphia, asking for commutation on the ground that the evidence was not sufficiently pointed to require the verdict as rendered.

This appeal too was denied. Final preparations were made for the execution on December 2d.

Just fourteen hours before the time set for the hanging, however, Governor Edwin S. Stuart intervened, at Harris' request. At ten o'clock on the night of December 1st, Sheriff David M. Golder received a telephone call, notifying him that the Governor had granted a respite, setting the date for executing the sentence back one month to January 4, 1910.

Page 37

The documents from Harrisburg confirming the reprieve reached West Chester an one o'clock in the morning of the original date! The reason for the stay, it was reported, was to provide time for one more appeal to the Supreme Court.

(In the meantime, a group of a dozen or so Friends living in West Chester, strongly opposed to capital punishment, had already left the county seat, in accordance with their custom in such cases, to avoid being in West Chester when the hanging took place.)

On December 31st the Supreme Court again refused a new trial. Accordingly, the sentence was carried out on January 4th.

To the end, Choqwiskie proclaimed his innocence. On the afternoon of the day before the hanging, he stated, "I am innocent of this crime; I never killed Mr. and Mrs. James; my consciemce is clear. I am willing to die, as the law demands it; it will soon be over. I am not guilty of this crime, but the man who did it will follow me to the gallows, sooner or later. Time will prove my innocence. "He also suggested that since "they are going to hang me, let them bury me also."

At the appointed hour the next day, as he arrived at the scaffold, the black cap already over his head, he made no further statement. He walked "unflinchingly" to the position assigned to him on the platform, accompanied by the Rev. S. B. Spalding of the St. Agnes Church in West Chester. At 10:10 the drop fell, and Jan Choqwiskie was hanged for the murder of Harry (and Abbie) James near Berwyn.

Sources

Files of the West Chester, Daily Local News

Newspaper clippings in the Chester County Historical Society