| Ann B.
Watson was born in Ypsilanti, Washtenaw Co., MI and is 6th child of Walter and
Rebecca Watson. She married William T. Denton in 1856. Some sources indicate
they lived with William's mother in Lowell, MI. Their son, Walter Bion was born in
1857 in Lowell, MI. William
died in 1863. We are trying to document the details on William's death. If
anyone has information in regards to this, please contact Diane.
Ann married Charles Ayres in
1866. Together Charles and Annie had a daughter, Effie born in 1869. Click here to view more pictures of Effie Ayres
Arnold.
The family story goes
that Ann Watson's husband was abusive both physically and emotionally to
her. She had left him as of this. One night he came up to her
place and she warned him not to cross over the doorway. He did start
to come through and she shot and killed him. There was a trial but
it had to be moved out of the county in order to find an impartial jury.
Ann was eventually acquitted.
We originally had
thought it was William Denton that Ann shot. However, recently we
found information that stated it was Charles Ayres.
Some of the newspaper articles are very hard to
read. I have done my best to transcribe them. If there are any
errors, please accept my apologizes. The correct spelling of their
last name is Ayres. However, the articles have it listed as Ayers in
places. I have used the spelling as shown in the actual articles.
-Diane
Elaine Lovelace
found this in the Evening News Detroit dated March 3, 1892
SHOT
BY HIS WIFE
Startling
Tragedy on Bagley Avenue.
THE END OF A DOMESTIC WAR
C.
N. Ayres, Late of the Richmond Backus Co. Probably Fatally Wounded
Charles
N. Ayres, of the firm of C. N. Ayres & Co. stationers at 25 Bagley
avenue was shot by his wife at that number at 5:30 o’clock last evening.
Domestic infelicity and a suit for divorce pending in the Wayne circuit
court were the causes of the murderous assault. Ayres and his wife had
been separated, and last evening he went into the residence portion of 28
Bagley avenue, where his wife had been residing , and attempted to remove
some personal effects. He was met by his wife, and an acrimonious jangle
of words ensued. Mrs. Ayres drew a revolver and fired two shots, the last
one taking effect, the ball entering the left breast. Mrs. Ayres was
arrested and taken to the Woodbridge street station, and the wounded man
to Harper hospital, where it was found that the ball had passed through
the body.
Charles
N. Ayres had held a prominent place in business in Detroit. Seven years
ago he was a member of the Richmond & Backus Co. Severing his
connection with that company, he took the agency of the Hammond
typewriter, and subsequently resumed the stationery business on his own
account. That Ayres had difficulties with the other members of the
Richmond & Backus Co. is shown by the number of suits that were
brought in the circuit court. At the same time trouble arose between
himself and his wife, and quarrels were frequent. Mrs. Ayres filed a bill
for divorce in the Wayne circuit court last October and Judge Gartner
granted an injunction restraining Ayres from interfering in any way with
his wife at her home on Bagley avenue. A plan was made to allow Ayres to
secure his personal effects from the place, and this the judge was
disposed to do, but on the representations of Mrs. Ayres’ solicitor the
injection was allowed to stand until he could make an additional showing.
Judge Gartner continued the case from day to day until Ayres’ attorneys
asked the court to dismiss the original bill of divorce on account legal
defects.. The court not moving in the matter, application was made to the
supreme court for a mandamus. This was obtained and in due course, the
defects of the bill were made apparent, and reaching the supreme court
yesterday the bill was dismissed.
As
this restored the original relations Ayres decided to obtain his personal
effects. He tried to get some of his friends to go with him, but as they
declined he went alone. Shortly after 1 o’clock yesterday afternoon he
went to the house and found it locked. Not succeeding in entering he
sought the house next door, that of Isabella McCowan, a niece of Mrs.
Ayres, and as he couldn’t obtain entrance at first, he broke a pane of
glass in the door. He then threw his strength against the door and broke
it open. The only occupant of the house was his 20-year-old daughter. She
remonstrated with him, but he paid no attention in her and went upstairs
to remove his effects, taking them piece by piece to the Alger club
quarters adjoining.
About
5:30 o’clock Mrs. Ayres, who had been down town, and who as it proved
was unaware of the action of the supreme court in her case, found her
husband in the house and asked why he was there. Ayres stopped his work
and they went together into the parlor, where a quarrel took place. Ayres
came to the door of the veranda overlooking Bagley avenue, and standing on
the threshold he was carrying on the wordy war when the report of a pistol
was heard. Ayres moved out on the veranda and Mrs. Ayres appeared at the
door with the pistol in her hand. The altercation still continued and she
fired a second time, her husband being but a few feet from her at the
time.
When
Ayres was carried to the office of Dr. Duncan Duff, and just as they
placed him upon the sofa, his wife rushed in, giving way to an agony of
remorse. She threw herself on her knees at his side and besought his
pardon. She begged to die in his place, and her grief was inexpressibly
agonizing. She is 50 years of age and they had lived together 25. The hate
was all gone out, now that her husband lay dying. The husband, too, had
changed and he solemnly forgave his wife and begged the police, whatever
they did, to do nothing to her.
At
10:40 this morning Ayres was still alive, his was sinking rapidly.
Mrs.
Ayres is not confined to a cell like an ordinary prisoner, but is kept
upstairs in the witness room of the Woodbridge station in charge of the
matron.
Harry
Bullock was seen by THE NEWS this morning. "The public have no
conception," he said, "of what Mrs. Ayres has had to put up
with. I have know Ayres for 15 years, but until I came to live with Mrs.
Ayres I never understood what kind of man he really was. He used to come
to my house and tell me of his troubles, and I thought that others were
largely to blame. But since living in the same house with Mrs. Ayres I
have found him to be the most vindictive and aggravating man I ever knew.
He would come to the house, smash and bang the furniture about and
accompany these proceedings with oaths and curses and abuse of his wife.
"Last
evening I and Mrs. Bullock returned from my studio on Washington avenue.
We found that Ayres had smashed the window of the basement door and
unbarred the door on the inside. The door was secured with another lock,
and he had broken this from its fastenings. I found my room broken open
and things scattered about all over the house. Effie was in her room
crying, but Mrs. Ayres was not at home.
"It
made me very angry to see the man tearing about the house and dragging out
the furniture, all of which belonged to his wife. I determined to resent
his conduct, but my wife implored me to go away, fearing serious trouble.
I obeyed her request and left the house. I did not return until all was
over."
Ayres’
stepson is traveling in the New England states for the New York firm by
whom he is employed. He lives in Detroit, having a family here. A dispatch
was sent to the New York firm today to communicate with him and have him
return to Detroit without delay.
At
2:30 this afternoon Ayres’ death was momentarily expected.
Friday, March 4, 1892, Detroit
Free Press
CHARLES N. AYRES DEAD.
An Affecting Interview With His Wife Shortly Before Death.
Charles N. Ayres, the victim of
Wednesday evening's shooting affray, lingered in consciousness at Harper
Hospital until 4:07 o'clock yesterday afternoon, at which time he died.
He had been gradually failing during the morning and about noon expressed
a desire to see his wife and daughter. The police were notified to
that effect and Deputy Superintendent Starkweather detailed Detective
Greene to take the wife to her husband's bedside. Mrs. Ayres had
also been beseeching all morning to be allowed a sight of her husband
before he died. Shortly after 2 o'clock the detective went with Mrs.
Ayres and her daughter to the hospital and they were taken to where the
husband lay upon his bed of death. The meeting between them
was affecting in the extreme. Mrs. Mary E. Leach, of Pontiac, a
sister of Ayres and Ayres' stepson's wife, were also present. Ayres
directed that Mrs. Leach be given charge of his remains upon his death.
He reiterated his forgiveness of his wife and expressed sorrow for the
fatal turn which affairs had taken of approaching dissolution and seven
minutes later he breathed his last. After taking an affectionate
farewell of the man whose death she had caused Mrs. Ayres in apparent
great grief left the room on the arm of her daughter and was taken to the
Woodbridge street station where she was left in charge of the matron.
A complaint for the murder will be sworn out against her this morning.
Coroner Downs was notified of
Ayres' death and proceeded to the hospital. A jury was impaneled and
an inquest set for next Monday afternoon at 2 o'clock. The face of
the dead man as he reposed upon the slab in the hospital morgue bore
evidence of a recent tussle. There was cicatrices of scratches upon
his cheeks and nose. A slight swelling in the neck was noticed which
the physicians stated had been caused by the forcing upward of air from
the perforated lung. Just previous to his death this swelling was
declared to have assumed alarming dimensions. The mark of the
entrance of the bullet was shown about three inches above the left nipple
and the same distance from the center of the chest. Where it had
embedded itself in the back could be seen by a slight protuberance over
the left shoulder blade.
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Britt and Detective Crandell went to the hospital yesterday afternoon to
obtain an a pre-mortem statement from Ayres, but as they were entering the
portal Mrs. Ayres, her daughter and Detective Greene were leaving and the
officials were informed that they were too late. Ayres; attorney'
George H. Carlisle, was closeted with the wounded man, Wednesday night.
Ayres made a statement to the lawyer and the latter also drew up his will,
which is declared to be in favor of his wife, with the exception of a
$1,000 proviso for the daughter.
Ayres' stepson is a traveling
agent for a New York firm and is at present somewhere in New England.
The firm was notified to communicate Ayres' death to the son and to
request him to return to Detroit without delay.
A post-mortem examination was
made of the remains by Dr. Chittick last night. The bullet was found
to have penetrated the lung through the apex. It struck the spinal
column and glancing off deflected along the fifth rib about three inches,
passing through the shoulder blade and coming out in the back. The
immediate cause of death was excessive hemorrhage, the pleural
cavity being filled with blood.
Detroit Tribune Friday, March 04, 1892
HE HAS DIED OF HIS WOUND
Charles N Ayres Succumbed At Harper Hospital Yesterday
HIS WIFE CHARGED WITH MURDER
Mrs. Ayres Now Repents Her Terrible Deed She Was With Him When He Died
Charles N. Ayres, who was shot by his wife, Ann Ayres, at
her house, 28 Bagley avenue, Wednesday evening, died at Harper hospital at
4:07 o’clock yesterday afternoon as a result of his injury and the charges
against Mrs. Ayres is now murder.
The woman now bitterly repents the terrible deed which it is too late to
recall, and the scenes in the death chamber, where she was allowed to
remain at the bedside of the husband she had slain, were distracting in
the extreme and pitiful to witness. At 2 o’clock yesterday afternoon it
was reported that Ayres was rapidly sinking and that it was the desire
that his wife be allowed to come to him. The company by detective Greene
and her daughter the woman was taken from Woodbridge station to the
hospital. On arriving at the chamber where her victim lay dying the woman
broke down completely and for a time appeared hysterical.
She pleaded for forgiveness.
Her anguish of apparent suffering seen terrible. She
reproach herself in the bitterest terms, and begged and pleaded constantly
for the forgiveness which the husband had even a moment after he was shot
freely offered.
The wife and daughter remained by the bedside until death came at 407
o’clock. Miss Ayres was in deep grief, but bore up bravely in her efforts
to console her mother. The wife kissed the corpse of the husband whose
life she had taken and in a final outburst of uncontrollable grief was led
from the presences she should never see again and supported by her
daughter and Detective Greene was taken back to Woodbridge Station and
returned to custody.
No ante-mortem statement was secured from Ayres by the police. When it was
learned that he was dying the prosecuting attorney office was notified and
Assistant Prosecutor Britt and Detective Crandall started for the hospital
arriving there a few moments after Ayres’ death. Coroner Downs was called
and will hold an inquest in the case at 2 o’clock Monday afternoon.
One of the five women, the only persons present when Mr. Ayres died, was
his sister, Mrs. Mary E. Beach of Pontiac. She arrived at noon, and was
recognized by her brother, who said he was glad she had come. His last
request was that she take charge of his remains after death. It is her
intention to have the body removed to Pontiac for internment.
Some time yesterday afternoon Mr. Ayres made an ante-mortem statement to
his attorneys. What this statement contains is not known. He had
steadfastly protested and pleaded against prosecuting his wife, and the
supposition is that his statement exonerates her as far as possible. Ayres
was fifty-one years of age, and well-known among business and professional
men.
Saturday, March 5, 1892,
Detroit Free Press
Ayers' Body At Pontiac
Pontiac, March 4. The body
of the unfortunate man, Charles N. Ayres, who was shot by his wife in
Detroit on the 3d inst., reached Pontiac at noon today. The remains were
taken to the residence of his sister, Mrs. Mary K. Beach, on Perry street
The funeral will be at the house at 3 o'clock. Rev. M. H. Wallace,
pastor of the Congregational Church, officiating. Place of
interment, Oak Hill Cemetery.
Detroit Free Press
March 6, 1892
THE AYRES SHOOTING.
Investigations by the Police Throw New Light on the Affair.
THE FACTS SEEM TO BE UNFAVORABLE TO MRS. AYRES.
Contents of a Cross-Bill Filed by the Late Mr. Ayres.
The continued investigation by the police into the
incidents and facts immediately preceding the Ayres murder last Wednesday
evening tend to show that the woman is not so blameless in the matter as
the first appeared. It was at first supposed and was so given out by some
of Mrs. Ayres relatives, that that the wife knew nothing about the
decision of the Supreme Court and setting aside her bill for divorce that
afternoon. It has since been learned, however, that the husband and wife
met on the street Wednesday afternoon and the conversation which ensued
between them had been about the deficient and the status and which matters
had been placed by it. Ayres told his wife during their talk that it was
his intention to go to the house and obtain his personal effects and such
other property as he needed in his business and for his comfort. But the
woman told him that he would never get into the house and from that of her
talk gave the husband to understand that she was going to take immediate
steps to have another bill for divorce and an application for a
restraining injunction filed.
When the previous injunction had been modified so as to allow Ayres to
obtain the property he sought, he went to the Bagley avenue house for that
purpose and was met at the door by his daughter Effie. He told her the
object of his visit and the girl informed him that his wife was sick with
the grip and besought him not to disturb her. Ayres initially did as
desired, saying he would return in a couple of days and then get what he
wanted. In the meantime, Mrs. Ayres, through her attorney succeeded in
having the modification revoked and Ayres was left in the lurch. Some of
the local papers have published a statement to the effect that the husband
violated the injunction and was brought before a judge Gardner for
contempt. George H. Carlisle, Ayres attorney, denies this and says that no
proceedings of such a nature ever came before the circuit court. To the
best of Mr Carlisle’s knowledge the only time that Ayres entered the
enjoined premises was one afternoon when a fire caught in the sitting room
of the house. At the time the husband and wife were conversing together in
another house and were informed of the occurrence. Ayres instinctively
followed his wife into the house and extinguish the flames. He made no
attempt, however, to remove any of the chattels of which he was so
desirous of obtaining. He did visit the house on many occasions, and
conversed with his daughter and wife at the door on business which was
materially affected the personal interest of the women.
The injunction had been served so suddenly on Ayres that he was thrown out
of the house without a place to sleep or a bed of time which to lay his
head. He fitted up a room on the second floor of the Alger clubhouse,
which he owned, with an old iron bedstead and a mattress and some bed
clothes which had been used during the G.A R. encampment. His dressing
case was a dry good box covered with a piece of cloth. A typewriter stand
was made to serve the purpose of a washing stand. Ayres friends advised
him to purchase those articles with which to properly and comfortably fit
the room but he always put them off with a reply that the injunction soon
would be solved or modified and he then would be able to provide out of
the pieces with which the other house was stocked. He requested the loan
of the articles which he needed from his wife, but she declared that they
were her property and he could have nothing.
Ayres had a heavy insurance on his life with a number of companies, all
made out in his wife’s name. A number of these policies were lapsing or
lapsed, and the man was greatly worried over them. The wife would do
nothing about them, and Ayres could do nothing towards getting them in
shape without her signature.
The turn affairs taken in court left him in comparable straiten
circumstances. The object of most of his visits to his wife and daughter
at their house concerned the settlement and straightening out of the
insurance policies. At 2 o’clock in the afternoon of the day he was shot,
Ayres visited the office of George H. Carlisle, in the Buld building and
left there three lapsed policies for his wife’s signature. These policies
were assigned to his daughter. The dead man had spoken to his wife about
them that morning. At that hour Ayres knew nothing about the Supreme
Court’s decision in his favor. Sometime after leaving the office, however,
Ayres informed his attorney by telephone of the good news and declared he
was at once going out to get his property before his wife could get
another injunction. The attorney warned Mr. Ayres to be cautious and to
postpone his visit. This Ayres promise to do. Subsequently, he met his
wife, and the meeting resulted in his determining to take time by the
forelocks.
He attempted to persuade several of his friends to accompany him,
evidently with the expectation of meeting with opposition or trouble at
the house. All had some excuse to offer and unfortunate man went to his
death alone. Previous to Mrs. Ayres return to the house Wednesday evening
it is alleged that Ayres had an altercation was some of the inmates of the
house during which he was pretty roughly handled, his face bearing marks
of violence such as would ensue from a game of fisticuffs.
The late husband and wife met on the latter’s entrance on the stairs in
the middle of the house. The wife salutation was, “Well, old boy, so
you’re here, are you?” At that time she had on her person the revolver
with which the deed was committed, and also a box of cartridges. The
weapon had been purchased at 4:15 o’clock that afternoon, and subsequent
to her street encounter with Ayres, from Arthur F. Vietch, salesman for
Hodsgain & Howard, at 53 Woodward avenue. It was one of the latest
improved hammerless, extra long and cost $15. She did not state for what
purpose he wanted such a deadly weapon. The woman also purchased a box of
cartridges and had the revolver loaded. When the weapon was turned over to
the police after the shooting by the woman, who took it from a case in the
rear room, there were no cartridges in it, although it gave signs of
recent discharges.
From the investigation so far made it is held that the bullet which took
effect was from the first shot fired in the room and while Ayres was up in
the threshold of the door heading out upon the veranda. Witnesses who saw
the shooting from the streets state that the woman was so far back in the
room that the flash was invisible to them. These witnesses claimed that
Ayres back was turned towards the woman when she came out to the doorway
and fired again at him. If the first shot missed it, no trace of a bullet
upon search could be found in the room. Mrs. Ayres after the deed, went
back into the room, took out the empty shells and place the revolver where
it was then subsequently was found, before she went where her wounded
husband had been taken.
When questioned by the police for her reasons for the shooting Mrs. Ayres
claimed that she had done it in self defense. The police will take no
action looking to the issue of the warrant until after the coroner’s
inquest tomorrow afternoon. The will which Ayres made Wednesday night at
Harper hospital will be presented for probate tomorrow. It is a short one
and contains a statement of his relations with his wife and family.
Mrs. Ayres and her relatives have always claimed that the house where the
house where the murder occurred was the woman’s own property, and
purchased with her own money. The fact that the property is in her name is
undeniable but Ayres always claimed, and the testimony taken before
circuit court commissioner Watson tended to substantiated it, that the
property had been purchased from ---- to time with money which Ayres saved
out of his income. For a great number years prior to 1886 Ayres was in
receipt of salaries ranging from $3,000 to $6,000. He was a frugal man of
no bad habits, but was never known to be misery. When he married Mrs.
Denton 25 years ago her only possessions consisted of 40 acres of land in
Ionna county. This land Ayres sold for her for $1,000 about three years
after their marriage. This money was invested by the husband for the wife
and had never accumulated to such a sum as would have been required to
purchase the Bagley avenue estate. Some of the property now held by Mrs.
Ayres was purchased in the joint name of husband and wife. When Ayres had
legal complications with the Richmond & Backus Company, Mrs. Ayres
persuaded the husband to deed everything over to her for safe keeping,
which he did.
When the bill for divorce was filed last October Ayers made an attempt to
reply to it. The burden of his ------------------- unaware that he could
get the bill dismissed, on account of his daughter he did not desire the
family history to be nosed around and their reputations smeared. He was
under the impression that he could have matters straighten up out of
court. He had no desire to live with his wife but for his daughter sake he
kept quiet about the truth ------- of the grounds upon which Mrs. Ayres
sought her divorce.
Matters finally came to such a state that Ayres was compelled to file a
cross bill. This he did at the very last minute. The contents of this bill
have been hitherto suppressed. Yesterday a copy of it was shown to a
representative of the FREE PRESS. In it Ayres denied the allegations of
extreme cruelty professed against him. On the other hand he affirmed that
his wife was a woman of ungovernable passion, unreasonable in her demands
and of a covetous and mercenary disposition. She had periods of paroxysms
of grief and anger in which she was given to extreme violence. She was so
exacting in her demands that she prevented him from associating with his
relatives for fear of their influence. Although he had near relatives
within twenty five miles of Detroit he was forced for two years at a time
to avoid them. He set forth that he had a $4,000 life insurance and that
shortly after their marriage Mrs. Ayres threatened to kill him if he did
not transfer it to her. In 1867 on some trivial pretext she chased them
about the house one day with an ax and struck him a glancing blow, which
however did him little injury. She then locked herself in a room and
threatened to kill herself. He managed to calm her down and she gave up
her suicidal notions. Mrs. Ayres told her husband that a fall which had
injured her head sometime before their marriage was a reason for her
sometimes peculiar actions. In 1872 he cites that the woman broke the
bridge of his nose with a poker during one of her spasms of rage, and that
had various subsequent times she had attacked him with sticks of wood and
would snatch up knives from the table and threatened him and 1883, she
pointed a loaded revolver at him and declared her intention of taking his
life. He claimed that he used his income, which for twenty years was a
good one to gratifying his wife’s demands and for the joint accumulation
of property. He recognizes the fact that his wife was a thrifty, saving
woman but she was also increasingly covetous. She was never satisfied
while he had any hold upon their property and was always working to get
everything into her own hands. She became a woman’s rights activists and
from that time, Ayres says his troubles increased and the woman redoubled
her efforts to have indeed Bagley avenue property deeded over to her. The
bill ----------- tend to show that the husband had been touched more the
aggravated then the aggressor. His friends claim that he bore his sorrows
with resignation that even during the most trying times of the trial be
never spoken to them of his wife in any but the kindest terms.
Mrs. Ayres still occupies the woman’s room at the Woodbridge police
station, but is granted a little more liberty than most of the woman who
occupy these quarters. Her husband’s body was taken to Pontiac after the
autopsy Thursday night, and buried there by Ayres sister, Mrs. Beach.
Monday,
March 7, 1892,
Evening News Detroit
AYRES
CASE!
Was
Mrs. Ayres More Sinned Against than Sinning?
Facts
That Have Come out since the Tragedy.
How the
Revolver Was Bought and Used.
Mr.
Stevenson Wants Fair Play for His Client.
He Says
Her Case Is Being Prejudiced in Advance.
The
investigations being made in connection with the probable causes that led, up to
the Ayres shooting tragedy of Wednesday last are throwing considerable new light
on the situation. Some of these revelations are damaging to Mrs. Ayres, while
others go to prove that she had a great deal to bear in connection with her
domestic life. It is now shown that the wife met Ayres on the street Wednesday
afternoon, some hours previous to the shooting and that the action of the
supreme court in dismissing their bill for divorce was then thoroughly gone over
between them. He told her that he meant to go to the residence and secure the
goods of which he stood so much in need. Mrs. Ayres, it is asserted, told him he
would never get into the house, giving Ayres to understand that it was her
intention to immediately institute another suit for divorce, and it possible,
obtain another restraining injunction to prevent his entering house.
After
leaving her husband, Mrs. Ayres went to the store of Hodgson Howard, 93 Woodward
avenue, and purchased the revolver from Arthur F. Veitch, a salesman. It was
extra long, and embodied the latest improvements in such weapons, costing her
$15. She made no explanation while in the store regarding the use she expected
to make of the weapon, but had the revolver loaded and added a box of cartridges
to her purchase. When she reached home, Mrs. Ayres met her husband on the
stairs.
"Well
old boy, so you’re here, are you?" was her greeting.
At
that time she had both the revolver and the box of cartridges in her pocket.
After the shooting Mrs. Ayres took the weapon from a case in a rear room. The
chambers were all empty, although it gave evidences of having been recently
discharged. It is now claimed that after firing the fatal shot she stepped back
into the room and with cool deliberations drew the empty shells and placed the
revolver in its case. It is thought from the more recent investigations that the
shot which was fatal was the one which was first fired by Mrs. Ayres from the
interior of the room, while her husband stood upon the threshold leading to the
veranda. She was at the time so far back in the room that the flash was
invisible from the street. When subsequently questioned by the police regarding
the case for her awful act, Mrs. Ayres claimed that it had been committed in
self defense.
WAS
AYRES ABUSIVE?
Charges
Made in His Cross Bill for a Divorce
Much
is now being said as to the truth and falsely of the charges that Ayres had long
been cruel and abusive to his wife and family, and many instances are quite to
prove that he had been fully as much sinned against as sinning in this regard.
It is shown that the heavy life insurance that he carried on several companies
was take out in his wife’s name. Several of these policies had been allowed to
lapse because Mrs. Ayres was so stubborn that she would not affix her signature
to secure their renewal. On this afternoon when he met his untimely fate, Ayres
left three of these lapsing polices with his lawyer, George H. Orhile in the
hopes of obtaining his wife’s signature to them. These polices had been
assigned to his daughter.
The
cross-bill which Ayres filed in his wife’s suit for divorce was suppressed and
it’s contents were never made public. In it he sweepingly denied all the
charges of cruelty which his wife made against him. He stated that she was a
woman of ungovernable temper, unreasonable in her demands and covetous and
mercenary. She was subject to paroxysms of anger in which she essayed to do him
violence. Shortly after their marriage, he says, she threatened to kill him if
he did not transfer to her a $4,000 life insurance policy which he carried. In
1867, she chased him about the house with an ax, indicting a glancing blow
which, fortunately, did him slight injury. After this, she locked herself in her
room and threatened to commit suicide. She claimed that her fits of violence
were due to an injury to her head received before her marriage with Ayres. He
further said in his cross bill that in 1872 his wife broke the bridge of his
nose with a poker during a fit of passion, and at various times attacked him
with sticks of wood and threatened him with table knives. In 1868, she pointed a
loaded revolver at him and threatened his life. Ayres said in the bill that his
wife was never satisfied while he had any hold upon the property, but was always
working to get everything into her own hands. After she became a woman’s right
advocate his troubles increased.
WANTS
FAIR PLAY
Mrs.
Ayres’ Case being Prejudiced in Advance
Eliott
G. Stevenson in turn comes to the rescue of his client. He says there seems to
be a persistent effort on foot to prejudge and prejudice her case. He says it
can be proven that every dollar that went to purchased the property where the
tragedy occurred belonged to Mrs. Ayres and was the accumulation of money
realized upon the sale of property possessed by her before her marriage with
Ayres. Ayres, he says, never had the slightest interest in it except as her
husband, and he and his family lived there rent free. In reference to No. 30
Bagley avenue, Mr. Stevenson says it was originally purchased by Ayres, but he
borrowed $1,575 from his wife in paying for it, giving her a mortgage for this
amount, which, at his request, was never recorded and was subsequently destroyed
by him. It was in concentration of this and other sums of money borrowed from
his wife, Mr. Stevenson says, that Ayres subsequently deeded his property to
her.
In referring to the charges made by Ayres in his
cross-bill, Mr. Stevenson says he is able to demonstrate that for upward of
five years Mrs. Ayres has been subjected to the most outrageously cruelty,
vindictive and malignant treatment at the hands of her husband, and that she
suffered worse than death before she attempted to get relief through the
medium of divorce proceedings. "If this had not been so," says Mr. Stevenson,
"and if he had not committed the act of a burglar in breaking in his wife’s
room and destroying her property, he would have been alive today. The pretense
that he had private papers of personal effects that he needed in his business
was entirely unfounded, and he had no more right to break into her house and
destroy her property - regardless of the injunction - than he had to
stranger’s, and if he had broken into a stranger’s house and conducted himself
as he did when he came to his death, no one would hesitate to say that he
brought the disaster upon himself and merited it."
In
further extenuation of the act of Mrs. Ayres, Mrs. Stevenson says:
"In
November, 1889, his conduct had been such that Mrs. Ayres sought counsel with
reference to procuring a divorce on the ground of his inhuman and cruel
treatment of her. They had not then for more than three years - nearly six years
before the tragedy - lived together as husband and wife.
"He
in view of this situation and knowing she contemplated instituting proceedings
for a divorce, arranged for and himself prepared and had expected by both
parties an agreement for final and permanent separation between them as husband
and wife, under which she was assured by him that he would leave her and her
home in peace and suffer here to enjoy it without further molestation. This
agreement was executed Nov. 7, 1889.
"The
price in part of the peace he thus guaranteed to her under this agreement was
that she should deed him the property No. 30 Bagley avenue, then worth about
$8,000, and by the terms of the agreement he expressly relinquished any and
every possible claim to all other property, real and personal, including
household furniture and in pursuance of this agreement Mrs. Ayres deeded him as
the price in part of purchase of peace the property referred in, but not
withstanding his agreement, when he obtained his deed and other things under the
agreement he was to obtain, he refused to leave her and her home as he had
agreed, setting up one or more pretexts for his refusal to do so, and when Mrs.
Ayres endeavored to secure the peace he had purchased by excluding him from her
home, he broke into the house by force and by force complied them to continue to
submit to his annoyances and ill-treatment for nearly two years, when his
conduct became so insufferably cruel, that she renewed her efforts to secure
legal protection, which she secured by an injunction, which was continued until
the day of the tragedy, when an order was made by the supreme court setting it
aside, not upon the merits of the controversy, which were recognized by its
continuance for four months to be on the side of Mrs. Ayres, but solely upon a
technical objection on account of a clerical omission in the verification of her
bill of complain, and which was verified in exactly the same manner as was the
cross bill of the deceased prepared by his careful and painstaking solicitor.
This objection was considered by the learned circuit judge, to whom it was first
presented as so frivolous as not to merit serious consideration.
"Upon
learning of the order of the supreme court and well knowing that the defect
referred to in her bill of complaint would be speedily remedied and the
injection renewed, he sought to avail himself of the opportunity that he knew
would be short to wreak further vengeance upon Mrs. Ayres and her property and
went to the house he never had any money interest in, to the wife to whom he had
not only forfeited all claim by his inhuman treatment, and whom he had in
writing agreed two years previously to suffer to live in peace and without
further molestation from him, and, forcing his way by breaking locks and
windows, gained entrance and began the removal and obstruction of property that
didn’t belong to him, and by his fiendishly glee, and violent threats and
conduct resembled a madman more than a rational being, and whether or not he
bought his death upon himself, his wife, broken in strength and spirit, simply
asks a suspension of judgement until the facts can be made known and established
in court. No one can or does regret as much as she does the occasion for the
commission of the act, referred to, which she believes in the sight of her God,
whom she knows will pass in judgement upon it, and which she knows in her own
conscience will be deemed at least excusable."
The Detroit Free Press
Monday, March 07, 1892
THE AYRES CASE
A STATEMENT FROM ATTORNEY ELLIOTT D. STEVENSON
To the editor of the Detroit free press:
There seems to be persistent efforts being made through the press of the city,
to prejudge and prejudice the case of Mrs. Ayres, growing out of the recent
deplorable tragedy, and as much as I would dislike to discuss through the
press matters that necessarily will be subject to judicial investigations,
were all interest concern have a full and fair consideration I am constrained
to ask that the judgment of the public with reference to Mrs. Ayres case shall
be suspended until the investigation set on foot that now being prosecuted
shall disclose in the only form provided for that purpose the true merits
relating to this matter, and to that that I have sufficient space in the
columns of your paper to correct a few of the many misstatements that have
been published.
1. Relative to the statements that have been made in relation to the ownership
of the property that have been referred to. It is susceptible of proof, and on
the hearing had no reference to that matter. It was established not only by
the evidence of Mrs. Ayres, but by papers in the handwriting and over the
signature of the decease and now on file in court that every dollar that went
to purchase the property where the tragedy occurred belong to Mrs. Ayres, and
was the accumulation of money realized on the sale of property processed by
her before she married the deceased, and that of the statement made in this
morning’s FREE PRESS that Mrs. Ayres persuaded her husband on account of the
litigation growing out of his connection with Richmond, Backus & Co to deed
everything to her being true, the fact is, that ten years previous to the
litigation refer to, Mrs. Ayres purchased the property with her own money,
recorded the deed for it and has ever since had it, and the deceased never had
the slightest interest in it except as her husband, and his family had the use
of -----part of it as they occupied during all the time they live together,
rent free, and the statement made by the deceased in his lifetime to the
effect that Mrs. Ayres had taken advantage of his litigation and trouble with
Richmond and Backus to acquire the title to his property and then refused to
recognize his right to it were maliciously false. In reference to the
property, No. 30 Bagley avenue, while the title to this was originally
purchased by and in the name of Mr. Ayres, he borrowed from Mrs. Ayres to make
the purchase of $1,575 and executed a mortgage upon the property for this
amount to her, which at his request was not recorded and was substantially
destroyed by him. But the facts in reference to what were known to Mr.
Clarence M. Burton who prepared it and saw it executed and was in
consideration of this and further sums of money are owed by him from his wife
that he subsequently deeded his property for her and the fact that she paid
for it is evidenced by papers on file in the Circuit Court in the divorce case
and the handwriting of the deceased, specifically showing the fact that Mrs.
Ayres with her own money paid for the property as stated above.
2. The public will hardly feel justified in forming a conclusion for or
against Mrs. Ayres upon ex-parte allegations contained either in her bill for
divorce or his cross bill, and I simply desire to say in reference to that
branch of the controversy that, after full investigation of the merits of this
matter during the several months the case has pending, I believe that Mrs.
Ayres would have been able to demonstrate in her divorce case and, so far as
permissible, will upon her trial, not only the absolute faulty of the
accusations made against her, that she has been subjected for upwards of five
years to the most outrageous cruel, vindicate and malignant treatment at the
hands of her husband, and that she suffered worse than death before she
attempted to get relief through the medium of divorce proceedings.
No one but the immediate family can or could in the nature of things know of
this treatment and yet persons who have never pass the threshold of their home
have volunteered to certify that he was neither unkind nor vindictive. If he
had and been, and had he committed the act of a burglar and breaking into his
wife’s room and destroying her property he would have been alive today.
The pretense that he had private papers and personal effects that belong
to his business was entirely unfounded and he had no more right to break into
her house and destroyed her property regardless of the injunction than he had
to of strangers and if he had broken into a stranger’s house and conducted
himself as he did when he came to his death, no one would hesitate to say that
he brought the disaster upon himself and merited it.
Considered but a moment whether the situation or judgment should ----- in Mrs.
Ayres case and without referring to matters that are in dispute but may say a
few facts, in November 188- his conduct had been such that Mrs. Ayres sought
counsel with reference to for filing of divorce on the grounds of inhuman and
cruel treatment of her. They had not been for more than three years nearly six
years before the tragedy, lived together as husband and wife
He, in view of the situation and knowing she contemplated instituting
procedures for a divorce, arrange for and himself composed and had executed by
both parties an agreement for trial and permanent separation between them as
husband and wife, under which she was assured by him that he would leave her
and her home in peace and suffer her life without further molestations. This
agreement was executed November 7, 1889.
The price in part of the peace he thus guaranteed to her under this agreement
was that she should deed to him the property number 30 Begley avenue, then
worth about $8,000 and by the terms of the agreement he expressly relinquished
any and every possible claim to all of the other properties, real and
personal, including household furniture, and in pursuit of this agreement Mrs.
Ayres deemed to him as a price in part of the purchase a peace the property
referred to, but, notwithstanding his agreement when obtained his deed and
other things under the agreement he was to obtain, he refused to leave her and
her home as he had agreed, setting up one or more pretexts for his refusal to
do so, and when Mrs. Ayres endeavored to secure the peace she had purchased by
excluding him from her home he broke into the house by force and by force
compelled them to continue to submit to his annoyances and ill treatment for
nearly two years when his conduct became so insufferably that she renewed her
efforts to secure legal protection, which she secured by an injunction, which
was continued until the day of the tragedy, when an order was made by the
Supreme Court setting it aside, not upon the merits of the controversy, which
were recognized by continuance for four months to be on the side of Mrs.
Ayres, but solely upon a technical objection on account of a clerical omission
in the verification of her bill of complaint, and which was verified in
exactly the same matter as was the cross bill of the decease prepared by his
careful and painstakingly solicitor. This objection was considered by the
learned circuit judge, to whom it was first presented as so frivolous as not
to have merit serious consideration.
On learning of the order of the Supreme Court, and while knowing that the
defect referred to in her bill of complaint would be speedily remedy and the
injunction renewed, he sought to avail himself of the opportunity that he knew
would be short to wreck further vengeance upon Mrs. Ayres and her property and
went to the house he never had any money invested in, to the wife to whom he
had not only forfeited all claim by his inhuman treatment, and whom he had in
writing agreed two years previously to suffer to live in peace and without
further molestation from him, and, forcing his way for a breaking locks and
windows, gained entrance and began the removal and destruction of property
that didn’t belong to him, and by his fiendish glee and violent threats and
conduct resembled a madman more than a rational being and whether or not he
brought his death upon himself, his wife, broke in and strength and spirit,
simply ask suspension of judgment until the facts can be made known and
established in court. No one can or does regrets as much as she does the
reason for the commission of the act refer to, which she believes in the sight
of her God, who she knows will pass in judgment upon it in which she knows in
her own conscience will be deemed at least excusable.
In conclusion that allow me to add that, after her residency of twenty five
years in the city of Detroit, I confidently assert that up to the occurrence
of the unfortunate act which produced the statements referred to nothing that
is not directly traceable to the slanders circulated by the decease can be
pointed to that does not and has not shown that Mrs. Ayres was a true woman, a
dutiful wife, a loving mother.
Being a woman, she has not, as her husband did, traveled up and down the
streets of Detroit attempting to create any sentiment or feeling in reaction
to her troubles, but has patiently endured the disgrace, suffering and
humiliation heaped upon her by the man who had been sworn to protect her,
awaiting an opportunity to vivificate herself from the aspirations casted and
be afforded the protection to which she is entitled.
We do and shall regret the necessity of having any reflection upon the conduct
of the deceased but justice to the living will do a full and searching
investigation into the actions of these people which investigation Mrs. Ayres
will await impatience but with confidence of being fully vindicated.
It would not be proper for me at this time to discuss the circumstances that
led immediately up to the tragedy, I shall do no more than suggest whatever
the reason why the deceased fully and freely forgave the fact that caused his
death was because of a sense of the fact that he knew that he had done his
wife wrong with knowledge and sense of his own responsibility for the injury
that resulted in his death.
Elliott G. Stephenson
Detroit, March 6, 1892
Detroit Free Press
Wednesday March 8, 1892
THE AYRES SHOOTING
Attorney George H. Carlisle Now has his Say.
To the editor of the Detroit Free Press:
My pleas of propriety have prompted me, to up to the present time, to refrain
from entering into a public discussion of the case leading up to the abrupt
tragic ending Mr. Ayres’ life; but with the publication in this morning’s FREE
PRESS of the bitter letter written by her attorney in behalf of Mrs. Ayres, my
idea of duty changes and it seems to me only proper that I should correct a
few statements made against him though, now that his lips are forever closed.
This is no time, nor is the public press the forum in where to discuss the
relations of these parties. Vilification of the dead will do him no harm and
in my opinion it can do Mrs. Ayres no good. The letter in this morning’s paper
contains the same arguments that have been made before three different
tribunals duly organized to adjudicate upon their soundness, and each court
has found against them. The right of any woman to turn her husband out of his
home by injunction and refuse him possession of his personal property which in
twenty-five years of domestic life would naturally be accumulated, was very
decidedly passed upon in the decision in Mr. Ayres favor rendered last week in
our Supreme Court.
The statement that at the time of service on the injunction upon him, Mr.
Ayres had no personal property in house where he had lived all the time need
no reply; it is directly contrary to the testimony ---------- and to the
general experience of mankind. Mr. Ayres never was brought before the court
for violating the adjunction, no complaints were made that he had done.
---------- from Lansing and after a ------ battle the supreme court has
dissolved the --------------- and dismiss the bid against him. He was free to
enter his home as if no bid had ever be ----- he agreed with --- that he would
---- obtain possession of his property by the next day. Subsequent events
changed his mind, but before going he telephoned Mr. Frank R. Leland, an
associate of the case who had previously told him of the decision of the
supreme court and had him telephone to Lansing and make further inquires to
---- of his rights.
The ownership of the property on Bagley avenue is the subject of dispute to be
settled by the courts, that by the unsubstantiated statements ----- It will
not be denied that Mr. Ayres was for many years in receipt of a very good
income as a member of the firm of Richmond, Backus & Co. or that he was frugal
and without bad habits. The question as to whether his money or his wife’s
bought the home, it seems to me, cuts no figure here. The place was his home,
he had been kept out of it for months; he was now as free as he ever was to
enter, and from our last conversation I believe he contemplated no violence in
doing so. I cannot agree with the attorney that in going there “he was
committing an act of burglary.” Our ideas of burglary differ widely.
So far as the mutual relations of the parties are concerned it would be hard
to persuade those who knew the deceased best and longest that he was the man
which this letter paints him. It is to be supposed that his wife would state
the strongest case possible against him in her bill for divorce; in the
opinions of Mr. Ayres’ attorney and counsel, and others who read it, it was
weak, and no divorce would had been granted on it.
Whether or not Mr. Ayres had any desire to resume his domestic relations, he
did want to avoid the scandal which a public trial would bring about. His
utterance during his life, as well as his dying moments, was most kindly
whoever he spoke of his family. In making this statement, I am actuated solely
by a sense of justice to the dead who cannot now speak for himself, and by no
wish to do injustice to the living.
GEORGE H. CARLISLE
Detroit, March 7, 1892
Tuesday, March 08, 1892
The Detroit Free Press
FORGAVE HIS WIFE
Will Of The Late Charles N. Ayres Filed For Probate
The following will of the late Charles N. Ayres, who was shot
and killed by his wife on March 3, was filed for probate yesterday.
I, Charles N. Ayres, of the city of Detroit, in anticipation of the
possibility of my early decease, do make and declare this my last will and
testament.
1. I desire all my debts and obligations to be paid. And more particularly the
following obligations which at this time comprised my entire indebtedness so
far as I am able to recollect. Two notes at McLellan & Anderson’s bank, one of
$25 and one of $34, one note due Mr. Schauber amounting to $22, and
indebtedness to the Phonograph Company of this city, amounting to $10, W. W.
Hannan, one month’s dues, Corliss & Andrus’ note $50, also some accounts
against me now in the hands of F. W. Pendleton of this city.
I direct that my executor shall pay $9.22 to secure a $1,000 policy in the
Michigan Life Insurance Company, which money I desire if possible to be used
in the extinguishment of the above indebtedness and such other just
indebtedness as may be proved against my estate. I further desire that dues
now due and past due to the Knights Templar of the City of Detroit and other
societies of which I am a member shall be paid. The above, with $435 owing by
me to Carter, Densmore & Co. comprise all my debts.
2. After the payment of the above indebtedness I desire to make the following
disposition of my property:
I give to my sister, Mary Beech, of Pontiac, the use of $1,000 for life, at
her death the principal of said sum to pass to my daughter, Effie.
I desire that the real estate, Nos, 26, 27 and 30 Bagley avenue in the City of
Detroit, now held in my wife’s name but which is really mine, and held in
trust by her, shall remain in her name and to her use and benefit during her
life, provided that she shall execute a mortgage on said real estate of a
sufficient sum to pay all my just debts and obligations. I make this request,
not as an acknowledgment of her equitable rights thereto, but in the hope that
she will recognize the justice of the request and conform to it after my
decease. After all my debts are paid I am willing that the property last
mentioned shall remained in my wife’s name as long as she shall live, at her
death to pass to my daughter Effie Ayres in fee.
3. All the residue and remainder of my property, real and personal, of every
kind and nature I give to my beloved daughter Effie.
4. I desire to make as a last request of my wife that she sign a mortgage on
the Bagley avenue property for a sufficient amount to pay all my just debts
and simple funeral expenses.
5. I forgive my wife for what she has done and request that she be not
prosecuted in any manner nor in any wise molested. I want it understood that I
do not hold her personally responsible for her acts of the past few months,
nor for any of the suffering and injustice that has been visited upon me. So
far as the rumors concerning the accumulation of our property is concerned, I
think after I am gone she will do me justice.
I desire a plain gravestone put at our lot in Pontiac, not to exceed the cost
$200 to contain the words: “Our Father, Mother and Children.”
I nominate and appoint my sister, Mary E. Beech, as my executrix, and request
that my attorney, George H. Carlisle, act as her adviser.
(Signed) CHARLES N. AYRES
Detroit, March 3, 1892
The above instrument was executed by Charles N. Ayres on the 3d day of March.
A. D. 1892, before us, the undersigned, who severally saw him sign and
acknowledge the same and who were requested by him to act as witness.
(Signed) L. F. GRETTER,
Detroit, Mich.
MARY W. DENTON, Detroit, Mich.
Detroit Tribune, Tuesday March 8, 1982
THE AYRES SHOOTING AFFAIR.
Evidence Given at the Inquest Indicates That the Deed
WAS PREMEDITATED BY MRS. AYRES
She Threatened Him on the Street and Bought a Revolver and Cartridges.
The Inquest in the case of Charles N. Ayres who was shot and
killed by his wife at her home, 28 Bagley avenue last Wednesday evening was
held before Corner Downs yesterday afternoon. Considerable testimony was
heard, Prosecuting Attorney Burroughs conducting the examination of witnesses
and Attorney E. C. Stevenson appearing on behalf of Mrs. Ayres. Her attorney
stated that she preferred not to attend the inquest and proceedings were begun
without her being present. While Dr. Mitchell, the third witness examined, was
testifying, however, Mrs. Ayres arrived in charge of Detective Greene. She was
dressed entirely in black with the exception of a brown veil which partly
covered her face. She appeared pale and ill and could scarcely walk without
assistance. Her attorney advised her to return to the station, and she at once
left with Detective Crandall, having remained only a few moments.
The first witness called was Dr. H. O. Walter, who was called to attend Ayres
immediately after the shooting. He testified as to the nature of the wound,
and in reply to the question whether Ayres had made any statements in regard
to the shooting witnesses replied that he had not.
Death Resulted From Hemorrhage.
Dr. W. R. Chittlek, who performed the pre-mortem examination,
testified that the bullet had entered the left chest over the second rib,
passed through the top of the left lung then gained along the fifth rib,
striking the spinal column and escaping through the edge of the left shoulder
blade. Hemorrhage resulting from the wound was the immediate cause of death.
Dr.. Mitchell testified that he had been called to attend Ayres. He found the
latter lying on the floor in the room at 28 Bagley avenue. Mrs. Ayres was
beside the injured man holding his head and asking forgiveness. Witness did
not know what she wanted to be forgiven for. He had heard Ayres say “yes” in
answer to her pleadings.
J. A. Dick, the undertaker, for many years a friend of Mr. Ayres, was called
to the stand. “I saw Ayres,” said witness, “about the middle of Wednesday
afternoon. He came to my office and wanted me to go with him to his wife’s
house. He said that he had met her downtown and they had spoken together over
the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to the injunction in the divorce
case. Mrs. Ayres had said “ain’t you pleased over it?” and Ayres replied “yes”
to which Mrs. Ayres responded, “You won’t get into that house alive”. She then
went on downtown.” Witness did not accompany Ayres as requested, but some time
afterward saw the patrol wagon go by and stop at Mrs. Ayres house. He then
went there and learned of the shooting.
Frank J. McDaniels, living at 31 Bagley avenue, directly across the street
from Mrs. Ayres’, witnessed the tragedy from a window, together with H. B.
Deming and George Balmer. He saw Mr. Ayres carry a bedspring out of the house
and into the Alger Club, the return and meet Mrs. Ayres just inside the door.
Ayres stopped and was talking to her, gesticulating with his arms when witness
heard the first shot and saw Ayres step backward, then saw Mrs. Ayres appear
in the doorway and saw the flash of the second shot. Witness then went across
the street and learned that Ayres had been shot in the chest.
Said He Forced Her to Do It.
Mrs. Ayres came into the room where her husband was lying on
the floor and said: “Oh, Charlie, you forced me to it.” She then got on her
knees beside him and begged forgiveness. H. B. Deming and George Balmer
testified substantially as the preceding witness.
Frank Hoag, a medical student into whose room at 20 Bagley avenue the wounded
man was carried, was next called to the stand. He heard the shots and ran out
just in time to catch Ayres and prevent him from falling. Witness and his
room-mate John Lee carried Ayres into their room and went for physicians.
F. Veitch, a salesman employed at Hodgrum & Howard’s hardware store at 113
Woodward avenue, testified that on Wednesday afternoon, Mrs. Ayres came to the
store and bought a revolver and a box of cartridges. She paid for the weapon.
N.C. Bullock, who occupies a portion of the house at 28 Bagley avenue,
testified that when he reached the house he found the door broken open and the
rooms in disorder. He heard Ayres upstairs swearing and making a great deal of
noise. Ayres came down stairs and entered Mr. Bullock’s sitting room when the
latter ordered him out, a scuffle occurred during which Ayres grabbed Bullock
by the mustache and Bullock bit Ayres’ finger. Bullock then left the house and
did not return until after the shooting.
Both Mr. Burroughs and Attorney Stevenson considered that no further testimony
was necessary although there were a number of other witnesses present, and
after hearing the testimony of Officer Pat Murnane for the effect that he had
asked Mrs. Ayres for the revolver and that she produced it from a rear room,
the inquest closed.
The jury returned a verdict simply that C. N. Ayres came to his death from a
gunshot wound inflicted by Annie D. Ayres.
Mrs. Ayres will probably be arraigned today and an application will be made to
admit her to bail.
FORGAVE HER IN DEATH
Charles N. Ayres Exonerated His Wife and Provided for Her.
The will of Charles N. Ayres, which was made by him last
Thursday shortly before his death from the pistol wound inflicted by his wife
of the previous evening, was filed for probate yesterday. The first clause of
the will enumerates his indebtedness to the amount of about $700, and directs
that it be paid. After the payment of all debts and funeral expenses the sum
of $1,000 is to go to Ayres’ sister, Mrs. Mary Beach of Pontiac, to be used by
her during life. At her death it is to go to Ayres’ daughter, Effie Ayres/ The
real estate of Nos. 26, 28 and 30 Bagley avenue, the deceased claims as his,
although held in trust by Mrs. Ayres. He directs that she shall have the use
and benefit of it through life, provided she will mortgage it for sufficient
to pay his debts. At her death it is to go to their daughter, Effie. The
remainder of the estate is left to Effie Ayres. One clause in the well reads
as follows:
“I forgive my wife for what she has done and request that she not be
prosecuted in any manner, nor in anywise molested. I want it understood that I
do not hold her personally responsible for her acts of the past few months,
not for any of the suffering and injustice that has been visited upon me. So
far as the rumors concerning the accumulation of our property are concerned, I
think after I am gone she will do me justice, I desire a plain gravestone put
at our lot in Pontiac, not to exceed in cost $200, to contain the words, “Our
Father, Mother and Children.”
Mary E. Beech is nominated for executrix, with the request that Ayres’
attorney, George H. Carlisle, act as her adviser. The will was filed for
probate yesterday. The only legal heirs are the widow, sister and daughter of
the deceased.
Detroit Tribune March 9, 1892
FAINTED IN COURT
Mrs. Anna Ayres Arraigned and Admitted to Bail.
Mrs. Anna D. Ayres was arraigned before Judge Haug yesterday
charged with murder and though her attorney Elliot G. Stevenson pleaded not
guilty and waived examination to the Recorders Court. At the solicitation of
Prosecuting Attorney Burroughs Mrs. Ayres was admitted to bail in the sum of
$5, -------------. The bondsmen are Walter J, Gould and T. H. Hinchman.
As it was understood that Mrs. Ayres was to be arranged yesterday morning the
court room at the ---- hour for opening was filled by an indiscriminate crowd,
the --------, all anxious to see the woman who shot and killed her husband.
Mrs. Ayres arrived in charge of a detective and accompanied by her daughter
and sister.
As she was brought before the ------ where she remained standing, she was
deathly pale, but appeared neither agitated nor particularly interested. After
the normal reading of the compliant, which is sworn to by Detective Greene,
--------- Judge Houg addressed himself to the prisoner. “Anna Ayres,” he said.
“You are charged with the murder of Charles N. Ayres. What do you say to the
charge, guilty or not guilty?”
Mrs. Ayres looked up at ----- and her lips moved to reply when her attorney,
Mr. Stevenson, stated that he had an understanding with Prosecutor Burroughs
to the ------ that the testimony taken before the coroners jury would be
introduced in the Policy Court. Mr. Burroughs was not present and Judge Haug
held that the testimony taken before the coroner could not be introduced.
Mr. Stevenson said that Mr. Burroughs had consented to admit Mrs. Ayres to
bail and Judge Haug adjourned the matter until ------- that Mr. Burroughs
might be present. Mrs. Ayers was removed to the jail and was allowed to sit in
the jail office where a lunch was brought by her friends.
A 2 o’clock yesterday afternoon the courtroom was again crowded. The
prosecuting attorney was present and consented that Mrs. Ayres be released on
the bonds of $5,000, Mr. Stevenson then on behalf of his client waived
examination to the Recorder’s Court. Mrs. Ayres seemed to take very little
interest in the proceedings. She was given a chair near the prisoners’ box and
together with her sister and daughter waited for the bondsmen, who had been
sent for to appear. Mrs. Ayres leaned back in the chair and sat almost
motionless and with closed eyes while minor cases were being disposed of.
Court adjourned shortly after as ----- that her bondsmen had not put in an
appearance. The court consented to be at call to accept the bonds
------------------- telling on Mrs. Ayres and just after the adjournment of
court she had a fainting fit. Restoratives were applied and she soon
recovered. It was almost 5 o’clock when Walter J. Gould and T. H. Hinchman had
signed their names and the bond was approved by Judge Haug. Mrs. Ayres left in
company with her sister and daughter and was at once taken to her house.
Ypsilantian dated March 10,
1892
An
Ypsilanti Woman Kills Her Husband
Last week's Detroit tragedy has a local interest in Ypsilanti.
Charles N. Ayers was shot by his wife, and died in hospital the
next day. They lived on Bagley Ave., or rather she did, their
quarrels having culminated in a separation and a suit for divorce.
They had been married twenty-five years and their life had been for
several years very inharmonious. At the time of this marriage she was
living at Denton, where she had married a brother of Samuel Denton,
and her husband had died. Before that, she had been occupied as
a dressmaker in Ypsilanti, and was know as Ann Watson, from Canton,
where her girlhood had been passed, and where she was regarded as an
attractive and promising young woman.
Her faults seem
to have been avarice and an ungoverned temper, by reason of which she
is now in jail charged with murder. She professed great
contrition after her crime, and her dying husband freely granted her
prayer for forgiveness. The scene at his death bed, to which she
was taken from the jail at the request of both, was pitiful enough.
She reproached herself in the bitterest terms, and her manifestations
of grief were uncontrollable when she was led away from the death
chamber and locked up.
Detroit Free Press
Wednesday, March 9 1892 MRS. AYRES LIBERATED
W. J. GOULD AND T. H. HINEHMAN ON HER BAIL BOND FOR $5,000
Annie D. Ayres was brought into the police court
yesterday morning to answer to the charge of murdering her husband.
Instead of being compelled to sit in the prisoner’s box, the woman
was kept in one of the jury rooms until a number of minor cases were
disposed of. She showed no sign of emotion when she was brought
before Justice Haug and was asked to enter her plea. Elliott G.
Stevenson, the woman’s attorney, stated that he had an understanding
with the Prosecuting Attorney by which the evidence of the coroner’s
inquest was to be introduced in the Police Court. The attorney was
informed that the evidence would not be admitted and also that in
the absence of Prosecuting Attorney Burroughs, the court could not
take into consideration any agreement which the two had entered
into. As the Prosecuting Attorney was busy in Recorder’s Court, the
justice adjourned the case until 2 o’clock. Mr. Stevenson requested
that the woman might be allowed to remain in the court room until
that hour, but as she had not been arraigned the court had no
jurisdiction and Mrs. Ayres was taken to the jail. She sat in the
office there until Court Officer Schemansky brought her to court
again.
At 2 o’clock when Mrs. Ayres and her daughter entered the court
room, the place was packed with spectators eager to get a view of
the defendant. She was at once arraigned, and through her attorney,
examination was waived to the Recorder’s Court. Mr. Stevenson made a
request that she be admitted to bail. Prosecuting Attorney Burroughs
stated that from the evidence which he had heard presented at the
coroner’s inquest he was willing that bail should be accepted.
Justice Haug then fixed it at $5,000 with two sureties. Mr.
Stevenson wished to know whether a surety who lived outside of Wayne
County would be accepted upon the bond. The justice said he
preferred that both the sureties should live in the county. One of
Mrs. Ayres’s friends from Marshall was present to go upon the bond,
but the justice’s opinion could not be changed and it required three
hours work before the necessary bond men could be secured. At 5
o’clock Walter J. Gould and T. H. Hinchman applied their signatures
to the papers and Mrs. Ayres was released. During the interim, the
woman had remained in the court room and it required the constant
attendance of her daughter to prevent her from fainting.
We are still in the
process of trying to find the court records if they are still available.
|
