At that time, 1798–99, Kentucky had a pioneer population of about two hundred thousand, which was largely centered in the new trading and agricultural towns in the eastern part and in the rich bluegrass country. The remainder of the state, except along the water courses, was well nigh a wilderness7. In the southern and western portions buffalo8 grazed, and bear were plentiful9. East Tennessee, where the scourge10 of crime began, was even more sparsely11 settled. This pioneer population was vigorous, rude, and accustomed even to Indian atrocities12. Among the settlers were many who, as fugitives13 from justice, had deliberately14 sought seclusion15 from the eastern states because of criminal offenses16. The Ohio River was infested17 with inland pirates, and the early rivermen themselves were a rough and violent type. Isolation18 led well-meaning pioneers to be generous and confiding19 to those whom they had
56
tested, but to a great degree might was right, and strangers looked askance at each other and were prepared for the worst.
Yet such a rude and hardy20 people as these were gripped with horror at the atrocities of the Harpes, at their often unmeaning and unprovoked murders. It is difficult in these days of well ordered government to realize the mysterious terror and excitement that began near Knoxville in 1798 and swept through the wilderness to the borders of the Mississippi, and across the Ohio into Illinois like some sudden, creeping fire that breaks out in underbrush, and grows steadily21 in intensity22 and rage until it sweeps forests before it. All this was, in a measure, realized in the breasts of human beings as the hideous23 crimes of the Harpes increased.
Aside from the wars and the recorded importances of political development, the episode of the Harpes is the most astounding24 event in the early life of the Middle West. It engaged the memory of men for forty years, and the pens of numerous historians, and writers of memoir25 have been occupied with it ever since. In the main the story has been well preserved, but in the details there has been the variation that grows with repetition. The most dignified26 historians have not disdained27 to seek the minute details attaching to the persons and actions of these two men from the moment they began their criminal career to the thrilling blood-chase in which the older brother was captured and killed, and the younger escaped into exile and to an even more dramatic and terrible death.
To this day the story of “The Harpes” and “Harpe’s Head” is told about firesides in the Cave-in-Rock country, in southern and western Kentucky and in eastern
57
Tennessee. It has been perpetuated28 in folk ballads29 and written by scores of pens. [93]
It is the purpose here to bring together the many threads of the tale as they have been verified and corrected by original records sought from Wisconsin to New Orleans, and from Knoxville to Cave-in-Rock and the Mississippi River.
Judge James Hall, while living in Illinois, wrote a brief account of one of the crimes committed by these outlaws30, and in April, 1824, published it in The Port Folio of Philadelphia. In his introductory remarks he comments: “Neither avarice31 nor want nor any of the usual inducements to the commission of crime, seemed to govern their conduct. A savage32 thirst for blood—a deep-rooted enmity against human nature, could alone be discovered in their actions.... Plunder33 was not their object; they took only what would have been freely given them, and no more than what was necessary to supply the immediate34 wants of nature; they destroyed without having suffered injury, and without the prospect35 of benefit.... Mounted on fine horses they plunged36 into the forest, eluded37 pursuit by frequently changing their course, and appeared unexpectedly to perpetrate new horrors, at points distant from those where they were supposed to lurk38.”
Judge Hall, up to that time, had done little more than describe one of their last crimes, yet The Cincinnati Literary Gazette, May 28, 1825, came out with a statement admitting that there may have been two outlaws by the name of Harpe, but added: “We have no hesitation39 in asserting that their history, as published in The Port Folio, is unworthy of belief.... The horrible details concerning these men ... such disgusting
58
sketches41 of human depravity and barbarism manifest either a vitiated taste or a total disregard of the morals of the community.”
As far as is now known, at least two papers published in the month following came to the defense42 of Judge Hall’s account. The Illinois Gazette, of Shawneetown, among other things, declared: “The depravity and bloodshed which marked their existence ... are circumstances too strongly impressed upon the recollections of our early settlers to be contradicted at this date.”
The Columbian, of Henderson, Kentucky, in a half column article devoted43 to the same subject, asserts: “The account published in The Port Folio is correct in every essential point.... However it may be regretted that such monsters as the Harpes ever should have existed to disgrace humanity, yet it is an uncontrovertible fact.” [56]
In the August, 1825, issue of The Port Folio Judge Hall published an account of another murder committed by the Harpes—the killing44 of Thomas Langford, who was among their first victims in Kentucky. In the same number he devotes a few pages to a verification of the statements he published then and a few months previous. And before half had been told about the Harpes, The Cincinnati Literary Gazette was convinced of its error in doubting and disputing the veracity45 of Judge Hall. Judge Hall wrote several pages justifying46 the publication of the weird47 and wonderful facts of the career of the Harpes. His arguments published in 1825 in his own defense hold good today and may be equally well applied49 to the story of the Harpes here given, which, as far as is known, is the first attempt
59
to compile a complete history of these notorious outlaws:
“If it is intended to be objected, that these ‘horrid50 details,’ even if true, are not proper for publication—I reply, that whatever tends to develop the history or character of a people, is a legitimate51 subject of public discussion. History to be of any value must be true. It must disclose not only the truth but the whole truth. In vain would the historian seek this in the frail52 monuments vaguely53 preserved in the uncertain legend of tradition. He must resort to national records and to the testimony54 of writers contemporary with the events which he attempts to describe, and if the latter abstain55 from the narration56 of ‘disgusting sketches of human depravity and barbarism,’ history must be curtailed57 of her most fruitful source of incident, and men and nations stripped of their boldest peculiarity59. It is perhaps forgotten that ‘depravity and barbarism’ constitute almost the sole basis of history, tragedy, and the epic60 song; that kings and courts are nothing without them; that they revel61 amid ‘the pomp, pride, and circumstance of glorious war;’ and stand forth62 in bold relief in every department of civil subordination. It is to be deplored63 that such is the fact; but while crime and folly64 continue to predominate in the affairs of men, they will be found to swell65 the pages of those who attempt to exhibit correct pictures of human nature.
“In describing the American backwoodsmen, a class of men peculiar58 to our country, I have thought it proper to introduce among other authentic66 anecdotes67 the story of the Harpes. My object was to display as well the extraordinary sufferings to which the earliest emigrants68 to the western country were exposed, as the
60
courage with which they met and repelled69 those hardships.”
The Harpes were believed to be brothers. They were natives of North Carolina. Micajah, known as Big Harpe, was born about 1768, and Wiley, known as Little Harpe, was born about 1770. Their father was said to have been a Tory who fought under the British flag at King’s Mountain and took part in a number of other battles against the colonists70. Before the close of the Revolution and immediately thereafter many of the Tories living in the south Atlantic colonies fled toward the Mississippi. Those who still sympathized with the King of England and continued to live in the “Old States” were, in most sections, ostracized71 by their neighbors. It was to this class that the parents of the Harpes belonged; and it was, therefore, in an environment of hatred72 for and by neighbors that the two sons grew up.
About the year 1840 Colonel G. W. Sevier, son of Governor John Sevier, in an interview with Lyman C. Draper, the historian, stated that Big Harpe, when asked shortly before he was killed why he had committed so many crimes, answered that he had been badly treated and consequently had become disgusted with all mankind. [12G] The same statement is made by J. W. M. Breazeale, another well-known early Tennesseean, who had lived in Knoxville the greater part of his life and had investigated the careers of the outlaws.
One writer attributes their acts of fiendish inhumanity to the fact that they believed every man’s life, whether good, indifferent or bad, was predestined and that the All Wise had foreordained for them a hatred of humanity and a career of crime. [121] Draper, in his “Sketch40 of the Harpes,” comments on the fact that “their tawny73 appearance and dark curly hair betrayed
61
a tinge74 of African blood coursing through their veins75.”
Criminologists may or may not agree as to the underlying76 cause of the great thirst for blood possessed77 by the Harpes, but the fact that they were the most savage and terrible characters in this period of American history cannot be disputed.
About the year 1795 the two men, accompanied by Susan Roberts and Betsey Roberts, left North Carolina for Tennessee. Susan claimed to be the legal wife of Big Harpe, whereas Betsey merely posed as such. Big Harpe, however, claimed both women as his wives. The Harpes cared as little for the laws of matrimony as for any other laws and the legality or illegality of anything they did was a matter of indifference78 to them.
The two men and their women roamed in central Tennessee about two years. Most of their time was spent with a few stray Creek79 and Cherokee Indians who at the time were ostracized by their tribes and were committing atrocities against their own people as well as against the whites. The Harpes joined the savages80 in their outrages81, and not only encouraged them in their bloody82 deeds, but gave them many demonstrations83 showing to what extent barbarity could be practiced. Asleep or awake they were armed with tomahawks and knives and never took a step from camp without a gun. They were always prepared to shed blood for the satisfaction of shedding it, or to resist arrest should any attempt be made to capture them. They lived like man-eating animals. The women as well as the men wore leather hunting shirts and moccasins made from the untanned skin of animals they killed. They never wore hats except in the coldest weather and then used the kind they “whanged” together with deer skin thongs84. [121]
62
Some time during 1797 the four left middle Tennessee for the new settlement of Knoxville. While wandering toward the eastern part of the state they met a young Methodist preacher named William Lambuth, who was traveling through the wilderness alone. They robbed him and among his belongings85 found a Bible. In turning the leaves, looking for bank bills, Big Harpe discovered on the front page, written in plain letters the names “William Lambuth” and “George Washington.” Pointing to the name of the General, Harpe remarked: “That is a brave and good man, but a mighty86 rebel against the King.” The articles found in Lambuth’s possession convinced the Harpes that he was a preacher, whereupon they returned to him not only his Bible but also the gun, the little money, and the horse they had taken. Then abruptly87 turning from him and shouting, “We are the Harpes,” they quickly disappeared. This is probably the only instance in the lives of the Harpes, after the beginning of their murderous career, when they had anyone, old or young, in their power, and showed less than a fiendish barbarity. [121]
Obeying the principle that birds of a feather flock together, the Harpes, it seems, were attracted toward the new settlement of Knoxville. In March, 1798, James Weir48, on his way from South Carolina to Kentucky, spent a few days in the town. Writing of his short stay there he says:
“In the infant town of Knox the houses are irregular and interspersed89. It was County Court day when I came. The town was confused with a promiscuous90 throng91 of every denomination92. Some talked, some sang, and mostly all did profanely93 swear. I stood aghast, my soul shrank back to hear the horrid oaths
63
and dreadful indignities94 offered to the Supreme95 Governor of the Universe, who with one frown is able to shake them into non-existence. There was what I never did see before, viz., on Sunday, dancing, singing, and playing of cards, etc.... It was said by a gentleman of the neighborhood that ‘the Devil is grown so old that it renders him incapable96 of traveling and that he has taken up in Knoxville and there hopes to spend the remaining part of his days in tranquility, as he believes he is among his friends,’ but as it is not a good principle to criticise97 the conduct of others, I shall decline it with this general reflection, that there are some men of good principles in all places, but often more bad ones to counterbalance them.” [109]
The Harpes doubtless felt they could better gratify their thirst for blood in the vicinity of a settlement like Knoxville than in a wide wilderness where subjects for their cruelty were too few. They found a small tract88 of cleared land on Beaver98 Creek, about eight miles west of Knoxville. Upon this they built a log cabin for themselves, and a pen for their horses, and, in order to conceal99 their motives, cultivated a few acres of ground. Under this feint of honest occupation they experienced no difficulty in gaining the confidence of their neighbors. In fact, so easily had they made a favorable impression that within a few weeks after their arrival Little Harpe married Sarah or Sally Rice, a daughter of John Rice, a preacher living about four miles north of the Harpe hut.
In the meantime the two brothers made trips to the seat of justice, for then, as now, the occasion and the desire “to go to town” to see “what’s going on” was a common one among the people who lived in the country. Swapping100 horses was then, and still is to a great
64
extent, one of the features of a day at the small court house towns. So when, on one of their first trips to Knoxville, the Harpes brought with them a fine three-year-old mare101 and offered to run her in a race, no suspicion was aroused. The horse was apparently102 superior to any other in town that day and no owner could be induced to venture his quarter nag103 against her. A Mr. Aycoff, recognizing the mare as an unusually good one, bought her and became so attached to the animal that he kept her almost a quarter of a century. It is interesting to note that twenty years after he purchased her, a gentleman from Georgia, visiting near Knoxville, recognized her as the filly that had been stolen from him many years before. [12G]
The Harpes rapidly increased the number of their trips to town, but it was soon noticed that with each succeeding visit their supply of pork and mutton increased. They sold this meat to John Miller104, one of the most respected merchants of Knoxville, through whom the Harpe hams soon became well known. But the reputation of the two brothers for drinking and gambling105, and the disturbances106 they raised in the village were sufficient to arouse suspicion in the community. By this and other evidence John Miller was convinced that the Harpes were hog107 thieves, and suspected that their dishonesty and meanness had no limit. [12G]
Soon after the arrival of the Harpes in east Tennessee a number of houses and stables near Knoxville were set on fire and many of them burned to the ground. As no motive3 for such destruction of property could be discovered, the citizens attributed it to downright rascality108. So strong had become suspicion against the Harpes that when Edward Tiel, who lived a mile from Knoxville, discovered that several of his best horses had
65
been stolen, he enlisted109 a number of neighbors and immediately proceeded to the home of the Harpes. The investigators110 found that the cabin had been deserted111 recently, but noticed indications that horses had been tied to some near-by trees. Tiel and his men took up the trail and followed it across Clinch112 River into the Cumberland Mountains. There they captured the two Harpes who were alone at the time. The stolen horses were recovered, but when the captors and their prisoners reached a point about five miles northeast of Knoxville, the horse thieves made their escape. [21]
Tiel and his men tried to effect their recapture but, failing in the attempt, returned to Knoxville. That same night the two Harpes appeared at Hughes’ “rowdy groggery,” a few miles west of Knoxville, where they had gone to exercise their brutality113 before leaving Tennessee. Hughes, his wife’s two brothers, named Metcalfe, and a man named Johnson, living in Jefferson County, were present when the Harpes, who knew the men, rushed in. Johnson was last seen alive there. A few days later his body was discovered in the Holstein River. It had been ripped open, filled with stones, and thrown into the water. Notwithstanding this excess of caution the stones became loosened and the corpse114 rose to the surface. When the body was discovered Hughes and the Metcalfes came forth with a declaration that the Harpes had committed the crime. Suspicion fell upon the accusers and as the two Harpes were nowhere to be found, the three men were arrested and put in jail. They were acquitted115 on trial, due to lack of evidence. The Metcalfes immediately fled the country. A party of “regulators” followed Hughes to his groggery, gave him a whipping, pulled down his house and drove him out of the country. [12G]
66
The killing of Johnson, as far as is known, seems to have been the first of the murders committed by the Harpes. Up to this time they had apparently confined their operations to stealing hogs116 and horses, and setting fire to houses. They now began a career of ruthless murder which was so bold that it not only terrified the citizens of Tennessee and Kentucky, but also alarmed settlers in many other sections of the Middle West.
The Harpes evidently had arranged to meet their three women associates at some definite point if they should for any reason find it necessary to separate. Shortly after the killing of Johnson the five met in western Virginia, near Cumberland Gap, and there, in December, 1798, they entered Kentucky—the “dark and bloody ground,” to be made even darker by the deeds they were to commit during the next twelve months.
They traveled the Wilderness Road more or less closely, leaving it only when they felt their safety demanded a detour117. Their first victim in Kentucky was a peddler named Peyton, whom they encountered near the Cumberland River in what is now Knox County. They killed him and took his horse and some of his goods, but the details of this deed are not known. [21]
The outlaws continued along this trail toward Crab118 Orchard119 and Stanford, in Lincoln County, and overtook two Marylanders named Paca and Bates. Night came on and it was proposed that the party camp on the first suitable spot. This was agreed upon, but the Harpes managed not to find a desirable place until it grew dark. Suddenly, as if by accident, the brothers changed positions, Big Harpe getting behind Bates and Little Harpe behind Paca, the women walking about thirty feet in the rear. The Harpes fired and the two unfortunate Marylanders fell. Bates died instantly. A
67
few minutes later Paca, who was badly crippled and knocked speechless, attempted to rise. Big Harpe rushed up to the struggling man, “splitting open his head with a hatchet120 or tomahawk he carried in his belt.” The Harpes, being in need of some clothing, appropriated only such garments as were immediately useful. They took, however, all the gold and silver and Continental121 coin found in possession of their victims. [121]
The villains122 continued along the Wilderness Road and one night in December, 1798, arrived at a public house kept by John Farris in what is now Rockcastle County, not many miles from Crab Orchard. With them came Stephen Langford, of Virginia, who was on his way to Crab Orchard to visit a kinsman123 and to consider making that locality his home. Langford probably had not met the Harpes until that morning. The story of what took place after they met was related about a quarter of a century later by Judge James Hall, who, in his day, ranked among the best living authors in America, and whose statements were then, and have been ever since, cited as high authority. His story of their encounter with Langford was first published in August, 1825, in The Port Folio. After making some slight revisions in his “Story of the Harpes” he republished the sketch in 1828 in his Letters from the West, from which book his account of the Langford tragedy is here quoted:
“In the autumn of the year 1799, a young gentleman, named Langford, of a respectable family in Mecklenburgh County, Virginia, set out from this state for Kentucky, with the intention of passing through the Wilderness, as it was then called, by the route generally known as Boone’s Trace. On reaching the vicinity of
68
the Wilderness, a mountainous and uninhabited tract, which at that time separated the settled parts of Kentucky from those of Virginia, he stopped to breakfast at a public house near Big Rockcastle River. Travelers of this description—any other indeed than hardy wood men—were unwilling124 to pass singly through this lonely region; and they generally waited on its confines for others, and traveled through in parties. Mr. Langford, either not dreading125 danger, or not choosing to delay, determined126 to proceed alone. While breakfast was preparing, the Harpes and their women came up. Their appearance denoted poverty, with but little regard to cleanliness; two very indifferent horses, with some bags swung across them, and a rifle gun or two, comprised nearly their whole equipage. Squalid and miserable128, they seemed objects of pity, rather than of fear, and their ferocious129 glances were attributed more to hunger than to guilty passion. They were entire strangers in that neighborhood, and, like Mr. Langford, were about to cross the Wilderness. When breakfast was served, the landlord, as was customary at such places in those times, invited all the persons who were assembled in the common, perhaps the only room of his little inn, to sit down; but the Harpes declined, alleging130 their want of money as the reason. Langford, who was of a lively, generous disposition131, on hearing this, invited them to partake of the meal at his expense; they accepted the invitation, and ate voraciously132. When they had thus refreshed themselves, and were about to renew their journey, Mr. Langford called for the bill, and in the act of discharging it imprudently displayed a handful of silver. They then set out together.
“A few days after, some men who were conducting a drove of cattle to Virginia, by the same road which
69
had been traveled by Mr. Langford and the Harpes, had arrived within a few miles of Big Rockcastle River, when their cattle took fright, and, quitting the road, rushed down a hill into the woods. In collecting them, the drovers discovered the dead body of a man concealed133 behind a log, and covered with brush and leaves. It was now evident that the cattle had been alarmed by the smell of blood in the road, and, as the body exhibited marks of violence, it was at once suspected that a murder had been perpetrated but recently. The corpse was taken to the same house where the Harpes had breakfasted, and recognized to be that of Mr. Langford, whose name was marked upon several parts of his dress. Suspicion fell upon the Harpes, who were pursued and apprehended134 near Crab Orchard. They were taken to Stanford....”
The killing of the two Marylanders and the peddler was not known until many weeks thereafter. The report of the murder of Langford spread like wildfire. The Kentucky Gazette, January 2, 1799, in a characteristically brief paragraph gave sufficient details of the discovery of the body on December 14 to impress its readers with the seriousness of an act of barbarity that might be repeated by the Harpes at any time. “We also learn,” says this paragraph, “that Mr. Ballenger is in pursuit of them, with a determined resolution never to quit the chase until he has secured them.”
Captain Joseph Ballenger, the organizer and leader of the pursuing party, was a prominent merchant of Stanford, Lincoln County. He and his men trailed the Harpes and their women to the neighborhood of what was then Carpenter’s Station, a settlement near the present town of Hustonville and about eight miles southwest of Stanford. There Ballenger discovered
70
them sitting on a log, evidently confident that no one could detect their whereabouts. [12F] The pursuers rushed on them so suddenly that resistance or escape was impossible.5
The five prisoners were taken to Stanford, placed in jail and, about ten days later, tried before the Court of Quarter Sessions.
Hall’s story of the frontier tragedy, based on personal accounts that had survived for a quarter of a century, has already been given. It is brief and is correct as far as it goes, but while Hall was hearing it from the lips of men who had it from those concerned with the vengeance135 of the law, there lay in the custody136 of the records of the backwoods court of Lincoln County, the grim details of that crime of base ingratitude137 and cruelty in solitude138 which so shook the Wilderness. They had lain there forgotten more than a century when they were found and examined in 1918. Yellowed with age, written with the goose-quill pen of that period in a penmanship characteristic of the pioneers, a jumble139 of half narrative140, half legal style, much of which, however, is in use in courts today, these records of a terrible episode in history are eloquent141 with interest.
71
The piling up of item on item of court forms, of testimony laboriously142 written out and signed, of official jail accounts for the handling of the criminals, tells in its own way every detail of a crime committed in fancied obscurity yet which by a series of fortunate circumstances, was to blaze into a notoriety that set all the West on fire with fear and horror. One who holds these long-forgotten records in his hands and curiously143 searches them could, with patience and without the aid of imagination, build up the story of frontier life and the people who lived it. The story would show that the power of observation exercised by some of the pioneers was equal to any ascribed to a Sherlock Holmes. It would be a story of chance incidents woven into chains of circumstances that were to reveal crime with unerring certainty—a story of the capture of the criminals, of their life in jail, and of the destiny by which each of the three women involved was to have her only child born to her in that frontier jail, the branded fruit of awful parentage. The mute entries in pounds, shillings, and pence for every item, set down on these yellow pages without malice144 or comment, tell their part of the story as implacably and dispassionately as fate itself.6
These records show that all the Harpes gave their name as “Roberts,” except Betsey Harpe, the supplementary145 wife of Big Harpe, whose name is given as
72
“Elizabeth Walker.” Five witnesses appeared against them, two of whom—John Farris and his daughter-in-law, Jane Farris—lived in the house near Rockcastle River where Thomas Langford, or Lankford, was last seen alive. The fugitives were captured December 25, 1798. On January 4, 1799, they appeared before the three judges of the Lincoln County Court of Quarter Sessions, as it is so recorded, by Willis Green, the clerk, on the twenty-second page of the Record Book marked “September 1798–March 1802:”
“At a court called and held at Lincoln Courthouse on Friday the 4th day of January 1799 for the examination of Micajah Roberts, Wiley Roberts, Susanna Roberts, Sally Roberts, and Elizabeth Walker for the murder of Thomas Langford.
“Present Hugh Logan, William Montgomery, and Nathan Huston, Esquires, [the three judges who presided].
“The said [naming the five prisoners] were lead to the bar in custody of the Sheriff and charged with feloniously and of their malice aforethought murdering and robbing a certain Thomas Langford on Wednesday the 12th day of December 1798 on the road leading from Kentucky to Virginia through the Wilderness, and denied the fact, sundry146 evidences were therefore examined and the prisoners heard in their defense.”
Five witnesses appeared on behalf of the Commonwealth147. The statement of each is written on loose leaves and signed in the presence of Thomas Montgomery, the official notary148, and all were therefore in a form to be turned over to a higher court should it become necessary to do so. The affidavit149 of Captain Ballenger, who lead the pursuing party, is here quoted in full:
73
“Joseph Ballenger of lawful150 age, and sworn, deposeth and saith that at about the 19th or 20th day of December 1798 he heard that a murder had been committed in the Wilderness on the body of a certain Thomas Langford, as supposed; that he, at the request of James Blain the Attorney General of this Commonwealth with others (including Thomas Welsh) went in pursuit of some persons suspected of being the murderers who had passed through Lincoln County; that they went to the house of John Blain in Lincoln County where they heard that persons similar to those they were in pursuit of had left Brush Creek, a branch of Green River, and passed over to the Rolling Fork of Salt River; that they pursued them and overtook five persons, the same who this day on their examinations were called Micajah Roberts, Wiley Roberts, Susanna Roberts, Sally Roberts, and Elizabeth Walker; that after taking them into custody they proceeded to search them and found in their possession a pocket book with the name of Thomas Langford, a great coat, a grey coating cloth, a short coat—in the pocket of it were broken pieces of glass—a mixed colored long coat, a pair of breeches, a shaving glass, a whip, a pair of wrappers, and a horse, this day proved to be the property of Thomas Langford said to be the person murdered in the Wilderness, and that they found also a Free Mason’s apron151 and many other things in their possession said to be the property of Thomas Langford. Further saith not.”
David Irby, in his sworn statement, explained that: “he and Thomas Langford set out from Pittsylvania County in Virginia for Kentucky, they traveled five days journey together and sometimes one paid their traveling expense and sometimes the other, all of which
74
Thomas Langford marked down in his pocket book. Before they crossed Inglish’s Ferry [Ingle’s Ferry in what is now Montgomery Country, Virginia] they got a half bushel of oats which the deponent paid for and also their ferryage at Inglish’s Ferry in Wythe County (Virginia) the deponent purchased a cheese which Thomas Langford set down in his pocket book, he says that the pocket book now before the examining court is the said pocket book which Thomas Langford had when they traveled together in Tennessee State. [The trail from Virginia to Cumberland Gap extended into northeastern Tennessee before reaching Kentucky]. The deponent and Thomas Langford separated when they agreed to meet at Frankfort in Kentucky; the deponent heard in Kentucky that the said Thomas Langford was murdered on his way to Kentucky, he set out towards the place where the crime was committed and went to the place where the person who was killed was buried and he, the deponent, and John Farris unburied and raised the decedent and found him to be Thomas Langford.”
What Irby saw and heard he further declared convinced him that the murdered man was no other than his recent traveling companion.
John Farris Sr. swore that on Tuesday night, December 12, 1798: “a man came to his house on the Wilderness Road who called himself Thomas Langford and who, after he had told him his name, he recollected152 to have been acquainted with in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, in the youth of Thomas Langford.”
He said his guest remained all night and started the next morning for the settlements. In the meantime, Farris had: “an opportunity of viewing his clothing and actually did very curiously examine the outward
75
clothing of the said Thomas Langford.” A few days later he heard that “a man was killed on the Wilderness Road, and on inquiring into the circumstances he was induced to believe that the person murdered was Thomas Langford ... but not being fully153 satisfied that the person found dead was Thomas Langford, he went to the coroner of Lincoln County, obtained from him an order—the said coroner having before that time held an inquest on the body—and in pursuance of the said order, in company with David Irby and Abraham Anthony who buried the said Thomas Langford as he supposed, raised him and inspected him ... and that the whole visage of the person, by him and others raised, answered his idea of Thomas Langford, but he knew him more particularly by the loss of a tooth in the front part of his jaw154.”
His daughter-in-law, Jane Farris, wife of William Farris, also identified various things found in the possession of the outlaws as the property of the murdered man. She evidently observed the actions of the travelers closely, for she states: “Thomas Langford had on leggins at her house and as part of the list of one of them was torn Susan Roberts sewed it to the leggin with white thread.” She adds that the five prisoners and their victim came to the house together and “All appeared very cheerful with each other, Langford seemed to be somewhat intoxicated155, he had a small glass bottle which was filled with whiskey at their house which Micajah Roberts and Wiley Roberts paid for.” The six left the Farris house together, but shortly before leaving “there was some misunderstanding between Thomas Langford and Micajah and Wiley Roberts ... and Mr. Langford said to Mrs. Farris, in the presence of all, that he would not offend her for all
76
in his saddle bags which was worth five hundred pounds.”
The statement made by Thomas Welsh, who was in the pursuing party, is practically the same as Captain Ballenger’s. He, however, adds “there was none of the alteration156 in the great coat at the time of the finding ... and must have been made by the criminals since they were taken into custody, they having, for several days after they were taken in custody, the possession of the great coat.”
There is nothing in the records to indicate what was said by the prisoners when they were heard in their defense. The decision of the court was that the five prisoners “ought to be tried for the murder of the said Thomas Langford before the Judges of the District Court holden for the Danville District at the next April Term, and it is ordered that they be remanded to jail.”
Thomas Todd, the prosecuting157 attorney, in the requirement of the law, “acknowledged himself indebted” to the Governor of the Commonwealth “in the sum of ten thousand pounds current money” should he fail to appear before the judges on the first day of the April term of the Danville District Court then and there to prosecute158 the prisoners. The witnesses “acknowledged themselves severally indebted ... to the sum of five hundred pounds current money” should they fail to appear and give evidence on behalf of the Commonwealth.7
77
On January 5 the five prisoners were taken by the sheriff and a guard of seven men to Danville, there to await trial before the District Court in April. The distance from Stanford to Danville is about ten miles. Neither history nor tradition tells how this cavalcade159 made the trip over the trail, whether afoot, on horses, or in wagons160, or by a combination of these means. The condition then reached by the women may have necessitated161 the use of a conveyance162 for them. This party of thirteen doubtless attracted much attention along the road, for five prisoners, of whom three were women, was a sight not often seen. The ten mile trip to Danville made by the guards with the captured Harpes along this historic highway, winding163 through an almost unbroken forest, readily lends itself to anyone’s fancy.8
Evidently John Biegler, “Jailer of the District of Danville,” to whom the prisoners were delivered and who had them in his custody several months, felt there was some likelihood of his charges escaping. His account against the state shows that on January 20, 1799,
78
he bought “Two horse locks to chain the men’s feet to the ground, 12s. and 1 bolt, 3s.” It seems to have become necessary to fasten the front door more firmly, for, on February 13, he purchased “one lock for front jail door, 18s.” Two weeks later he bought three pounds of nails for 6s. “for the use of the jail.” The expense items further show that four men, two at a time, were employed to guard the prisoners.
But with all these precautions, the two Harpes escaped on March 16, leaving their three women and two new-born infants behind. There is nothing in the court records indicating how they escaped. The jailer’s expense account merely shows an item dated March 19: “Mending the wall in jail where the prisoners escaped, 12s.” Breazeale, forty years later, wrote—but cites no authority for his statement: “the jailer, soon after their escape, resigned his office, left the jail, bought a farm and settled himself in the country where he very shortly became wealthy—no one ever knew with certainty by what means, but the general suspicion was that he had acquired his wealth by receiving a large bribe164 from the Harpes to permit them to escape.”
How they escaped was doubtless a subject of much conjecture165 and discussion. Colonel Daniel Trabue in his Autobiography166 says that the two men “took two guns from the guard at Danville.” Whether or not the guard or guards were present and resisted the prisoners when they took the two guns is not stated. Judge James Hall, continuing his brief account of the Langford murder, quoted a few pages back, gives no details, but simply ends with the statement: “They were taken to Stanford where they were examined and committed
79
by an enquiring167 court, sent to Danville for safe keeping, and probably for trial. Previous to the time of trial they made their escape.”
Nor do the records contain any hint as to how the two men passed the time of their imprisonment168. Lyman C. Draper, in his “Sketch of the Harpes,” says that shortly before his escape Big Harpe, contending it would answer the ends of justice as well, proposed to whip at fisticuffs the two best fighters in Kentucky, provided he be set free if he succeeded in whipping the men, and should he fail he would abide169 by the decision of the court.
The trial of the three women was set for April 15. But during the hundred days they were immured170 in the log jail there was happening to them the immortal171 trial that comes to their sex under all conditions. Yoked172 as they were irregularly, pursuing as they had the lives of the hunted and outcast, they had to bear, in the rigors173 of winter, in abandonment and in prison charged with murder, the burdens of motherhood—and to such fathers! These items from the jailer’s accounts of his expenditures174 on their behalf tell a story with which imagination is free to work:
“February 8, ¼ lb. Hyson tea, 3s. 9d., 1 lb. sugar, 1s. 6d. for Betsey Walker she being brought to bed by a son the preceding night, 5s. 3d.—February 10, ¼ lb. ginger175, 1s. 1d., 1 lb. sugar, 1s. 6d., for ditto, and paid cash to the wife and other assistance 21s. £1. 3s. 7d.”—total £1. 8s. 10d.
“March 7, ⅛ lb. tea, 1s. 10d., 1 lb. sugar, 1s. 6d., for the use of Susanna Harpe brought to bed by a daughter the preceding night, 3s. 4d. Paid cash midwife for ditto, 18s.”—total £1. 1s. 4d.
80
“April 9, ¼ lb. tea, 3s. 9d., 1 lb. sugar, 1s. 6d., 1 quart whiskey, 1s. 6d. for the use of Sally Harp1 brought to bed the preceding night by a daughter.”—total 6s. 9d.
It will be noted127 that when the third child was born a week before the time set for trial—the second was about a month old and the other two months old.
Such was the state of affairs when, on Monday, April 15, 1799, the clerk turned to page 314 of the Danville District Court Order Book and there began his record of the trial of the three women indicted176 for the murder of Thomas Langford. The court was presided over by Judge James G. Hunter and by Judge Samuel McDowell, who served in the absence of Judge Stephen Ormsby. “Susanna Roberts, spinster of Lincoln County was set to the bar in custody of the jailer,” so runs the record, and pleaded “not guilty;” but “for reasons appearing to the court” her trial was postponed177 until the third day of the term. “Elizabeth Walker” and “Sally Roberts” were not called on to appear personally that day before the judges, but their cases were postponed until the 18th.
On the 17th “Susanna Roberts” again appeared in court. A jury of twelve men was sworn, which, after hearing the same evidence given in Stanford, presented in the form of written affidavits178, declared her “guilty.”
On the 18th another jury was sworn and “Elizabeth Walker, spinster of Lincoln County,” was tried on the same evidence presented against “Susanna Roberts,” but found “not guilty.” The court proceedings179 of that afternoon show that the judge “saith he will not further prosecute the said Sally Roberts (spinster of Lincoln County) ... and therefore it is considered by the court that she be acquitted.”
81
Thus, with the same evidence against each woman, one was found “guilty,” and one “not guilty” and one was “acquitted.”
On the 19th Susanna, who had been found guilty, appealed for a new trial and it was granted. The Attorney General, however, concluded not to prosecute her, and, at his suggestion, the clerk was ordered to record “certain of the reasons which moved him to enter into nolle prosequi in this case ... to-wit: Upon considering the circumstances attending the case of Susanna Roberts and although she has been found guilty of the charge in the indictment180 contained by a verdict of her peers, yet as Eliza Walker has been tried on the same indictment, on which trial the said Eliza was found not guilty and the same proof produced against her as was produced against the said Susanna, and in consequence also of the Court having granted a new trial and from the probability [of the evidence] which would be produced on the trial of the said Susanna at the next term by the two other women, in the same indictment contained, who are acquitted and discharged, operating in favor of the prisoner, and also by the advice of the prosecutor181 and of the Court, and also to save to the Commonwealth the expenses which attend her long detention182 and further prosecution183, I have been induced to direct the Clerk to enter a nolle prosequi as to the said Susanna Roberts.”
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
harp
|
|
| n.竖琴；天琴座 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
wilderness
|
|
| n.杳无人烟的一片陆地、水等，荒漠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
buffalo
|
|
| n.(北美)野牛；(亚洲)水牛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
plentiful
|
|
| adj.富裕的，丰富的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
scourge
|
|
| n.灾难，祸害；v.蹂躏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
sparsely
|
|
| adv.稀疏地；稀少地；不足地；贫乏地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
atrocities
|
|
| n.邪恶，暴行( atrocity的名词复数 )；滔天大罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
fugitives
|
|
| n.亡命者，逃命者( fugitive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
seclusion
|
|
| n.隐遁，隔离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
offenses
|
|
| n.进攻( offense的名词复数 )；（球队的）前锋；进攻方法；攻势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
infested
|
|
| adj.为患的，大批滋生的（常与with搭配）v.害虫、野兽大批出没于( infest的过去式和过去分词 )；遍布于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
isolation
|
|
| n.隔离，孤立，分解，分离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
confiding
|
|
| adj.相信人的，易于相信的v.吐露（秘密，心事等）( confide的现在分词 )；（向某人）吐露（隐私、秘密等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
hardy
|
|
| adj.勇敢的，果断的，吃苦的；耐寒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
steadily
|
|
| adv.稳定地；不变地；持续地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
intensity
|
|
| n.强烈，剧烈；强度；烈度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
hideous
|
|
| adj.丑陋的，可憎的，可怕的，恐怖的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
astounding
|
|
| adj.使人震惊的vt.使震惊，使大吃一惊astound的现在分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
memoir
|
|
| n.[pl.]回忆录，自传；记事录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
dignified
|
|
| a.可敬的，高贵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
disdained
|
|
| 鄙视( disdain的过去式和过去分词 )； 不屑于做，不愿意做 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
perpetuated
|
|
| vt.使永存（perpetuate的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
ballads
|
|
| 民歌，民谣，特别指叙述故事的歌( ballad的名词复数 )； 讴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
outlaws
|
|
| 歹徒，亡命之徒( outlaw的名词复数 )； 逃犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
avarice
|
|
| n.贪婪；贪心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
savage
|
|
| adj.野蛮的；凶恶的，残暴的；n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
plunder
|
|
| vt.劫掠财物，掠夺；n.劫掠物，赃物；劫掠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
prospect
|
|
| n.前景，前途；景色，视野 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
plunged
|
|
| v.颠簸( plunge的过去式和过去分词 )；暴跌；骤降；突降 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
eluded
|
|
| v.（尤指机敏地）避开( elude的过去式和过去分词 )；逃避；躲避；使达不到 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
lurk
|
|
| n.潜伏，潜行；v.潜藏，潜伏，埋伏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
hesitation
|
|
| n.犹豫，踌躇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
sketch
|
|
| n.草图；梗概；素描；v.素描；概述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
sketches
|
|
| n.草图( sketch的名词复数 )；素描；速写；梗概 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
defense
|
|
| n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
veracity
|
|
| n.诚实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
justifying
|
|
| 证明…有理( justify的现在分词 )； 为…辩护； 对…作出解释； 为…辩解（或辩护） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
weird
|
|
| adj.古怪的，离奇的；怪诞的，神秘而可怕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
weir
|
|
| n.堰堤，拦河坝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
horrid
|
|
| adj.可怕的；令人惊恐的；恐怖的；极讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
frail
|
|
| adj.身体虚弱的；易损坏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
vaguely
|
|
| adv.含糊地，暖昧地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
abstain
|
|
| v.自制，戒绝，弃权，避免 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
narration
|
|
| n.讲述，叙述；故事；记叙体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
curtailed
|
|
| v.截断，缩短( curtail的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
peculiarity
|
|
| n.独特性，特色；特殊的东西；怪癖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
epic
|
|
| n.史诗，叙事诗；adj.史诗般的，壮丽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
revel
|
|
| vi.狂欢作乐，陶醉；n.作乐，狂欢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
deplored
|
|
| v.悲叹，痛惜，强烈反对( deplore的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
folly
|
|
| n.愚笨，愚蠢，蠢事，蠢行，傻话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
swell
|
|
| vi.膨胀，肿胀；增长，增强 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
authentic
|
|
| a.真的，真正的；可靠的，可信的，有根据的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
anecdotes
|
|
| n.掌故，趣闻，轶事( anecdote的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
emigrants
|
|
| n.（从本国移往他国的）移民( emigrant的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
repelled
|
|
| v.击退( repel的过去式和过去分词 )；使厌恶；排斥；推开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
colonists
|
|
| n.殖民地开拓者，移民，殖民地居民( colonist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
ostracized
|
|
| v.放逐( ostracize的过去式和过去分词 )；流放；摈弃；排斥 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
tawny
|
|
| adj.茶色的，黄褐色的；n.黄褐色 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
tinge
|
|
| vt.(较淡)着色于，染色；使带有…气息；n.淡淡色彩，些微的气息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
veins
|
|
| n.纹理；矿脉( vein的名词复数 )；静脉；叶脉；纹理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
underlying
|
|
| adj.在下面的，含蓄的，潜在的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
indifference
|
|
| n.不感兴趣，不关心，冷淡，不在乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
creek
|
|
| n.小溪，小河，小湾 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
savages
|
|
| 未开化的人，野蛮人( savage的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
outrages
|
|
| 引起…的义愤，激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
bloody
|
|
| adj.非常的的；流血的；残忍的；adv.很；vt.血染 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
demonstrations
|
|
| 证明( demonstration的名词复数 )； 表明； 表达； 游行示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
thongs
|
|
| 的东西 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
belongings
|
|
| n.私人物品，私人财物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
mighty
|
|
| adj.强有力的；巨大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
abruptly
|
|
| adv.突然地，出其不意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
tract
|
|
| n.传单，小册子，大片(土地或森林) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
interspersed
|
|
| adj.[医]散开的；点缀的v.intersperse的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
promiscuous
|
|
| adj.杂乱的，随便的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
throng
|
|
| n.人群，群众；v.拥挤，群集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
denomination
|
|
| n.命名，取名，(度量衡、货币等的)单位 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
profanely
|
|
| adv.渎神地，凡俗地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
indignities
|
|
| n.侮辱，轻蔑( indignity的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
criticise
|
|
| v.批评，评论；非难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
beaver
|
|
| n.海狸，河狸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
conceal
|
|
| v.隐藏，隐瞒，隐蔽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
swapping
|
|
| 交换，交换技术 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
mare
|
|
| n.母马，母驴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
nag
|
|
| v.(对…)不停地唠叨；n.爱唠叨的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
miller
|
|
| n.磨坊主 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
gambling
|
|
| n.赌博；投机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
disturbances
|
|
| n.骚乱( disturbance的名词复数 )；打扰；困扰；障碍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
hog
|
|
| n.猪；馋嘴贪吃的人；vt.把…占为己有，独占 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
rascality
|
|
| 流氓性，流氓集团 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
109
enlisted
|
|
| adj.应募入伍的v.（使）入伍， （使）参军( enlist的过去式和过去分词 )；获得（帮助或支持） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
investigators
|
|
| n.调查者，审查者( investigator的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
deserted
|
|
| adj.荒芜的，荒废的，无人的，被遗弃的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
clinch
|
|
| v.敲弯，钉牢；确定；扭住对方 [参]clench | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
brutality
|
|
| n.野蛮的行为，残忍，野蛮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
corpse
|
|
| n.尸体，死尸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
acquitted
|
|
| 宣判…无罪( acquit的过去式和过去分词 )； 使（自己）作出某种表现 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
hogs
|
|
| n.（尤指喂肥供食用的）猪( hog的名词复数 )；（供食用的）阉公猪；彻底地做某事；自私的或贪婪的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
detour
|
|
| n.绕行的路，迂回路；v.迂回，绕道 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
crab
|
|
| n.螃蟹，偏航，脾气乖戾的人，酸苹果；vi.捕蟹，偏航，发牢骚；vt.使偏航，发脾气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
orchard
|
|
| n.果园，果园里的全部果树，(美俚)棒球场 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
hatchet
|
|
| n.短柄小斧；v.扼杀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
continental
|
|
| adj.大陆的，大陆性的，欧洲大陆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
villains
|
|
| n.恶棍( villain的名词复数 )；罪犯；（小说、戏剧等中的）反面人物；淘气鬼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
kinsman
|
|
| n.男亲属 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
dreading
|
|
| v.害怕，恐惧，担心( dread的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
miserable
|
|
| adj.悲惨的，痛苦的；可怜的，糟糕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
ferocious
|
|
| adj.凶猛的，残暴的，极度的，十分强烈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
alleging
|
|
| 断言，宣称，辩解( allege的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
disposition
|
|
| n.性情，性格；意向，倾向；排列，部署 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
voraciously
|
|
| adv.贪婪地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
concealed
|
|
| a.隐藏的，隐蔽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
apprehended
|
|
| 逮捕，拘押( apprehend的过去式和过去分词 )； 理解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
vengeance
|
|
| n.报复，报仇，复仇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
custody
|
|
| n.监护，照看，羁押，拘留 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
ingratitude
|
|
| n.忘恩负义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
solitude
|
|
| n. 孤独; 独居,荒僻之地,幽静的地方 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
jumble
|
|
| vt.使混乱，混杂；n.混乱；杂乱的一堆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
narrative
|
|
| n.叙述，故事；adj.叙事的，故事体的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
eloquent
|
|
| adj.雄辩的，口才流利的；明白显示出的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
laboriously
|
|
| adv.艰苦地；费力地；辛勤地；（文体等）佶屈聱牙地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
curiously
|
|
| adv.有求知欲地；好问地；奇特地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
malice
|
|
| n.恶意，怨恨，蓄意；[律]预谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
supplementary
|
|
| adj.补充的，附加的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
sundry
|
|
| adj.各式各样的，种种的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
commonwealth
|
|
| n.共和国，联邦，共同体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
notary
|
|
| n.公证人，公证员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
affidavit
|
|
| n.宣誓书 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
lawful
|
|
| adj.法律许可的，守法的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
apron
|
|
| n.围裙；工作裙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
recollected
|
|
| adj.冷静的；镇定的；被回忆起的；沉思默想的v.记起，想起( recollect的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
jaw
|
|
| n.颚，颌，说教，流言蜚语；v.喋喋不休，教训 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
intoxicated
|
|
| 喝醉的，极其兴奋的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
alteration
|
|
| n.变更，改变；蚀变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
prosecuting
|
|
| 检举、告发某人( prosecute的现在分词 )； 对某人提起公诉； 继续从事（某事物）； 担任控方律师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
prosecute
|
|
| vt.告发；进行；vi.告发，起诉，作检察官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
cavalcade
|
|
| n.车队等的行列 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
wagons
|
|
| n.四轮的运货马车( wagon的名词复数 )；铁路货车；小手推车 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
necessitated
|
|
| 使…成为必要，需要( necessitate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
conveyance
|
|
| n.(不动产等的)转让，让与；转让证书；传送；运送；表达；（正）运输工具 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
winding
|
|
| n.绕，缠，绕组，线圈 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
bribe
|
|
| n.贿赂；v.向…行贿，买通 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
conjecture
|
|
| n./v.推测，猜测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
autobiography
|
|
| n.自传 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
enquiring
|
|
| a.爱打听的，显得好奇的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
imprisonment
|
|
| n.关押，监禁，坐牢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
abide
|
|
| vi.遵守；坚持；vt.忍受 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
immured
|
|
| v.禁闭，监禁( immure的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
immortal
|
|
| adj.不朽的；永生的，不死的；神的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
yoked
|
|
| 结合（yoke的过去式形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
rigors
|
|
| 严格( rigor的名词复数 )； 严酷； 严密； （由惊吓或中毒等导致的身体）僵直 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
expenditures
|
|
| n.花费( expenditure的名词复数 )；使用；（尤指金钱的）支出额；（精力、时间、材料等的）耗费 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
ginger
|
|
| n.姜，精力，淡赤黄色；adj.淡赤黄色的；vt.使活泼，使有生气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
indicted
|
|
| 控告，起诉( indict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
postponed
|
|
| vt.& vi.延期，缓办，（使）延迟vt.把…放在次要地位；[语]把…放在后面（或句尾）vi.（疟疾等）延缓发作（或复发） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
affidavits
|
|
| n.宣誓书，（经陈述者宣誓在法律上可采作证据的）书面陈述( affidavit的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
indictment
|
|
| n.起诉；诉状 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
prosecutor
|
|
| n.起诉人；检察官，公诉人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
detention
|
|
| n.滞留，停留；拘留，扣留；(教育)留下 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
prosecution
|
|
| n.起诉，告发，检举，执行，经营 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |