 Dallas Morning News
January 17, 1911 FIVE BULLETS ARE FIRED Only One of That Number Fails to Hit Seamstress Special to The News Fort Worth, Tex. - Jan. 16 - Mrs. Mary Binford, a widow, employed as a seamstress in the alteration department of the Fair, one of the large department stores of this city, was shot four times and instantly killed at 3 o'clock this afternoon. The shooting took place in the suit department on the second floor of that establishment. Mrs. Binford was called for by a woman customer, and when she appeared a revolver was drawn from a muff and fired five times at her at close range. She reeled backward and fell to the floor. The woman who did the shooting was veiled and was not recognized. She immediately left the store. One Bullet Goes Wild Four of the five bullets struck Mrs. Binford in the left shoulder, the left side of the neck and at the left base of the skull, the perforations being almost in a straight line from the shoulder upward. The fifth bullet went wild, glanced on a partition and struck some articles of apparel hanging on a rack. The store, which was crowded with customers and saleswomen, was thrown into a panic by the occurrence. Taken Into Custody Subsequent to the shooting Mrs. Lizzie N. Brooks, wife of T. M. Brooks, an attorney, was taken into custody and charged by complaint with the killing. The Fair is at the corner of Fifth and Main streets. She was found at her husband's office, corner of Fourth and Main streets, a block distant. When arrested she was in a state bordering on hysteria, but was later taken to the Sheriff's office, where after some delay her bond was fixed at $10,000 by agreement between her attorneys and the County Attorney. This bail was readily given and she was released from custody. Justice of the Peace T. J. Maben, to whom the bond was given, notified all witnesses to the shooting to appear at his office at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning when the inquest will be held. The Deceased Mrs. Binford was a woman of attractive appearance, about 35 years of age. She was the mother of one child, a girl about 8 years old, who resided with her in this city. Her father, Z. Mason, resides at Whitewright, Texas, and Undertaker Spellman communicated with him in reference to the funeral arrangements. Mrs. Binford had been employed at the Fair a little more than a year having formerly held a position at the Burton-Peel Dry Goods Company's store. Mrs. Brooks is a woman of about 45 years of age and a mother. No cause has been assigned for the shooting. Walter B. Scott, one of the attorneys for the defense, said tonight that he had no statement to make. Statement by Store Manager. Manager Brown of the Fair said this evening that a woman heavily veiled and apparently in a nervous condition came to the second floor of the store at 3 o'clock and said she had some alteration work to be done. She asked for Mrs. Binford and a girl notified the latter that she was wanted. When Mrs. Binford approached. the veiled woman drew a large revolver from her muff and opened fire. Mrs. Binford sank to the floor and expired. The remains of Mrs. Binford will be shipped to Whitewright for interment by Funeral Director Spellman Tuesday morning.  Sherman Daily Democrat Tuesday, April 4, 1911 pg 1 CAUSE CELEBRE ON TRIAL AT FORT WORTH Fort Worth, Tex., April 4 - The case of Mrs. Lizzie Brooks, charged with the homicide of Mrs. Mary Binford, is on trial. More than one hundred witnesses have been summoned. The Houston Post Tuesday, April 4, 1911 pg 4 Who Will Decide Fate of Mrs. Lizzie Brooks Selected. UNWRITTEN LAW DEFENSE Believed at Fort Worth Attempt Will Be Made to Substantiate Woman's Right to Protect Her Home as Well as Man's. (Houston Post Special.) FORT WORTH, Texas, April 3. - The ten jurors who have been selected are: 1. C. R. Crane of 105 West Ninth street, city; a restaurant keeper; married; born in New York State. 2. J. F. Pollard, lives near White settlement; married, seven children; came here from Georgia, is a farmer. 3. W. J. Dickson, lives in the Highland addition; is married; one child. 4. W. T. Scott, lives at 958 Humboldt street, South Side; is married and an electrician by trade. 5. J. W. May, a grocer, lives on Camilla street; is married and has five children; came here from Mississippi 6. H. P. Lewis, lives at 1606 Hemphill street; is married and is in the automobile business. 7. J. E. Smith, lives at Handley, where he is engaged in the mercantile business; came to Texas from Tennessee; is married and has one child. 8. W. O. Moore, lives at 916 Edward street; a boxmaker by trade, unmarried. 9. E. A. Hollingsworth, lives on Diamond hill; is a farmer; married. 10. R. B. Brantley, lives at 1130 Humboldt street; married, receiving clerk in the Southwestern Mechanical company office. (Houston Post Special.) FORT WORTH, Texas, April 3 - Twelve men who believe that a woman has as much right to defend and protect her home and family as a man will go to the jury box tomorrow to sit in trial of the case of the State against Mrs. Lizzie Brooks, charged in an indictment with the murder of Mrs. Mary Binford in Fort Worth January 16, last. The trial, which was started this morning, is being conducted before Judge Simmons in the Sixty-Seventh district court, and may last the greater part of the week. Today was given over entirely to the examination of the special veniremen. Over seventy men were examined and of the number, but ten qualified as jurors. As soon as a man was accepted he was dismissed from the court room. The other two jurors who are needed before the introduction of evidence can begin will probably be secured early tomorrow, as fifteen talesmen were ordered summoned to appear Tuesday, the special venire having been completely exhausted before Judge Simmons adjourned court this afternoon. That the defense will plead that Mrs. Brooks was well within her rights as a mother and a wife when the shots were fired in the Fair department store last January, snuffing the life from the body of Mrs. Mary Binford, was shown not only one time today but during the examination of the veniremen, but as often as a man was placed upon the stand. That the State does not expect a verdict of guilty in the first degree was also shown, for not once during the day did the county attorney put the formal question to the prospective juror: "Do you believe in capital punishment in murder cases?" Intimation of Nature of Defense. A series of two question that were propounded to each man being examined for jury service by the defense made it easily apparent that the defense will be an attempt at justification for the shooting of Mrs. Binford. Question No. 1 was: "Do you believe in that law which gives a man the right to protect his family?" Without a single exception this question was answered in the affirmative by every man examined. The second question was: "Do you believe a woman has the same right under that law to protect her family?" There was not a single answer in the negative. The fact that the county attorney did not interrogate the veniremen as to their views about capital punishment expedited the work of selecting a jury to a considerable extent, for the question has so often been regarded as a deterrent force in the picking of a jury. The effect of this question today would probably have been greater than it would have been had a man been on trial, but it was carefully avoided throughout. The number of men examined who swore that they had formed firm and fixed opinions as to the guilt or innocence of Mrs. Brooks resulted in the discharge of many who had been summoned for duty. With less than fifteen exceptions the man on the stand answered that he had formulated views about the case from what he had read of the death of Mrs. Binford in the daily papers, or from what he had heard about the shooting while discussing the affair either at home or with neighbors. Wife Influenced Opinion. A ripple of laughter passed over the court room in the morning session when one venireman, after hesitating a second or two, declared, in answer to the question, "Have you discussed the case with anyone?" said that he had heard his wife talk of the shooting. The laughter did not come right then, but after the man on the stand said he formed an opinion based upon his wife's remarks. The married men who were in the court room were the first to catch the full significance of the reply. Several others said that their opinions were so fixed, and their beliefs as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner so strong that it would require a great deal of evidence to the contrary to cause them to change their minds. Others said that simply because the defendant was a woman it caused them to be more or less biased in her favor. One venireman who was especially outspoken said that the presence of a woman in the prisoner's box would have an effect upon his verdict if chosen as a juror. Still others declared that, although they had formed opinions after reading the newspaper accounts of the shooting of Mrs. Binford, these opinions were not so strongly molded but that they could be laid aside, and that they could be guided and directed by the evidence introduced during the trial of the case. With but one or two exceptions eleven of those who testified as to having opinions were excused from one side or the other. Judge Simmons himself ordered more than one venireman dismissed for cause. One of those excused by the State said that he had known the Brooks family for five or six years. Another, who was excused by the defense, went ahead of the question directed to him by the attorneys by saying that he had not only formed a set opinion, but was of the belief that the prisoner should be convicted. This man was excused from service in record-breaking style, and the dismissal was followed by a short talk by Judge Simmons in which he cautioned the veniremen against answering in any way but "yes" or "no" to all questions answerable in such terms. First Witness for State. The first witness that is to be introduced by County Attorney Baskin in the trial of the case will be Mrs. Emery Smith, the wife of a Fort Worth attorney. Mrs. Smith was on the second floor of the Fair, and in the cloak department at the time of the tragedy. She was an eyewitness to that portion of the act of firing the revolver, and will be asked by the State to give a complete account of what she saw. Mr. Baskin did not have his mind made up tonight about who should follow Mrs. Smith as a witness. Mr. Baskin has a number of character witnesses who may not be used unless the character of the deceased Mrs. Binford is attacked in some manner by the defense. The defense has several Fort Worth and out of town character witnesses. Most of them were in the court house today. A large number of the witnesses that are to be introduced by the State are clerks at the Fair store, and they will be summoned as needed. Roy and Young and McLean and Scott, the attorneys for the defense, have not displayed all their cards by a long shot, and this may not be done until they begin placing their own witnesses upon the stand. It is impossible to form any really close estimate of the time that will be required by the trail of the case. Mrs. Brooks in Court. Leaning upon the arm of her brother, B. S. Nebhut of Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, Mrs. Brooks made her way through the already crowded room at 9 o'clock this morning. She was accompanied by another brother, C. H. Nebhut of Terrell, Texas, and other relatives who sat with her within the railing during the day. The other kinsmen and women were Mrs. W. M. Mangum, a sister of Stamford, Texas; Mrs. S. D. Wolfe, a sister, of Walter, Oklahoma; Mrs. C. H. Nebhut, a sister-in-law, of Terrell, Texas; Mrs. L. W. Boyd, a warm personal friend of Mrs. Brooks and a resident of Waco, were within the railing when the case was called. More or less comment was caused by the absence of T. M. Brooks, the husband of the defendant. It was reported that Mr. Books was not in Fort Worth, and in corroboration to this, his former law partner, T. W. Dunn, said to a Post correspondent: "I saw and talked with Brooks Saturday afternoon, and he told me then that he was leaving for St. Louis that night. We dissolved our law partnership over a year and a half ago. Brooks said nothing to indicate that he would be back to attend the trial, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised were he to stay in St. Louis for some time." Appearance of Defendant. Mrs. Brooks, the defendant, looked wan and pale as she took her seat. She was clothed in black, even to her veil, which she tossed back over her hat. She wore black gloves, and carried a large black purse, which she kept constantly in her lap and upon which she rested her clasped hands. During the day Mrs. Brooks seldom spoke, except to her brothers, who were sitting within a few feet of her. She allowed a soft, small smile to creep over her face once during the morning, but for the most part, indicated in no way that she was the defendant. A hundred or more of the spectators had to ask others to point out the defendant, for there were five women seated in a row near the jury box. No case in recent years in Texas has attracted wider and further-reaching attention than that of Mrs. Brooks, for it stands alone in many points. The fact that the shooting took place on the second floor of a crowded department store on a busy afternoon did not tend to make it so prominent, but that feature was added because the principals in the tragedy were women. About ten minutes before 3 o'clock on the afternoon of Monday, January 16, a woman, who was heavily veiled and who was carrying a muff, left the elevator on the second floor of the fair store. When asked by one of the girls if she wanted to see one of the women who was employed upon that floor, the employe started to call off the names of her co-workers, but was stopped by the veiled woman when she called the name of Mrs. Binford. "I think that is the name of the woman for whom I am looking," she is reported to have said. The Tragedy. The employe hurried into the alteration room, told Mrs. Binford that a woman was waiting to see her, and Mrs. Binford stepped forth. No sooner than she had closed the door leading from the cloak department into the room used by the women employed in the altering of dresses than a series of shots rang out. Though terrified beyond description at the spectacle of one woman firing upon another, more than one of the clerks and customers, terrified, watched the enactment of the tragedy. The woman who was being fired upon was known at a glance by the clerks as Mrs. Binford, an employe of the store, but the veiled woman was not known, and it was not until ten or fifteen minutes later that she was identified to be Mrs. Lizzie Brooks, wife of T. M. Brooks, a Fort Worth attorney. After the tragedy, Mrs. Brooks calmly walked back to the elevator, rang for the car and entered it. She left the store at the Fifth street entrance and hurried to her husband's office in the Booker building, Main and Fourth streets. She was placed under arrest by police officers and taken to police headquarters in an automobile. Later in the day she was taken before Justice of the Peace Maben, where bond was fixed at $10,000. Bond was immediately arranged for and Mrs. Brooks was allowed to return to her home on May street. Neither at the time of her arrest or when arraigned before Justice Maben would Mrs. Brooks discuss the case. Mrs. Binford was 42 years of age and left an aged mother and father living at Whitewright. She also left three sisters, two brothers and a divorced husband. At the time of her death she was making her home at the residence of Mrs. A. Ford, 500 Taylor street. Mrs. Binford was a member of the First Baptist church and of Judge R. H. Buck's Sunday school class. Mrs. Brooks and her husband came to Fort Worth from Kaufman, Texas, about five years ago. They have two children - Clarence, a school boy, aged 18, and Annie Ruth, a daughter, aged 16. Mrs. Brooks has been an earnest and a diligent worker in the First Methodist church and was to have attended a meeting of church women on the afternoon she went to the Fair store. The Houston Post Wednesday, April 5, 1911 pg 4 ENTERED A PLEA "Not Guilty" Declared Mrs. Lizzie Brooks in Dallas Court. TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Alleged to Have Caused Trouble Which Resulted in the Death of Mrs. Mary Binford - Un-written Law Defense. (Houston Post Special) FORT WORTH, TEXAS, April 4 - For the first time in the history of Texas a woman is pleading the unwritten law in response to a bill of indictment charging her with murder. Mrs. Lizzie Brooks, charged with the murder of Mrs. Mary Binford, has gone before a jury of her peers to answer the serious summons of the State of Texas, and her answer will be that her act was done in the preservation of her family and her home - the unwritten law - the custom that has become a law in the State of Texas. This will be a trial in which all the emotions of humanity will take part - a trial which will tell the story of a broken heart as well as a story of death. The evidence which will be offered by the defense will cover a period of time extending over four or five years, and from the standpoint of the defendant will place before the jury the unhappy story which led to the death of Mrs. Binford. Presented Its Side of the Case. The State has already and the defense has started to unravel to the jury the story which includes the reasons for her act. The defense will contend that Mrs. Brooks, after four years was in such mental condition that when she heard her husband talking to Mrs. Binford over the telephone, having been accidentally connected with the two phones while the conversation was taking place, that her mind could no longer control her actions, and while thus mentally deranged she went to the Fair the day the woman whom she believed had ruined her home was killed and started to her husband's office, carrying the same revolver with which she entered the Fair. The State will offer testimony in rebuttal and every inch of the ground will be fought by the attorneys for both sides. Twelfth Juror Secured. This morning, shortly after 10 o'clock, the twelfth juror was secured and Assistant County Attorney Ben Baldwin arraigned the defendant. When the indictment was being read to her, Mrs. Brooks arose, while the several hundred men and women in the court room leaned as far toward her as possible. In a clear, firm voice, Mrs. Brooks pleaded "not guilty," and the taking of testimony began. Mrs. Brooks' actions blended with her looks. She looked the part of a gentle woman, and as she sat through th ordeal of hearing the State's testimony against her, her expression never changed. Attorney W. P. McLean, Jr., in giving the defendant's plea to the jury, said: "The defendant pleads not guilty, and in addition to the plea of not guilty the defendant will in testimony that will show some twenty-odd years ago she was married to Mr. Brooks; testimony will further show that there was born to them two children - a boy and a girl." At this point Attorney Basking sprang to his feet and objected to the statement being made by McLean, which objection was sustained by the court. Mr. McLean announced that the defendant claimed the right under the statute to state every plea in full, but Judge Simmons was firm and held to his original ruling. For the balance of the day the attorneys on both sides fought wordy battles over the admission of testimony. First Witness for State. The first witness called by the State was Mrs. Emory Smith, who testified that she had occasion to be at the Fair store on the sixteenth day of January at the time of the alleged homicide; that she was there shopping; looking at some waists just south of the elevator on the second floor of the Fair and was startled by a report and looked up and saw two figures standing south of her a short distance, one was dark and the other light; that one figure fell or sank to the floor, and she saw an arm go up and saw a revolver in the hand of the other figure; that she was frightened and started to run, her impulse was to get away, and as she ran she turned and saw the dark figure lean forward - then there were several shots fired after that. That she saw the dark figure bending forward as the shots were fired; that she did not see the last shots fired, but heard them. There were several shots, but she did not know how many; that it all occurred so quickly she could not tell just how the dark figure was dressed; she just saw a dark figure and it looked black. It was the dark figure who did the shooting. Between the first shot and those that followed there was a slight pause. Attorneys for the defense stood aside without cross-examination. Miss Maud Hargrave was the next witness for the State; she testified: Witnessed the Shooting. I work at the Fair, and worked there on the sixteenth of January, 1911. I was there on the evening of the homicide. I saw a person do the shooting. She had on a loose fitting three-quarter length coat and a heavy veil over her face, a very heavy veil over her face. She went out down the elevator. I did not return to where the shooting occurred until after the officers arrived. When I returned I saw Mrs. Binford and she was dead. On cross-examination she testified: I had been working at the Fair since the early part of October. I only knew Mrs. Binford in the store. I did not know her out of the store. I did not decline to know her. I never saw her before I went to the store. I never saw her on the streets in my life. I did not know Mrs. Brooks. Roy Hightower, for the State, testified: I work at the Fair store. I am elevator boy, and held that position there on the 16th of January this year. I remember the occurrence of the killing of Mrs. Binford. I carried some lady up to the second floor in the elevator just prior to the shooting and this lady was afterward pointed out to me as the person who did the killing. She was dressed in black and had on a black veil. I carried her up just a very short time before the killing. I remember her coming down in the elevator. When she got off the elevator she got off to the right, down through the book department. I pointed her out to Harold Bevan, the window dresser. I did not leave the store, but stayed in the elevator. I never noticed anything she had in her hand but a muff. When she came down is the only time I noticed her having a muff. The defense dismissed the witness without cross-examination. Harold Bevan's Testimony. Harold Bevan, the next witness called by the State, testified: I am a decorator at the Fair and that was my business on the 16th day of January, 1911. I remember the occasion of the killing of Mrs. Binford at the Fair store. There was some one pointed out to me there as the party who did the shooting. At that time she was dressed in a long black coat with a blue veil tied around her head. I did not see this party go into the elevator. She came out of the elevator through the book department and out the east door. I asked the elevator boy, "Where is the one who did the shooting?" I followed the party out and met two of the other boys at the door and we followed the woman up Main street. After following her about half a block I crossed the street to the east side of Main street and ran to Third street and saw Officer Chapman on the corner and beckoned to him and brought him back and told him what had occurred and brought him back on the west side of Main street and the two boys I had left whistled to me and we went across the street to the building on Fourth and Main and we met the defendant at the elevator door. The door was not open - the car was not down. Officer George Chapman and I went to where she was. That is the same woman I followed from the Fair store. I saw her arrested. She was armed; the officer took a revolver from her muff and gave it to me, and she seemed to have collapsed and we lifted her out of the building. George W. Chapman, the police officer who made the arrest of the defendant, called by the State, testified: He Arrested Mrs. Brooks. I know the defendant, Mrs. Brooks. I first met her on the corner of Fourth and Main the day I arrested her. I searched her and I found a revolver. I took the revolver out of her muff. I have that pistol with me. At this point Officer Chapman produced the revolver he testified he took from the possession of Mrs. Brooks. It was a big black pistol and Judge Simmons instructed the lawyers to break the cylinder before they handled it, and on account of his precaution the sheriff was busy for several minutes restoring order. Resuming Mr. Chapman testified: This is the pistol I took from her; I examined it at the time. There was one chamber that had no cartridge at all in it and then there were five empty cartridges. Mrs. Brooks was dressed in a long heavy coat and wore a heavy dark veil. Her husband came down there while she was at the door. On cross-examination he testified: When I first arrested her I carried her out of the elevator and sat her down on a little step there by the side of the wall. She was in a fainting condition. I fanned her and tried to do what I could for her, and some one went up and got her husband to come down. The next place I went with Mrs. Brooks was to her husband's office. There was some doctor came in there, his office was next door. There was a gentleman that runs a pool hall at the Westbrook hotel and Polk Roy came in there and Mr. Brooks' son Clarence but once to know him in my life. He came in there and put his arms around Mrs. Brooks and talked with her. After this the boy got to his mother and talked with her and kissed her, that is the first time she seemed to realize what she was doing after I arrested her. After that I took her to the city hall, and I turned her over to the county officers and they transferred her to the county and brought her to the court house. When I carried her into that office she laid down on the sofa. Saw Gun in the Muff. Miss Hargrave, on being recalled by the State, Testified: After the shooting I saw the woman who did the shooting. She had a muff in her hand and a gun. I did not take time to notice what kind of gun it was. She put the gun in her muff. Upon the completing of Miss Hargrave's testimony the State rested. The first witness called by the defense was W. R. Basham, who testified in regard to a phone ticket covering a telephone conversation from Dallas to Fort Worth. He testified that the ticket indicated that the call was placed at the Main street toll station in Dallas and the telephone called at Fort Worth was No. 652. The ticket was made out two days before the date of the homicide. During the examination of this witness Attorney McLean arose and declared he would like to make a statement. He started by saying: "Here is the defense in this case; that Brooks and this woman had been intimate for about four years and that on the Saturday night before the killing Monday he and this woman were together in Dallas. This evidence supports it. And that Monday, just prior to the killing, the defendant learned of it from a phone conversation between the decedent and Brooks -" At this point County Attorney Baskin sprang to his feet with an objection which the court sustained, preventing Mr. McLean from completing this statement in the presence of the jury. Miss Agnes Wilson was the next witness called by the defense. She testified: I live in Dallas. I was born and raised there and have lived there for twenty-seven years. January 14, 1911. I was working as a telephone operator. This call covered by the ticket which you hand me was made at the station where I was working; that is, the call was put in from that station, but the ticket was made at the main office. I have looked at my records since this case was called. When Mr. Scott came to Dallas he asked me if I had the call and the time I had it. Counsel here got into a wrangle and the court held that the witness could not testify in regard to the call from memory, the books of the company being better evidence. On cross-examination by Mr. Baskin she testified: I do not know the man who was with Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott did not tell me he and Mr. Brooks were in Dallas getting up a defense for Mr. Brooks' wife. I do not know whether it was Mr. Brooks who was with Mr. Scott or not, but Mr. Scott told me it was Mr. Brooks. Miss Mary Martin, the next witness called by the defendant, testified: Telephone Operator Witness. I work at the Fair in Fort Worth and have been working there since about five of six weeks before Christmas. I never knew Mrs. Brooks until I commenced working at the Fair. She was working there when I began work. I was the operator at the private exchange. Before we had the private exchange put in the phone numbers were Lamar 129, Lamar 652 and Lamar 348515. I think those were the number during January. I remember the occasion of Mrs. Binford being killed in the Fair store; it was Monday afternoon. I connected the department Mrs. Binford was in Saturday afternoon before she was killed on the following Monday. It was a long distance call, but I did not know who it was that called. It was a call for Mrs. Binford. It was between 6 and 9 o'clock in the evening when this call came in for Mrs. Binford. I do not know whether Mrs. Binford answered the phone when I rang the department or not. I connected the department with the line that central rang in on and rang the department. But I don't remember whether I stayed in on the line or not, for I have a signal that comes in that shows when the department answers and I do not always stay in on the line. The witness was then asked what day it was before this Saturday instructions had been given to her as to whether or not she should connect Mrs. Binford with Mr. Brooks any more, but counsel for the State objected. The Telephone Call. After considerable argument, Mr. Young, out of the hearing of the jury, in stating to the court what he expected by the witness, said: "We expect to show that she had repeatedly connected Mrs. Binford over the phone with some man, whose voice was recognized on the occasion of this long distance call as being the same man, and that the manager of the store had instructed her, on account of the numerous calls of this man for some one in the department to quit connecting them, and that Mrs. Binford had this said Saturday afternoon gone to the witness and told her that she was going to have to ask her to connect her and call her to the phone just one more time, and she told her he would if there was a long distance call, and when it came she did connect the department Mrs. Binford was working in. "And we are going to show further that the party that was calling was Brooks, and by other testimony that Brooks was in Dallas at that time." The court held the testimony inadmissible at that time, whereupon counsel further stated that they had testimony to show, that the decedent, Mrs. Binford, left the city of Fort Worth the Saturday night preceding the killing, which took place Monday, and they offered the testimony showing that she received a long distance call Saturday night for the purpose of showing as a circumstance that the call was for her, and for the purpose of having her come to Dallas that night, and that they further expected to show that she did go to Dallas that night; that this call was put in for her, and that the defendant did learn of it. The court ruled that whenever they proved that, it might be admissible, but for the present he would sustain the objection. Dr. Burch from Dallas was the next witness called by the defense and he testified: I am a physician and room at the Royal hotel in front of the Santa Fe depot on Commerce street in Dallas, Texas. I think it is No. 1113 1-2 Commerce. I have known T. M. Brooks for four or five or six months. I do not know anyone by the name of Mrs. Binford. January 14, 1911, I was there at Dallas and roomed at the Royal hotel. This book I hold in my hand is a register from the Royal hotel at Dallas. I saw this man Brooks at the Royal hotel on January 14, 1911. I saw a statement in the paper in regard to the killing of Mrs. Binford. As near as I can remember, Brooks came in the Royal hotel that Saturday afternoon about dark or maybe a little before and said he wanted a room. He took a room at the hotel and registered. I saw him go up and get the pen and register, but I did not stand over him, but I saw him go and register and use the pen. I presume he registered. I saw some woman over there with him. I looked at the register after Brooks registered and I carried him back and showed him his room. The defense made an effort to prove by the witness that Brooks registered under the name of J. P. Jones and wife from St. Louis, but counsel for the State objected, which objection was sustained by the court, and for the time being the defense was unable to get the testimony before the jury. Strong Witness for Defense. H. W. Nimo proved a strong witness for the defendant, testifying: I am a farmer at the present time and have lived in this county about eleven years. I knew Mrs. Binford during her lifetime and know Brooks. I have seen them together, one time especially I call to mind when I built a house for Mrs. Binford. I was informed that Mr. Brooks deeded the lot on which that house was built to her. Mr. Brooks strictly looked after the building of that house for Mrs. Binford. I also saw them together in a restaurant one day. My wife went into the restaurant with me about noon; I believe it was located on Fourth and Main streets. A lady kept the restaurant there and Mrs. Binford came in and, I suppose in the space of a few seconds, Mr. Brooks came in and was seated at the same table. Mrs. Binford took lunch with Mr. Brooks. I only remained there two or three minutes, and I left my wife there, and I suppose I was gone thirty or forty minutes and when I returned they were still there talking - - Mr. Brooks and Mrs. Binford were there at that table talking. The tables were small and she was on one side and he was directly opposite and they were in a leaning position; he was leaning on his elbows, as I remember it, and they were very close together. Their heads were, and their talk was low and I could not understand a word of it. I believe I have known Mrs. Brooks about four years. I know where Brooks' office is and I frequent that place. I have seen Mrs. Brooks there before the killing time and time again. I had a conversation with Mrs. Brooks with regard to this woman and Brooks before the killing up there in the office. Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Brooks were in the office, and she preceded me and went down in the elevator, and I suppose it was some minutes when I followed her, and she was waiting in the hall there; I do not know that she was waiting for me, but I suppose she was. She approached me and said: "I wish you would talk to Mr. Brooks"; she asked me would I talk to Mr. Brooks, and when she spoke to me I noticed tears beginning to flow very freely from her eyes, and I said to her: "You have my heartfelt sympathy regarding this proposition. I will talk to Mr. Brooks." She was talking directly of Mrs. Binford and Mr. Brooks, that was the proposition, and I suppose it was that afternoon that I went back up there - - Offered Brooks as Witness. At this juncture a good deal of excitement was created by a remark of the county attorney, which brought forth the offer on the part of the defense, tendering the husband of the defendant to the State if it wished to use him as a witness. Resuming, Mr. Nimo testified: Mrs. Brooks seemed to be emotional and hurt over the proposition, and I went up there by her request to see Brooks. I don't remember that I saw Brooks with this woman any more after that time. It was four years ago that I completed the building for Mrs. Binford. On cross-examination he testified: I went out there to the house I was building in the carriage with Mr. and Mrs. Brooks. I went out there by appointment to meet Mrs. Binford at the house. I went out there with Mr. and Mrs. Brooks and Mrs. Binford was to meet them there. Mr. Brooks and Mrs. Binford were going to look at the house and Mrs. Brooks was with us also. We all got there about the same time. They didn't go in the same carriage. On re-direct examination he testified: That he did not know how come Mrs. Brooks to go in the carriage or whether it was over Mr. Brooks' protest or not. It is true that while they were out there Brooks proposed to his wife to take the Binford woman in the carriage, and she said; "No, I know she is not a proper person to go in this carriage." It is true - she objected to her getting in the carriage. A. Fred, a witness for the defense, testified that Mrs. Binford used to live at his house, that she lived there about two years, during which time he saw a gentleman in company with her, but could not say how often. But he was a heavy-set man and a little gray. That he saw them together about a dozen times. Restaurant Keeper on Stand. Mrs. F. M. Allen, for the defense, testified: That she used to run a restaurant at 407 Main street and that last summer and fall she lived at Hi Mount and that during the two or three months she lived there she saw Mr. Brooks and Mrs. Binford several mornings as she came to work, and that they would be going in the opposite direction to the way she was coming to town. That Brooks and Mrs. Binford usually came into her restaurant about lunch hour and stayed from one to two hours. On cross-examination she could not give the dates on which she saw them together. Mrs.E. L. Stephens, for the defense, testified: I knew Mrs. Binford, but I have never met Mr. Brooks that I remember of. I know Mrs. Brooks. She testified in regard to seeing a gentleman in a buggy talking to Mrs. Binford but declined to swear positively that it was Mr. Brooks, but that she recognized the horse and buggy as being that of Mrs. Brooks. She testified to Mrs. Brooks' good reputation. The State is represented by County Attorney John Baskin and his assistant, B. H. Baldwin, while the interests of the defense are being looked out for by Messrs. Scott & McLean and Roy A. Young. Laredo Weekly Times Sunday, April 9, 1911 pg 11 WOMAN KILLER WINS ON 'UNWRITTEN' LAW JURY ACQUITTED MRS. BROOKS THIS MORNING IN TRIAL FOR SLAYING MRS. MAY BINFORD By Associated Press. Fort Worth, Tex., April 7 - The jury returned a verdict this morning of not guilty in the case of Mrs. T. M. Brooks, who had been on trial for the murder of Mrs. Mary Binford. The defendant has pleaded the unwritten law, had introduced evidence to show the relations between Judge Brooks, husband of the defendant, and testimony by the defendant and several of her women neighbors and fellow church workers to the effect that for four years before the shooting Mrs. Brooks had prayed daily for the reformation of her rival in the affections of her husband, and fearing finally that her prayers would not be answered, she had slain the woman while employed in a large department store. The Eagle Friday, April 7, 1911 pg 1 ACQUITTAL BASED ON INSANITY Jury Returned Verdict of Not Guilty In Case of Mrs. Brooks for Killing Mrs. Binford. (By Associated Press.) FORT WORTH, Texas, April 7 - The jury this morning returned a verdict of "not guilty" in favor of Mrs. T. M. Brooks, charged with the murder of Mrs. Mary Binford, a shop girl. Insanity was the ground of the verdict. Corsicana Daily Sun Saturday, April 8, 1911 pg 5 MRS. BROOKS' STATEMENT Woman Who Killed Mrs. Binford Says the Lord Was With Her. That the acquittal on the charge of murdering Mrs. Mary Binford came this morning throught the direct intervention of God is the belief of Mrs. Lizzie Brooks, expressed to a Star-Telegram reporter at noon today, in the first statement she has made for any newspaper since the tragedy. The interview was granted in the parlor of the Brooks home, 1060 May street. (Illegible) . and the prayers of the good people of Fort Worth," Mrs. Brooks said. "My faith in God is strengthened and I know now - nobody can ever shake my belief, that he does answer the prayers of all who pray in faith." "No, I was not surprised at the verdict," she answered to the reporter's question. "I knew God was with me and would support me. I have trusted Him so long. I knew He would not desert me." "I am thankful to the jurors and I shall pray God to be with each of them always, and to bless their loved ones. Those twelve men knew that I could have done what the witnesses say I did, if I had been conscious or sane at the time. I am a timid woman, and this notoriety has been very painful to me, although I understand you reporters have to publish the news. "If I had been conscious of what I did, I could not hold my head up among my friends and could not have stood the ordeal of the trial. The jury set me free this morning, but I have been free in my conscience all the time for I knew in my heart that I had not consciously done wrong. I don't mean that I am a perfect woman, for like other human beings, I have sinned, but I pray daily to be better and more worthy of God's love. "I am thankful to my lawyers, too, for they did all for me that mortals could, but there were the instruments of God in carrying out His work." - Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Laredo Weekly Times Sunday, April 9, 1911 pg2 PRAYED FOR VICTIM BEFORE KILLING HER. FORT WORTH WOMAN SWEARS SHE PRAYED FOUR YEARS FOR REFORM OF THE SLAIN WOMAN. By Associated Press. Fort Worth, April 6 - Mrs. T. M. Brooks, on trial here for the murder of Mrs. Mary Binford, whom she shot in a department store here a few months ago, testified today that she had no recollection of the deed. The defendant declared that she remembered nothing from the time she had left her home on the day of the killing until after her return, but that her mind was a perfect blank. Mrs. Brooks swore that for the past four years she had prayed for the reformation of Mrs. Binford setting apart a time each day at which she had asked God to lead the woman from the life she was living, and that finally she had become discouraged, believing that her prayers were not to be answered. She also testified that, fearing she might commit suicide, she had locked up her husband's pistol and thrown away the key. Evidence was also introduced to show the relations which had existed between Judge Brooks and Mrs. Binfold. The evidence was completed at noon today and the arguments by the attorneys will consume this afternoon. Sherman Daily Democrat Tuesday, May 2, 1911 R. A. BINFORD DEAD Was Husband of Woman Killed in Fort Worth. The following from the Terrell Daily Transcript of a recent date will be read with interest in Sherman: W. A. Nicholson received a telephone message from Greenville this morning announcing the death of his brother-in-law, R. A. Binford, which occurred in that city this morning at 5 o'clock, after an illness of many months from lung trouble. Mr. Binford was formerly a citizen of this place, and his remains will be shipped here tomorrow morning over the Midland for interment, the funeral services being conducted at the grave by Rev. W. A. Wynn, pastor of the First Baptist church of this city of which church the deceased was a member. Mr. Binford was the husband of Mrs. Mary Binford, who was killed in a department store in Fort Worth recently by Mrs. Lizzie Brooks. FELONY Susan Hawkins © 2024 If you find any of Grayson CountyTXGenWeb links inoperable, please send me a message. |