-
Appendix One
- University of North Texas Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
259 The Rest of the Tragic Story of Hugh D. Spencer Miss Lillie Was a Rover HUGH D. SPENCER was the district attorney who prosecuted Beech Epting and John Beal Sneed for the murder of Al Boyce, Jr. The Epting trial began on January 4, 1913. Some seven years later almost to the day—January 5, 1920—Hugh Spencer was a central figure in another sensational murder trial, this time in Decatur, Texas. The local newspaper, the Wise County Messenger, called the trial “one of the strangest in the annals of criminal jurisprudence.”1 It certainly lived up to its billing. Although John Beal Sneed had no direct connection with the 1920 Decatur killing and its resulting murder trial, nevertheless the bizarre story of that killing and the murder trial begs to be told as a part of—and not merely as a footnote to—the equally bizarre Sneed story. While Spencer played a role in each, that was only the beginning of the similarities. The killings, the murder trials, the reactions of the jurors as well as the mind-set of the society of that time and place were almost a mirror image of each other. Eerily enough, the killing in the Decatur case was an identical twin, factually, to the assassination of Al Boyce, Jr.: a killer who fired three shots into his unsuspecting victim; a killer who readily admitted that he shot his victim with intent to kill; a killer who never denied that he shot his victim without a warning and without giving him a chance to defend himself; and a killer who was immediately identified and arrested. Even though the facts of the Decatur case tracked the Sneed case insofar as the assassination of the victim was concerned, there were A P P E N D I X O N E 260 V E N G E A N C E I S M I N E three significant differences. First, the Decatur killer admitted that prior to the execution, he had never seen, and did not know, his victim. Second, the killer’s wife—with whom the killer assumed that the intended victim was having a torrid love affair—did not know, nor had she ever even seen her suspected lover. Finally, although Hugh Spencer was a central figure in the Decatur murder trial, he was neither the prosecutor, nor the defense attorney, nor the defendant , nor a witness in that case. Hugh D. Spencer was the victim. There was yet another connection between the tragic tale of Hugh Spencer and the Beal Sneed story. Spencer’s downward spiral began shortly after the 1913 Vernon murder trial of Sneed. When Spencer prosecuted the Vernon murder trial of Sneed in February 1913, the handsome thirty-eight-year-old bachelor was a bright and fast-rising star in the Texas Panhandle legal fraternity, serving his third two-year term as district attorney of the sprawling, ten-county Forty-Sixth Judicial District of Texas. His hometown newspaper described Spencer as being “pleasant, affable, and accommodating to the extreme, willing to do anything for his friends.” 2 Never in his wildest imagination could Hugh Spencer have envisioned what a terrible and unlikely fate would befall him before the year of 1913 came to an end. <= Spencer had grown to maturity in the north central Texas town of Decatur forty miles northwest of Fort Worth where his father served with distinction for years as the county judge.3 Starting at the bottom of the judicial ladder in his home county in 1898, he diligently worked his way up: two terms as justice of the peace, one term as city attorney of Decatur, and then two terms as county attorney of Wise County. It was during this period that the first history of Wise County was written, and the local historian had this to say of young Spencer: The continuous trust that the people have placed in him is evidence of his true worth. Mr. Spencer is an upright citizen in the private walks of life, and as a public official he has a record that [3.238.79.169] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 17:58 GMT) Appendix One 261 is absolutely beyond reproach . . . The people of Wise County have had few officers that have been as attentive to the interests of the people and that have enforced the laws of the state without fear or favor as has Mr. Spencer . . . he has made one of the best attorneys Wise County ever had.4 About that time Spencer, sensing the opportunities to the west after railroads had opened Texas Panhandle lands for settlement, moved to Memphis in Hall County and opened a law office. His legal talents as well as his sterling character and pleasing personality soon resulted in his election as district attorney, an office he held in 1913 when he headed the prosecution team in the Epting trial in Memphis and the Sneed trial in Vernon. At that time Hugh D. Spencer was not only a distinguished and prospering lawyer, he was also a happy bachelor. Then came Lillie—pretty, young widow-lady Lillie Pierce. Hugh Spencer fell in love with her and on August 22, 1913, some six months after the Sneed trial, he married her. And that is when Hugh D. Spencer’s troubles began. Miss Lillie was a rover. The details of her escapade, or escapades, are not recorded. That the salacious nitty-gritty—whatever it was—went unreported publicly is hardly surprising considering that era’s prudish, honor-sensitive values still so much attuned to the Old South’s Victorian mindset: family scandals were customarily only whispered about within the community but rarely ever even hinted at in newspapers. Nevertheless , the January 24, 1919, edition of Spencer’s hometown paper in Decatur, the Wise County Messenger, teetered on the brink of dropping a hint about Miss Lillie’s naughtiness when it printed this cryptic report: Not one word was ever heard questioning the man’s [Spencer’s] honesty and integrity. He lived right and he stood for the best in this life. In the Memphis district he was recognized as one of the best and most successful attorneys, and up to the time of his marriage he was successful as a money-maker. Soon after his marriage he lost his health, and his accumulations of several years were swept away . . . A woman figures in the cause of the terrible tragedy.5 262 V E N G E A N C E I S M I N E Whatever the details of “the terrible tragedy” were, sometime during the previous year (1918) Spencer abruptly left Memphis, abandoned his legal career, and returned to his ancestral home in Decatur to regain his health, and then, hopefully, to resume his legal career. Meanwhile, he and Lillie had separated, and she, taking their six-year-old son with her, moved to Waco. By this time, the United States was involved in World War I, and Waco was full of lonely soldiers from nearby Camp MacArthur. And Lillie was still young and pretty. Sometime in 1918 Lillie brought their son, Hugh D. Spencer, Jr., to Decatur to visit his father. While there, a letter slipped out of Lillie ’s purse and Hugh, Sr., found it. That is how he discovered Lillie’s latest escapade. Without benefit of a prior divorce, Lillie had married a soldier named Floyd Huff on July 24, 1918—just before he was shipped out to battle the Germans in the trenches of France. When confronted by Spencer, Lillie agreed to an uncontested divorce from Spencer plus granting him custody of the child. At the time of the confrontation, Lillie not only agreed to the divorce and custody arrangement but also agreed to leave Texas and never return. Spencer told her that to protect their child he would not expose her scandalous misbehavior if she would move back to Missouri where she had relatives—and stay there. Lillie agreed at first, but she soon reneged on her promise. She moved back to Waco. After all, that is where all the soldiers were stationed. As a contemporary, news report coyly phrased it: “She remained in Waco, posing as a young lady, and was sought after by soldiers. She is young and pretty.”6 Back in Decatur, Spencer filed the divorce suit. As agreed, Lillie did not bother to contest it, and on January 6, 1919, the Wise County District Court granted a divorce to Spencer and awarded him custody of six-year-old Hugh D. Spencer, Jr. Thus it would appear that Spencer, now forty-three years old, would be done with Lillie—and all the troubles she had brought to his life—done with her once and for all. Now he could recover his health and fortune. Sadly, that was not to be. <= [3.238.79.169] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 17:58 GMT) Appendix One 263 Lillie, meanwhile, took a room in a boardinghouse run by a Mrs. McClain. In some idle girl-talk, Mrs. McClain’s pretty young boarder happened to mention that she had an estranged husband back in Decatur named Hugh Spencer. Shortly thereafter the helpful Mrs. McClain took it upon herself to drop Spencer a little note informing him that Lillie was employed at Sanger’s Department Store in Waco. And, oh yes, by the way, did you know that she is about to marry a Camp MacArthur soldier named Boland? 7 Shortly after the divorce, Spencer’s young son began missing his mother and begged Spencer to let him see Lillie. In response, Spencer wrote a letter to Lillie in an attempt to get her to come to Decatur, via rail connections through Fort Worth. The letter read as follows: Decatur, Texas, January 15, Lillie: Don’t be afraid to write me. I want you to get off from Sanger’s and come to Decatur. Tell them you have a sick brother in Fort Worth and you will not be back until Tuesday. Hugh Dickson cries everyday for his mother. Come Saturday night on [the] rear sleeper and I will meet you at [the] depot. Put on veil and no one will know you, and I will not mention your recent escapade. Don’t fail to come. H. D. Spencer8 Mistakenly assuming that Lillie had by now married the soldier, he addressed the letter to “Lillie Boland” and sent it to her in care of Sanger’s Department Store in Waco. But Lillie was not working there under the name “Boland.” There was another woman working at Sanger’s, however, whose last name was “Bolger ”—a Mrs. W. M. Bolger. Although Mrs. Bolger’s first name was Sallie, not Lillie, nevertheless the postal clerk at Sanger’s mistakenly assumed the letter was intended for Mrs. Bolger and delivered it to her. Mrs. Bolger read the letter and realized that it was not intended for her. Unfortunately, however, she happened to mention the curious letter to her husband, and he read it. Mr. Bolger, a Waco merchant, was, unfortunately, an extremely jealous husband with a very suspicious mind. He immediately jumped to the conclusion that his wife was having a clandestine affair with this fellow Spencer from Decatur. No amount of denials by Mrs. Bolger could dissuade him. The more she denied having an affair, the more he believed that she really was 264 V E N G E A N C E I S M I N E having an affair, and the more enraged he became. It seemed not to have occurred to him that had his wife really been having an affair, she certainly would not have shown him the letter. Without further ado, W. M. Bolger grabbed his .38- caliber Iver Johnson double action revolver and caught the next train bound for Decatur. The next day found him at the courthouse square in Decatur looking for a Mr. Hugh Spencer. He had never met the man and had no idea what he looked like. Bolger introduced himself to a stranger as Mr. Duncan and asked him if he knew Hugh Spencer. If Hugh Spencer believed that his string of incredibly bad luck was over when he got rid of Lillie and won custody of his son, Hugh, Jr., he was sadly—tragically—mistaken. Just about the time that “Mr. Duncan” (a.k.a. W. M. Bolger) asked the stranger if he knew a Mr. Hugh Spencer, the star-crossed, ill-fated Hugh Spencer emerged from the Decatur post office and began walking across the lawn of the Wise County courthouse. The stranger pointed to Hugh Spencer and said, “Sure, that’s Spencer.” Bolger then walked up behind the man and called, “Spencer.” The unsuspecting and unarmed victim turned around to answer, but before he could say anything, Bolger shot him three times. A fourth bullet went wild and hit a bystander, but did little damage to him. As Spencer fell, another bystander, Ira Maley, heard Bolger growl, “Damn you, you’ll never break up another home!” 9 Mortally wounded, Spencer was rushed to a Fort Worth hospital where he died two days later, January 20, 1919. Before he died, he told officials that he did not know, and had never before seen, his assailant, and that he had no idea why the man shot him. Bolger was arrested on the spot. On his person was found Spencer ’s letter addressed to “Lillie Boland.” While in jail Bolger soon learned of his tragic mistake and begged to be taken to Spencer to apologize. But it was too late. Spencer was already dead—forever forty-three years old. W. M. Bolger was promptly indicted for murder and tried in the Forty-Third Judicial District Court of Wise County, Texas, in Decatur. He never denied killing Spencer. Instead, he relied on the unwritten law defense, code-worded “protecting the home.” To buttress [3.238.79.169] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 17:58 GMT) Appendix One 265 that unwritten law defense, Bolger’s attorney had the court instruct the jury on the “insulting conduct” statutory law: Insulting conduct by the deceased towards a female relative of the defendant is deemed in law an adequate cause to produce a degree of anger, rage or sudden resentment in a person of ordinary temper sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.10 Under the Texas law, even if all the above were true, that statute only served to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter— not to exonerate the defendant from guilt. However, as observed before, when defense attorneys got through massaging that statute HUGH D. SPENCER. This 1907 picture depicts a young Hugh Spencer. Later as district attorney of the Forty-sixth Judicial District he prosecuted Beech Epting and John Beal Sneed in 1913 for the murder of Al Boyce, Jr. Still later, on January 18, 1919, in a tragic case of mistaken identity, Spencer was shot and killed in Decatur, Texas, by a man he had never seen before. Photograph taken from History of Wise County: From Red Men to Railroads—Twenty Years of Intrepid History by Cliff D. Cates compiled under the auspices of the Wise County Old Settlers’ Association, Decatur, Texas, 1907. 266 V E N G E A N C E I S M I N E around before a jury it always seemed to amount to a justification for the killing. In the end, even though Bolger shot a completely innocent and unarmed man—one he had never seen before that instant—and shot him three times without giving him a chance to answer any accusations of misconduct, the Wise County jury must have been persuaded that W. M. Bolger really believed in the righteousness of his mission—really believed that he was attempting to “protect his home”—when he killed Spencer. The jury did, however, on January 14, 1920, end up finding Bolger guilty of manslaughter, but it assessed only probation—a five-year suspended sentence.11 Five years later, on May 27, 1925, Bolger, not having violated the terms of his probation or blown away any other innocent victims during the interim, came back to the Wise County District Court and petitioned the court to clear him entirely. Accordingly, the court obliged him, and the indictment was dismissed with prejudice so that it could never be filed again. The end result was that Bolger never served a day in a Texas prison for killing an innocent victim, and his criminal record was expunged. ...