Bishop, Dock

Submitted by Rose Diamond

Dock Bishop Letter
Dock Bishop 1886 Newspaper

Dock Bishop's Timeline

Sometime in 1883: Bob Lamar had differences with Absolam (Ab) Cearley, perhaps had shot him. [The Oxford Eagle Report]

January 16, 1884: Dock Bishop, James T. (Tillman or Tillery) Bishop, Jr., and Robert (Bob) Lamar accost Ab Cearley at Dallas, Lafayette Co., MS.
Cearley is shot in one of his legs by Bob Lamar
James Evans Harmon (15 Feb 1845- 16 Jan 1884, buried Dallas Cemetery, Lafayette Co., MS), postmaster, is shot and killed.
His brother, William S. Harmon (20 Jun 1849- 17 Jan 1884) is shot by Bob Lamar and dies the next day.
James Alexander Harrison, a bystander, is shot in the head and wounded.
Dock Bishop and Bob Lamar leave, Jim Bishop stays.
A reward is offered for the capture of the two men.
[Don’t know by whom it was offered or for what amount.]

[Local Story reprinted in 1943]

October 2, 1884: Deputy City Marshal William T. Wise of Fort Worth, TX is killed near the town of Sarepta in Calhoun Co., MS and is later buried in the Sarepta Cemetery

[Telegrams to Texas]
By May 7, 1885: Dock and Jim Bishop and Bob Lamar are on trial in Lafayette Co., MS in case numbers 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913.
Judge W.S. Featherston, district attorney Thomas Spight, and Sheriff P.E. Matthews.

[Robert Lamar vs State Oct 1885 and Oct 1886]

May 5, 1886: D.A. drops case 1911 against Jim Bishop
May 14, 1885: Bob Lamar found guilty of murder in case 1911 and remanded to jail
May 15, 1885: Bob Lamar sentenced to death by hanging on 1 Jul 1885.
May 18, 1885: Dock Bishop found not guilty in case 1911
Oct. 1885: Personal Letter
Nov. 14, 1885: Jim Bishop found not guilty in case 1910
March 1886: Dock Bishop tried at Pittsboro, Calhoun Co., MS.
Judge Archibald Thomas Roane, Sheriff Scott Hardin.
Defended by William V. & Hampton (Hamp) M. Sullivan.
July 3, 1886: Dock Bishop is hanged at Pittsboro, Calhoun Co., MS for the death of William T. Wise.
Newspaper articles report the 4th, however, the 4th fell on Sunday.

[Last Sketch of Doc Bishop’s Career The Memphis Daily Appeal]
[Execution of Dock Bishop…New Orleans Daily Picayune]
[Local Newspaper Coverage: The Oxford Eagle, The Warden]

Dec. 1886: Supreme Court of Mississippi – Dock Bishop v. State of MS, 1886
The Ballad of Dock Bishop
Dying Man Recalls Tragedy of Long Ago
The Hanging of Dock Bishop – An Historical Narrative July 14, 1960
The Hanging of Dock Bishop in 1886 Nov. 17, 1977 reprint of 1960

Appeal to State of Mississippi Supreme Court

1 Miss. Dec. 292
(Cite as: 1886 WL 2219 (Miss.))
 
Supreme Court of Mississippi
Dock Bishop v. State of Mississippi, 1886
 
* 1 James Bishop, Dock Bishop, and Robert Lamar were jointly indicted for murdering one Wise. There was a severance, and Dock Bishop was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death; whereupon he appealed to the Supreme Court.
 
There was much testimony in the trial court, and many errors were assigned by appellant, but it will be sufficient to a proper understanding of the case to consider only those touched upon by the reviewing court.
 
Application was made by defendant in the trial court for a continuance, and in support of this application the following showing was made:
 
Dock Bishop being duly sworn deposed that he could not safely go to trial at that term of court on account of absent witnesses, who were material to his defense,
 
to-wit: a man whose name was unknown to defendant, but known to C.E. Butler of Oxford, Miss., and the town authorities of Bolivar, Tenn., who told said authorities and the said Butler
 
that one Evans Ford told him (said witness) that he (Ford) and others, whose names were not remembered by said witness (but who were neither of defendants), killed Wise in Calhoun county, Miss.,
 
and detailed to Butler the circumstances of such killing and told Butler that the watch taken from the dead body of Wise was then (only a few weeks prior to trial day), at the time he was talking to said Butler, in possession of a person at Mrs. Smith's, near and west of Holly Springs, Miss., and near the new railroad there;
 
and that defendant expected to prove by said witness the truth of the statements made by him to the said Butler;
 
that said witness had not been subpoenaed because he was temporarily beyond the jurisdiction of the court; but that defendant was informed that he resided in Mississippi, and that compulsory process would procure his attendance at the next term of the court;
 
that defendant had had no opportunity to have such compulsory process, and that defendant knew of no other witness by whom he could prove the same facts;
 
and that he expected to have said witness in attendance at the next term of court;
 
that by John A. Mathews, who had been duly subpoenaed, he expected to prove that said Mathews had the deceased staying at his (Mathews') house, and that he and Mathews were concocting a scheme to entrap and arrest Dock Bishop and Bob Lamar;
 
that Wise was at Mathews' house a few minutes before the killing, and that Jim Bishop, codefendant, was on friendly terms with Wise, and that he (Jim Bishop) went in advance of Wise without any gun or weapon by which such would could have been inflicted on the person of deceased as was inflicted;
 
that Mathews and this defendant were personally hostile to each other and had been enemies ever since a period long before the killing of Wise;
 
that by Joe Lafayette, Alice Lafayette, and Asa Fleming they saw Jim Bishop immediately after the killing and heard all he said, and heard the reports of the guns and pistols in the direction of the place where the killing occurred;
 
and that the acts, declarations, and conduct of Jim Bishop were inconsistent with his guilt and in no wise inculpated this defendant;
 
that no one was with Jim Bishop when he came to their home;
 
that they saw Jim Bishop at their home less than two minutes after the firing; that the distance was too great for him to have traveled within the time from the sound of the firing until his arrival at their house.
 
By Joe Jones that he was at the scene of the killing shortly thereafter, and at the grave at, and immediately preceding the disinterment of the dead body of deceased, and that he saw and heard things which defendant was informed and believed were material to his defense;
 
that defendant did not know what his (Jones') testimony was, or would be, as he had had no chance to confer with him;
 
that defendant was informed that May and J.C. Hollingsworth knew something material to his defense, but that he did not know what that might be, and that he had only recently heard of it, and that he had had no opportunity of conferring with such parties;
 
that by John Lamar that he (defendant) voluntarily surrendered himself and went into the custody of the jailor of Lafayette county with full knowledge of the fact that defendant was accused of killing Wise;
 
that by A.E. Peden and Ed Smith, the testimony of State's witnesses before the coroner's inquest did not, in any way, inculpate the defendant, and that such testimony was contradictory to the testimony attempted now to be given by the same witnesses, and that such witnesses were among the most important of the State's witnesses;
 
that defendant had been in close confinement ever since indictment found;
 
that he was innocent as to the crime charged against him, and that he had been at a great loss to know the kind of testimony that would be adduced against him;
 
that he and counsel had endeavored to see the testimony taken in writing at the coroner's inquest; and that failing to find it at Pittsboro (the county seat), where it ought to be, that he had subpoena duces tecum issued for A.E. Peden and Ed Smith to come into court and bring such testimony;
 
and that compulsory process would procure their attendance, and that of all the other witnesses,
and that defendant had had no opportunity of having such compulsory process issued;
 
that none of the said witnesses were absent by the procurement or consent of defendant or any one for him;
 
that he had process and subpoenas issued as soon as he learned of the materiality of the evidence; that all of the said witnesses resided in Mississippi;
 
that this application for continuance was not made for delay, but that justice might be done; and that this was the first application defendant had made for a continuance.
 
*2 This application was, by the court, overruled, and the defendant placed upon trial.
One Amet, a witness for the State, testified, in some respects, differently in the Circuit Court to what he did before the coroner. By consent, one of defendant's witnesses testified that Amet's reputation for truth and veracity was good.
 
APPEALED from Circuit Court, Calhoun county, A.T. ROANE, Judge.
 
Affirmed.
 
Attorneys for appellant, Sullivan & Sullivan.
 
Attorney for appellee, T.M. Miller, Attorney-General.
 
Brief of Sullivan & Sullivan:
 
***The court erred in overruling the defendant's application for a continuance. The Mississippi reports show no instance, so far as I know, in which a case has been reversed for failure of the court below to grant a continuance. We think this case should begin the exception.
A great and dastardly crime had been committed. The circumstances were such that public suspicion naturally (whether justly or not) attached to defendant. Suspicion is always unfavorable to free inquiry, fair investigation, and impartial judgment. ***
 
Defendant was sick, too sick to be tried. It was practically a denial of a fair and impartial trial of defendant to force him to be tried for his life when he was in a condition physically and mentally which rendered him unable to aid his counsel in the examination of witnesses and the proper preparation of the case. Defendant swore that was his condition.
 
The state introduced three physicians, Drs. Buchanan. Baker, and Dorroh, who examined defendant and two of them, Drs. Baker and Dorroh, testified that defendant was too sick to be tried.
 
Dr. Buchanan alone thought he was not too sick to be tried, but even Dr. Buchanan said he did not know what is required for a man to be well enough to be tried. All testified that defendant was sick. There was no other testimony on this point.
 
We have yet to learn that law and medicine are so necessarily connected that the mere external glance of the judge is a better evidence in a capital case of the mental and physical condition of a prisoner than the sworn testimony of medical physicians and experts after examination, so that the arbitrary opinion of the judge should outweigh the sworn statements of the defendant and doctors.
 
Defendant had two counsel, Sullivan & Sullivan.
 
W.V. Sullivan was entirely kept away from court on account of severe illness.
 
The other counsel, H.M. Sullivan, was detained by subpoena from the Mississippi Legislature as a witness about the State university.
 
Appointed counsel, of course, had no time to prepare in such a case.
 
The case was set for a day so late it was impossible to try it during the term. Why try Bishop sick, and under all these circumstances, and not try Lamar when he was well and ready and clamoring for a trial. ***
 
The court would not allow N.E. McKenzie to tell the curious tales Ed Amet told the coroner's jury. But the court allowed the State to bolster up the witness Amet by allowing the district attorney to formulate Amet's latest speech criminating defendant, and repeat it to Elias Knight, Dr. Wait, and others, and ask if Amet did not tell the grand jury that. Is that proper?
 
*3 The court further allowed the witness Amet to be bolstered up by permitting W.L. Harelson, a stranger to Amet, to testify that whilst he knew nothing of Amet's general reputation for truth and veracity in the neighborhood in which Amet lived, yet he, witness, was permitted to testify, it is good so far as I know, I have never heard it assailed. I have only known him since the Wise murder and I live here in town. ***
 
The court erred in granting the charge for the State No. 1. If, by it, it was intended to tell the jury that there is no difference between circumstantial and direct evidence as to the care and caution in applying it, then this is error. Algheri v. State, 25 Miss. _; Josephine v. State, 39 Miss. _. ***
 
The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence as to its force and its application is universally recognized. Starkie, Evidence, 865. ***
 
The first charge given for the State is in conflict with charge No. 3 for defendant and No. 7 for defendants. Cunningham's Case, 56 Miss. 269; 55 Miss. 476; Archer v. Sinclair, 49 Miss. 343; 24 Iowa, 582; 20 Ohio St. 223.
 
The second instruction for the State is erroneous in two respects.
 
First, the words, "beyond every reasonable doubt arising out of the evidence" or similar works should follow the words "to a moral certainty." ***
The charges asked by defendant and refused by the court, numbered 1, 2, and 3, should have been given. One and 3 are almost literal copies of Starkie's Evidence and are applicable to the evidence. See the alleged extrajudicial statement of defendant detailed in Ed Amet's and H.C. Lamar's testimony. ***
 
The court fatally erred in giving for the State the following charge:
"Although the jury may believe from the evidence that Amet was before the grand jury and there testified to facts within his knowledge, and afterward when the defendants had all been arrested and were in custody, Amet told Mrs. Lamar, Elias Knight, and others of the facts within his knowledge and further stated to them that he had made such statements to the grand jury. Such statements alone do not necessarily destroy the credibility of the witness."
 
This instruction is subject to many objections. First it points out the witness Amet by name. This is error. 56 Miss. 791. ***
 
This is a direct charge both upon the weight and credibility of the evidence and this is error and prejudicial error for the whole case. Defendant's life depends upon the weight and credibility of Ed Amet's testimony. Without his testimony there is no case against defendant whatever. The jury are the exclusive judges of the evidence, both as to its weight and credibility. Ned & Taylor v. State, 33 Miss. 364; George v. State, 39 Miss. 570. ***
 
*4 If the jury were informed that the statements contained in that charge did not destroy the credibility of Ed Amet, then the jury might well consider whether they had a right to consider that any of the other evidence or all of it destroyed Amet's testimony, and to be in doubt whether or not they or the court were the judge of the credibility of the evidence or its weight. ***
 
 
Brief of T.M. Miller, Attorney-General:
 
*** The case was continued once on the application of defendant. There was no error in refusing the last continuance applied for over a year after the finding of the indictment. As defendant failed to bring himself within any of the requirements of the rule on that subject, so clearly laid down in the case of Lamar v. State, I shall not further discuss the matter of the refusal of the last continuance. ***
 
So far as the sickness of defendant or his counsel are concerned, it is proper to say that the testimony touching the former satisfied the court (before whose eyes sat the accused) that he was well enough for all practical purposes. The ground of illness was the last thing reversed. The record shows abundantly that there was nothing in the defendant's physical condition that impaired his capacity for making such a defense as he desired and intended to make. Bishop had abundant counsel, and the record will show that their energy could not have been surpassed. ***
 
The instructions were unexceptionable in my judgment and require no argument. ***
 
I may safely submit the case, merely requesting the court to glance over the testimony.
 
Even without Amet's evidence, there would have been sufficient to justify the jury in rendering a verdict of guilty; but, with Amet's, every shadow of doubt is removed. The attempt to break him down was a failure because, few person situated as he was, the threat of these desperadoes hanging over him, would have dared to disclose the truth any sooner than he did.
 
OPINION.—ARNOLD, J., delivered the opinion of the court:
 
A careful examination of the record disclosed no error for which the judgment should be disturbed. The errors assigned are numerous, but the most of them are so plainly without merit that they do not require or admit of discussion.
 
The action of the court in refusing the application for continuance is vindicated on either of the grounds, that the appellant did not show proper diligence in procuring the attendance of his witnesses, or that the material facts which he alleged he expected to probe by absent witnesses were put in evidence by other witnesses on his behalf. If it be admitted that the contrariant statements made by the State witness Amet did not authorize the admission of testimony on the part of the State, as to his general reputation for truth and veracity, it affords no just ground of complaint for appellant, for the reason that by consent, and without objection, one of his own witnessed testified that Amet's reputation for truth and veracity was good, and what the witnesses for the State afterward said on that subject was merely cumulative. Amet's reputation, in the absence of proof to the contrary, was presumed to be good, and was proved to be good, without reference to the State witnesses on that point.
 
*5 We are of opinion that instructions given fairly announced the law applicable to the facts of the case, and that the instructions asked by appellant and refused were properly refused, and that the verdict was warranted by the evidence.
 
Affirmed.
 
1 Miss. Dec. 292, 1886 WL 2219 (Miss.)

Ballad of Dock Bishop

The Ballad of Dock Bishop
By Dottie Moore
 
When I lie down at night to rest
And slumber deep steals o’er me,
As I close my heavy eyes in sleep
Dark visions pass before me.
 
I see a calm, moonlight night,
No breath of air is stirring;
No sound the silence breaks, except
The wings of insects, whirring.
 
I see a forest deep and dark,
A man walks through it quickly,
Now in the shade, now in the light
Where the dark leaves mingle thickly.
 
A man with soft, brown, shining eyes,
And gold-brown hair o’er lying,
And daring courage on his face,
On his own strength relying.
 
He treads the darksome forest through,
Where outlaws lie in hiding,
No fearful thought in his strong heart,
The thought of fear, deriding.
 
He is a bold, true officer
Attending to his duty,
No thought he gives to nature bright,
Nor the nights calm, holy beauty.
 
He follows scraps of paper thrown
Into the path before him,
By one in whom his trust he placed
Who threw a glamour o’er him.
 
He’s walking swiftly to his doom,
But, alas! He does not know it;
He see naught of the danger there
Oh, God! If Thou would show it!
 
A little distance on ahead
Are two oak trees, o’er bending,
Behind which two cold-hearted men
Evil faced are standing.
 
Crouched, with weapons cocked in hand,
Awaiting for his coming,
They make no sound to warn their prey
Of the awful risk he’s running.
 
He’s nearer, he’s almost in their hands,
Will nothing now delay him
From those who plotted, worked and planned
To murder and betray him?
 
Ah! No, for now he steps along
In the path marked out before him:
He see the fiendish faces not,
No sense of fear steals o’er him.
 
Another step, Great God! A shot!
Of oaths and groans a medley;
Another shot! And the ground around
With his lifeblood, gleams redly.
 
‘Tis done, a noble soul is sent
To the land of Heavenly Glory;
A brave detective low is laid
By hands all red and gory.
 
O, Heavenly Father, pity her,
Whose heart will now be broken,
Grant her in mercy, from Thy Throne,
Some sweet, peace-giving token.
 
Help her to bear the awful blow,
Her heart with Thy Grace cover;
She, in the far off “Lone Star” state,
Awaits her husband-lover.
 
Be Thou a friend to this fair child,
As much as to the mother.
Oh, Father of the fatherless,
Than Thee, the have no other.
 
The murderers, here, may still go free,
By lawyers shrewd, defended,
Free in this world, but yet the next,
Shall see their triumph-ended.