Reprinted with permission from The Morgan Newsletter, Fall 1994

    At the time of the shooting William Hammons and his wife Susannah had lived on their farm in Spring Creek just south of Ava for approximately 19 years.  Their neighbor, William B. Mathews, had lived on the adjacent farm for about 15 years.  There was no indication that any trouble had occurred between Mathews and Hammons during this time.  Robert Morgan had lived on the farm of his mother and step-father for about one year and had apparently rented the land to farm for the year of 1896.

    NOTE:  Wm. Hammons was almost blind and was unable to farm his land alone.

    A lane ran north and south between the two farms with Hammons' farm on the east side and with Mathews' farm on the west.  The north end of the lane terminated at a public road which at this point ran west along the north side of the Mathews farm.  There was a steep hill at the junction of the lane and the public road.  The property lines at the junction had been in dispute between Mathews and Morgan for some time.

    Both Morgan and Mathews had previously been prosecuted in court for obstructing the public road.  Morgan was acquitted but Mathews was found guilty and ordered to move his fence.  Under the direction of the prosecuting attorney and the sheriff, Mathews moved his fence to the point indicated, this time building it out of rock.  This was done, he testified, to prevent his fields from flooding from the run-off from the steep hill.  The rock fence was at the north-east corner of Mathews property and at the northwest corner of the Hammons property at the junction of the lane and the public road.

    The placement of the rock fence had become a sore point between Morgan and Mathews and numerous arguments had ensued.  On several occasions, Morgan had torn the fence down where-upon Mathews would rebuild it.  About two weeks before the shooting, Morgan had gotten into an altercation with Mathews youngest son (then about 19 years old) and threw rocks at him.

    When confronted by Mathews on that occasion, Morgan is reported to have invited Mathews out of his field so he could beat him and said "he had it laid up for him and intended to do him up". Testimony states that Morgan was a large, stout man weighing 175 to 190 lbs and was then about 38 years old.  He had a reputation of being "of a rash, quarrelsome, turbulent and dangerous disposition" and Mathews had been warned by some of his neighbors to be on his guard against Morgan.  This testimony seems at odds with the fact that Morgan was a Reverend and "a highly respected citizen and minister of the gospel".

    Just after noon on April 17, 1896, Mathews and two or three of his nearest neighbors had just completed rebuilding the rock fence.  Shortly before five o'clock a passing neighbor informed Morgan, who was then plowing in his field, that the fence had been replaced. Morgan immediately quit his work, sent his team around by the bottom road, went by his house for his ax and pistol, and proceeded to where the rock fence had been replaced.  Accompanying Morgan were his step-father and mother, the others of his family, two grown women, and two boys, one 12 years and the other younger.       

    Mathews and his son Elijah were both in their fields working at the time.  Mathews was cutting sprouts while his son was plowing.  The son, being closer, first saw the party headed for the fence and called to his father.  Mathews, looking up, saw Morgan coming down the hill at a walk or run with an ax on his arm and Mathews thought he also saw a pistol.  Hammons and Susannah were behind Morgan while the others were proceeding with the horses.  Mathews, thinking it prudent, went by his house and got a shotgun before heading to the rock fence.

    Arriving at the "rock pile" as the fence had become known, Morgan and his party commenced work tearing down the fence and placing the rocks on Hammons property.  When Mathews arrived on the scene and was about 30 paces away, Morgan reportedly said:  "Don't come any closer".  Mathews told Morgan to go away and not disturb his fence to which Morgan replied with foul and abusive language.

    There is conflicting testimony from this point on.  The papers I have are not clear on this but it would appear that the only witnesses to the actual shooting would be the Morgan family members (see box above), Mathews, and probably Elijah Mathews.  Some testimony states that Mathews had his shotgun pointed at Morgan at this time.  Other testimony states that he merely carried it in his hands or on his shoulder.

    Mathews testified that after Morgan had cussed at him "I kept insisting that Morgan get away, that I didn't want any trouble, that it was my fence and that he very well knew that the court had so decided.  And if he thought that it wasn't he should go into court, and when the court decided it was his, he should have it, and not until then".

    Mathews continued "He kept on abusing me, and then he had a pistol.  The first I seen of it, he was behind the wall from me and he kind o' scooted down by the side of the tree, and I could just see the pistol and a little side of his face.  When he did that, I turned and walked a few steps right around towards the lane.  I was out from the lane a little ways and about that time his mother came out and commenced to quarreling at me."

    "I said to the old lady that I didn't come over here to quarrel with women and it would look better if she was at the house.  I happened to think of myself again, that this was perhaps done to draw my attention, and when I noticed Morgan again he was up and a few feet from the tree.  I told him again to go away and don't tear my fence down, and don't abuse me any more.  I mean what I say.  I don't think I can repeat the language exactly that I used.  He scooped down and threw some rock from the wall and whirled around in that position (indicating) and that was the time the gun, I guess, fired very quickly.  I was a southwest direction from Mr. Morgan, and he reached over just in this position and jerked some rock on, and as he raised up he threw himself in that position, and I thought he was going to draw his pistol.  Then I fired.  I thought he was going to draw his pistol.  He was not over 4 or 5 feet from where he presented the pistol at me."

NOTE: Mathews' testimony contradicts itself.  He states that he sees the gun and part of Morgan's face while he is behind the tree.  This would tend to indicate the gun was in Morgan's hand.  He later testifies that he thought Morgan was going to draw his pistol so he fired his shotgun.  He then states that Morgan "presented his pistol at me".

    Other testimony was given that said that Mathews threatened to shoot Morgan if he did not quit removing the rock and that Morgan had his team attached to a stone and had just started to drive the team off when Mathews fired.  Mathews exact words to Morgan were quoted as being: "Damn you, if you move that I will shoot you." and Morgan answered:  "You kiss my ass, you cowardly son of a bitch" and started his team.  There is also testimony that Morgan did not have a pistol at the time.

    Mathews was within a few feet of Morgan at the time of the shooting.  The entire load struck Morgan in his left side, several shot piercing his heart and killing him instantly.  Mathews then ran back to his house, left his shotgun, and went into hiding.  Mathews had been a constable and justice of the peace for 10 or 12 years (whether he currently held these positions is not stated). Mathews had many friends in the area and it was believed that they would help him avoid being arrested.

    A warrant was issued for Mathews arrest but the sheriff was unable to locate him.  In March 1897 the Douglas County Grand Jury issued an indictment charging Mathews with murder.  On March 29, 1897 Mathews surrendered to the sheriff of Douglas County.  He was released on $2,500.00 bail pending his trial.  The trial was held on 28 March 1898. Mathews was found guilty of murder in the second degree and sentenced to the state penitentiary for 14 years.  His attorney filed an appeal in April 1898 citing several errors.  The Missouri Supreme Court overturned Mathews conviction in October 1898 and ordered a new trial.  The primary reason for overturning the conviction was that the judge had erred in his instructions to the jury.

    Some of the wording in the Supreme Court ruling apparently became Mathews defense in his second trial.  There are two points made that would appear to be the basis of that defense.  They are:

1. "...that even if defendant did kill Morgan with express malice, yet if he did so in necessary self-defense, it would not be murder though defendant bore express malice.  It is not generally true that `the right of self-defense does not imply the right of attack'.  This is something which depends upon the circumstances of each individual case.  A person about to be attacked is not bound to wait until his adversary gets `the drop on him' or `draws a bead on him' before he takes steps to prevent those occurrences from taking place."

2. "When a person apprehends that some one is about to do him great bodily harm, and there is reasonable ground for  believing the danger imminent that such design will be accomplished, he may safely act upon appearances, and even kill the assailant if that be necessary to avoid the danger; and the killing will be justifiable, although it may afterward turn out that the appearances were false, and there was, in fact, neither design to do him serious injury nor danger that it would be done."

    Mathews second trial was originally scheduled to begin in March 1899.  His attorney, however, asked for a continuance until the September Court citing the need to subpoena two witnesses in Greene County who would testify that "they were acquainted with the deceased R. H. Morgan for several years before he came to this county [Douglas] and they were acquainted with his general reputation for being a quarrelsome, turbulent, and dangerous man."

    The continuance was granted and Mathews' second trial began on September 28, 1899.  The new instructions to the jury incorporated the points made by the Missouri Supreme Court in their decision to overturn the original conviction.  Two of the instructions given to the jury are particularly damning to Morgan if they are believed (by the jury) and would tend to support a self-defense theory.  They are:

1. "If you believe deceased had made threats against defendant which had been communicated to defendant, then he had a right to act on less appearance of danger than if such threats had not been made and communicated."

2. "If you believe from the evidence that the deceased was of a rash, turbulent, quarrelsome and dangerous disposition, and that defendant had knowledge of such disposition at the time of the killing, then it is a circumstance for the consideration of the jury in considering the reasonable cause for defendant's apprehension of great personal injury to himself."