The remainder of the content of this page consists of photos and transcriptions (for easier reading) of newspaper articles. Also look for the word “Transcribed”. This word links to readable, plain text for your reading ease and pleasure. One of our volunteer researchers has kindly dictated these articles and converted them to clear text!
Born in Saugus, Massachusetts [Source 36: Massachusetts Births, Salt Lake City]
Died in Roxbury, Maine on 21 March 1909
Buried in Saugus, Maine, in the family lot, beside his father.
the above article is from The Boston Globe 25 March 1909
Notes From Greg Weinig (Thru the Round Table, 18 December 1997 )
Subject: TREFETHENs on Trial!
1. Commonwealth (of Massachusetts) v. TREFETHEN: 157 Mass. 180, 31 N.E. 961. Supreme Court of Mass. Decided Oct. 19, 1892.
James A. TREFETHEN tried for murder.
Convicted and appealed to Supreme Court of Mass. This Court reversed his conviction. The woman whom he was accused of killing had been 5 months pregnant and the lower court had not allowed evidence that she had been depressed and told other people she was thinking of committing suicide. The Supreme Court of Mass. said the lower court SHOULD have allowed the evidence that the woman was thinking of committing suicide. The opinion doesn’t say WHY TREFETHEN was accused; was he the father of the woman’s unborn son (the opinion does say that the unborn baby was a son).
Which TREFETHEN was this? The crime apparently took place in the Everett/Chelsea area north of Boston
Notes From Norma Karram
The James A. that was accused of murder was according to my library catalog James Albert TREFETHEN and he was accused along with William H. Smith of the murder of Deltena J. Davis. James Albert is #0992 or at least the name and birthdate match with the bibliographic record of the book that says its a condensed report of the trial. That would make him son of Nathaniel #0998 - Benjamin #0298 - Benjamin #0267 - -Abraham #0597 - Abraham #0193 - Henry #0009 - Henry #0001
I have some information about James Albert TREFETHEN (0992) that doesn’t appear on your page for him...
Anyway, the interesting stuff about James Albert. I recently came across a summary of his case--400 pages, some illustrations--for sale (http://www.xerxesbooks.com/recent/17-11-99.htm). [editor’s note: on 24 September 2020 I contacted Carol Travis of Xerxes Books. She said it was sold in 2013. --Andrew Trefethen] It was the first I'd heard of the trial. The seller wants $150, but, to make a long story short, I obtained an electronic copy of the Court of Appeals' 1892 decision overturning his conviction. I'm sure the book would be a better read, but the court's opinion was free. Perhaps you already have a copy, but if not I'd be glad to email you one. The blurb on your page about this suggests that Mr. Greg Weinig of your Roundtable has or had access to the opinion, but some of the questions he raises are answered in the opinion itself, so I assume that he didn’t have the full text.
Here’s how I've pieced it together...
Deltena "Tena" Davis, an unmarried woman of Everett, Mass, drowned or was drowned the evening of 23 December 1891 without sign of other physical trauma. That afternoon, James Albert TREFETHEN (age 31 by my calculations) had called upon her and people reported that she had been especially cheerful. The court is not explicit as to why James Albert TREFETHEN was accused, but it says: (begin quotation)
The mother of the deceased, Mrs. Davis, testified to a conversation with the defendant on the morning of December 24, a part of which is as follows: "I asked
him where Tena was. He said he hadn’t seen her. ... Says I, 'Don’t lie; she went out to meet you last night, on the corner of Ferry Street, and you have carried her off.' He said he had not. Said I, 'You have.'" * * *
[T]he Commonwealth introduced a large amount of testimony relating to the conduct of TREFETHEN after the disappearance of Tena, including statements, declarations, conversations, and conduct of TREFETHEN with Mrs. Davis and other persons named, the general character of which is set out in the exceptions, and that at the interview with Mrs. Davis on the morning of December 24, when accused by her of Tena's disappearance, he (TREFETHEN) shed tears, and was greatly excited, and also ... that at various times in these interviews, during the period between December 23 and January 10, he met the statements quoted in this bill, made to Mrs. Davis by Tena, and repeated to him by Mrs. Davis or the officers in various ways, sometimes by explicit denial, sometimes by silence, and sometimes by equivocal expressions, such as, 'It must be a mistake,' 'It is all a mistake,' 'It must be some other party'; from all which evidence the Commonwealth claimed and argued, without objection, that these denials of his relations with Tena, of her seduction, of the appointment with her for the evening of December 23, and of his connection with her disappearance and death, were false, and were made to protect himself against the charge of murder."
Accused of murder, James Albert TREFETHEN’s theory was that Davis had committed suicide. He attempted to put on the stand one Sarah L. Hubert, a medium. She would have testified that Davis had consulted her the day before for advice and had told her that she was 5 months pregnant and that she planned to commit suicide. The trial court refused to admit the evidence but the appeals court held that the evidence was admissible thus found reversible error.
(end quotation)
Too bad there’s not more detail there, but the opinion does mention that this was a case exciting much popular interest, so much so that James Albert TREFETHEN tried to get jurors dismissed if they had read the newspapers. Those would be some interesting articles, if found. [ editor’s note: On 21 September 2020, one of our researchers provided these newspaper articles. --Andrew Trefethen]
147. The “TREFETHEN Roundtable“., a group of learned correspondents who have been dilegently hashing over tons of material to piece together these puzzles. Corresponding via e-mail, their debates, questions and solutions are being recorded as a unique new reference. To find out more, e-mail Andrew by clicking here. Sadly, the Trefethen Roundtable is no more. If you are interested in participating, let Andrew know at andrewtrefethen@gmail.com
164. Mary Halvorson, correspondence. correspondence from 2018 until 2021.
174.The Fall River Daily Herald (Fall River, Massachusetts) · 31 Dec 1891, Thu · Page 1
For the Purpose of Getting Married, So She Told Her Mother, but the Young Man Denies Having Seen Her or Having Any Intention of Wedding Her.
Boston, Dec. 31. –Where is Miss Tena Davis? She left herhome in Everett one week ago tonight, and has not been seen since. She wentout to meet a young man who had been paying her attention, on the corner a fewrods from her home, and said she would be back in an hour. She was attired asif she was going out for a short ride, as she had often done before.
The young man whom she told her mother she expected to meetwas James A. Trefethen, more familiarly known as “Bert” Trefethen, who carrieson a dry and fancy goods store not far from the home of Mrs. Davis. The anxiousmother waited far into the night for her daughter’s return, but explained thegirl’s absence on the ground that the couple might have been married; in fact,she had understood from her daughter that such was to be the
Object of Their Ride
that stormy Christmas eve. The ceremony was to be informal, their absence brief, and Christmas morning would see them wedded.
But Christmas came without the daughter’s return, and when she saw Mr. Trefethen he denied all knowledge of the girl’s whereabouts. This raised the mother’s alarm, the police were notified, and a search for the missing young lady was begun.
Mrs. Hannah Davis, the girl’s mother, who has a number of other children in Maine, came from the state to Massachusetts some five years ago. She was accompanied by her daughter, Tena, then a girl of about 20 years. Mrs. Davis and her daughter opened a small fancy goods and confectionery store on Perkins street, Charlestown.
Their predecessor in the establishment had bought his fancy goods from Mr. Trefethen, and they replenished their stock from the same dealer as his wagon came from time to time to their store.
Miss Davis, who is quite petite in stature, has a bright, sunny face, light hair and blue eyes, and proved to have a winning way with the patrons of the store. Mr. Trefethen before long began to pay more
Frequent and
Longer Visits
to Perkins street than the strict demands of business seemed to require. At length it became to be understood by Mrs. Davis that he was her daughter’s accepted lover, and so far, won her confidence that he borrowed $400 from her and a considerable sum from Miss Davis also.
Previous to a year ago, or thereabouts, Mr. Trefethen occupied from his store a one-story building on Nichols street. He afterward removed to the present larger quarters on the street, and induced the Davises to purchase the old building and transformed it into a dwelling, with store beneath, which Mrs. Davis now occupies, near the corner of Ferry street and Broadway. The venture proved a good one financially, and the trade gave profit enough for a good living. The attentions of the young dry goods dealer were unremitting. He called two or three times a week, he now says
For Business Purely,
but Miss Davis and her mother accepted them as those of a future husband. Miss Davis had never had another lover, and trusted this one implicitly.
Circumstances led the mother to advise an early marriage, when it is said Trefethen claimed that it was an impossibility, because, as the mother understood, he had a wife living. He was not married, however, but was engaged to a young lady in Roxbury, whom he had been courting while paying attention to her daughter.
Mrs. Davis when about to press her daughter’s claims, was deterred by Tena’s confident assertion that her lover would not fail in his duty to her. Last Thursday she told her mother that she had
Arranged to Meet Mr. Trefethen
that night at 7 o’clock. Just before the hour named she went out saying she would not be out later than 8 o’clock.
The girl’s failure to return, and the professed ignorance of the man whom she went to meet regarding her whereabouts, nearly drove Mrs. Davis distracted. She accused young Trefethen of spiriting her daughter away. This he denied.
When the police were notified, Chief Emerton went to see Trefethen. Trefethen denied having ever paid Miss Davis any attention, or having made any appointment for her for Christmas eve, or having any knowledge of what had become of her.
He further claimed that he went to Charlestown with his team that night to do an errand, but changed his mind and did not make any call. He said he saw his brother about the hour it was said he was expected at the corner of Broadway and Ferry street to meet Miss Davis.
Stories Don’t Agree.
His brother was asked where he was before Christmas, and he said he was out to his sister’s at Maplewood.
“Did your brother come out to call on you while you were there?” asked the reporter. “He did not.”
“Where were you the night before Christmas?”
“I can account for myself when the proper time comes,” replied the young man.
Mrs. Davis is hoping against hope that her daughter may return all right very shortly. The police have thrown this out as a possibility for her to cling to, but they admit that they have nothing to base hope upon.
A search of the swamps and marshes about Everett was made yesterday without result.
The Fall River Daily Herald – 31 Dec 1891
The Boston Globe (Boston, Massachusetts) · 5 January 1892, Tuesday
Disappearance of Tena Davis is as far From Solution as Ever.
Is it a Case of Suicide or Has the Girl Gone Away for a Reason.
The mystery surrounding the disappearance of Tena Davis of Everett is today as deep and as far from solution as ever.
From the time the girl left her home at 7 o'clock on the evening of Dec. 23, the only traces of her have been a letter -- which , by the way, may or may not really have come from her -- and the hat found on the shore of the Mystic river, identified as the one she wore when she went away.
Careful search has failed to find anyone who saw her on that night, or has seen her since, and the man who has been accused by the mother as her daughter’s seducer, positively denies that he saw her at that time or knows anything of her whereabouts.
The theory of suicide has gained ground because of the letter, saying she was about to die, and the finding of the hat. This theory cannot be either proven or disproven at the present time, nor can any definite form be given the suspicions of foul play entertained by some.
The girl has simply disappeared and left an aged mother a prey to the most harrowing doubts and fears, which have rendered her almost insane.
From the mother or the relatives now caring for her and looking after the little store near the corner of Ferry st. and Broadway, little that was new could be gleaned yesterday.
Neither mother or relatives would admit that the girl had committed suicide, nor would they believe either that she was dead as the
Victim of Foul Play.
“We shall hear from her sooner or later” was their confident expression, but when pressed for reasons they could say little in support of it.
There is much to discredit the theory of suicide.
The fact that the hat was not wet very much, that the hatpin was stuck carefully through it as if done after being taken from the owner’s head; that the letter was by no means absolutely identified as being in the girls handwriting, all tend in this direction.
Then, 2, there is a marked discrepancy between the handwriting of the letter itself and that on the envelope.
“A clever ‘bluff’ by the man who took her away.” Was the opinion put forth yesterday by a relative, “to put people off the track.”
So far as investigation shows, the girl bore an excellent character. Intimate friends of her own sex she apparently had none, while the few men who knew her looked upon her as something of a prude.
If she was more intimate with any gentleman than the one the mother says her daughter left home to meet, it does not appear at the present time.
That she was thoroughly infatuated with this one, however, her relatives do not hesitate to declare. For the rest, the girl was little known in town, Anne was absorbed in her home and what went on there.
Were it not for the admission of the
Only Man Mentioned
in the case that he left home on the night of Dec. 23, At 7 o'clock, no one would know that he was out of his house.
He who is accused by the mother as the cause of her daughter’s condition is James A. Trefethen, a dry and fancy goods dealer, with the store on Nichols st., and a team, from which he supplies many of the small fancy goods stores in Everett and the neighboring towns.
He sold to Mrs. Davis and her daughter the little store on Ferry st. and supplied them with goods.
His calls there, the mother says, were social ones. He says business alone was what he had in mind.
He is about 30 years of age, unmarried, with a good business reputation, and well liked among his customers.
Mrs. Davis holds his note for $400 for money loaned him and has just attached the goods in his store for the amount. She owes him for goods, but probably not to so large an amount.
Mr. Trefethen was found at his home on Nichols st. last evening by the writer and willingly granted an interview.
“I must warn you, however, in opening,” he said, “that by the advice of counsel, I shall be silent on certain points in the case.
“I may say one thing plainly, however,” he continued, “and that is that I know absolutely nothing more about the girl's whereabouts or why she left home than you do.”
“I am deeply interested in solving the case, and, in fact, I have men at work, but so far they have been unable to give me any trace of the girl.”
“You know the mother’s accusations and the reasons she gives for her daughter’s departure?” was asked.
“Yes,” he replied; “but I am at an entire loss to know why I should be so accused.
“My Relations With the Girl
And her mother were no more friendly than with many others of my customers, and my calls were only business ones.”
“Have you any theory as to the cause of her disappearance?”
“Yes, I have many; but, perhaps, one in particular, which seems the most plausible.”
“And that one?”
“That one is that she is being kept quiet by the man who has taken her away until she shall have recovered from the effects of the operation, for which her departure was taken.”
“And where were you on the night she disappeared?”
“That I must decline to answer. At the proper time I shall be ready to make a statement concerning my movements, but that time has not arrived.”
Mr. Trefethen further said that he had denied to her personally the charges made by Mrs. Davis.
But he did not explain his movements on the evening of Dec. 23.
To Chief of Police Emerton, however, he has said that he left home that night about 8 o'clock to go to Charlestown on business with his team, but that meeting his brother on the way he returned to the house.
And that is all that is known at present of his movements that night.
He was the first to notify the police of the girl’s disappearance, takes his position coolly, looks a questioner squarely in the eye while answering, and gives his answers without embarrassment.
The Boston Globe (Boston, Massachusetts) · 5 January 1892, Tuesday
The Boston Globe (Boston, Massachusetts) · Page 1 - 11 January 1892, Tuesday
MEDFORD, Jan. 10. -- About 3:30 this afternoon, Thomas Lahey, draw tender at the Middlesex avenue bridge, was informed by a passerby that there was a dead body in the river. Lahey and his son took a boat and found the body of a woman about 150 to 200 feet from the bridge. The body was lying midway between high and low tide mark. Lahey and his son were unable to lift the body into the boat. They tide a rope to the feet and towed the body to the bridge where members of the police force of Somerville and Everett, assisted by Chief of Police Holmes of Medford, took it from the water.
Franklin Fox, Walter Peck and M.H. Bullard, of Everett, identified the garments as those worn by the missing Tena Davis, of Everett. Shortly after 5 o'clock Medical Examiner Durrell, of Somerville, arrived, and ordered the body taken to the undertaking rooms of Mr. Nichols, where it was cleansed of mud in the face was washed, enabling them to fully identify it as Miss Davis.
The cause of the young lady’s death will be ascertained by an autopsy which will be held to-morrow at some place not yet decided upon.
The officers returned to Everett, and visited Trefethen’s house on Nichols St. Trefethen and his brother-in-law, Smith, were escorted to the station house and were subjected to an examination by Deputy Chief Sullivan and District Officer Whitney. What Trefethen’s statements were, are not exactly known. It was given out, however, that his story differed materially from that previously told by him, and he was placed under arrest.
When Trefethen was searched a bill of sale and a lease of all his property to Smith was found on his person. Smith said that although the date on these papers was Dec. 15, 1891, the real date when they were executed was Jan. 9. Smith made other statements, which he put in writing. A picture of the dead girl was found in Trefethen’s pocket. Trefethen had said that he was with a certain woman Saturday, but Smith said that such was not the case.
Both Trefethen and Smith were placed under arrest, the former on the charge of murder, the latter as an accessory. They will be arraigned before Judge Pettingell in the Malden district court, this morning.
Fall River Daily Evening News – January 11 1892 – First Edition – 3pm
Alone with Her But Twice -- Twice She Spoke of Her Woe.
Blamed Another Man for Her Misfortune.
She Refused to Reveal the Name of Her Betrayer.
Judge Holds Prisoners; Police Still at Work.
James A. Trefethen has spoken.
In a clear and concise statement he has told the story of his relations with TenaDavis and his whereabouts on the night of Dec. 23, when the unfortunate girlwent forth to her death.
He has withheld nothing and The Globe is enabled to present this morning his own version of his relations with the dead girl, whose mother has been his accuser.
A complete alibi, it is claimed, has been established, showing him to have been in Charlestown when Tena was supposed to be in his company, and home when she nominally left her home to meet him.
Mr. Trefethen’s ascribed reason for so long keeping silent was to prevent any violation of a confidence sacredly imposed in him by Miss Davis, and which, to date, he has guarded jealously from the public.
The writer last evening called upon a gentlemen, to whom the prisoner early in the case confided his secret, and to whom he has talked since his arrest.
Owing to a desire to set the young man right in the community where he lives, this gentleman agreed to state the facts for publication, with the consent of Mr. Trefethen’s attorney, which was obtained.
Mr. Trefethen’s statement of his relations with Miss Davis is as follows:
“I have known Tena Davis since her residence in Everett,
“I met her at first in a business way, and my relations with her were of that nature.
“As I had sold her mother my old store I was frequently at the shop, and there I would see Tena; I liked her and became quite friendly.
“Then I called occasionally when I was not on business. I must say, however, in justice both to her and myself that our relations were strictly proper, a fact I think that after developments will show.
“I did not frequently take her out riding; on the contrary, I remember only two occasions when I was actually alone with her for any length of time.
“The first was in September last, I think about the middle of the month. It was evening and bright moonlight. I called at the Davis’, and, as the weather was so fine, asked Tena if she cared to ride up to Malden.
“I was obliged to go there to see Mr. Clark, the contractor, who was doing some work for me. We rode along an I noticed that Tena was very much cast down.
“Finally she said to me:
“’Mr. Trefethen, I have a personal matter about which I want to speak to you. It is something I cannot speak up to my mother, and I have no friend whom I trust sufficiently to tell.”
“I told her if she wished to make a confidant of me I would not betray her period then she said:
“’I am in trouble and know not what to do, I cannot tell you the name of the man who has wronged me. I cannot tell anybody his name, my mother least of all.’
“I asked her what she wanted of me and she said:
“’Advice, that is what I need.’
“I told her it was a matter that I could not afford to be connected with, but I would willingly give her counsel as I was able.
“I then told her what would be most advisable under the circumstances and she replied:
“’Marry me? that is impossible: he cannot.’
“We talked the matter over considerably, and then she answered my questions more freely. She said she had been in trouble at least six weeks.
“She said she was determined not to meet the disgrace awaiting her, but despite my repeated inquiries she refused to tell me who was her betrayer.
“That closed my first interview with her.
“On reaching Malden I completed my business and drove speedily home.
“The next time I saw her alone was about a week after.
“On that occasion I was with her in the yard in the rear of her house.
“She was again speaking to me of her trouble.
“Suddenly her mother opened the back door and said: ‘Tena, your sister and Charles are here.’
“Tena's reply was, ‘I do not care to see them.’
“We then continued our conversation, but I learned nothing new from her that time.
“That was the last time I talked with Tena.
“I must again say our relations were only as I have described.
“When I heard of her disappearance I had no feeling of fear.
“I had no reason to have any. I was sorry for her, and was shocked on the morning of Dec. 24 to receive a letter signed by her which read as follows: Mr. Trefethen – I shall never see you again. The one who caused my trouble will never be known. I write this to bid you goodby.
Tena Davis.
“This letter was postmarked Boston and was dated after midnight following her leaving home.
“It was positively in Tena’s handwriting, which I had seen repeatedly and recognized.
“When I was first talked about in connection with her death I was engaged with my lawyer, ex-Mayor Coggan of Malden, in preparing a civil suit.
“I spoke with him about the matter and he told me to say nothing if I were not concerned in it.
“For that reason, and because I did not wish to betray Miss Davis’ confidence, I refrained from talking with anybody except the police. I did not seriously consider being connected with the case at that time.
“Although under arrest, I have no fear as to the result.
“As a rule innocent men do not hang.
“So far as my alibi is concerned, I can prove it positively.
“I left the house about 8 o’clock on the evening of Dec. 23.
“There were plenty of people who saw me there for several hours previous. I took my heavy wagon and not my buggy when I harnessed up after supper. I was going to Charlestown to deliver some purchases to Mr. Wemyss, who is in the fancy goods business on Bunker Hill st.
“On my way from the house I met a brother near the Everett spring.
“He was on his way home from my sister’s in Maplewood.’ He said he had a bad toothache, but was willing to ride with me. He got into the wagon and we started, but the riding made his tooth worse and so he decided to get out.
“I kept on into Charlestown, delivered my goods to Mr. Wemyss in the presence of two witnesses, and then started home, where I arrived about 10 o’clock.
“I put up the horse, and then went into the store, where I found my sister, Mrs. William H. Smith of Maplewood, who had arrived in my absence.
“I talked with her until she left to catch the Malden car, about 11 o’clock, and then I shut up the store and went to bed.
“The number of people who can be produced to show I am telling the truth is great enough to satisfy any reasonable person.
“The next day I received the letter from Tena, and finally took it to Mr. Coggan, who kept it a few days.
“I then got it from him again, and, upon going home, placed it in a drawer, but it has become mislaid.
‘I expect to find it, and have my folks searching for it.”
The above is substantially what Mr. Trefethen’s friend related to the writer.
That the informant is thoroughly responsible and to be depended on goes without saying.
The indorsement of the story by Lawyer Coggan who, while declining to speak of the case, admits having had Tena’s letter, as above stated, in his possession, still further strengthens the statements offered in explanation of Mr. Trefethen’s procedure.
A call was made last evening on Mrs. Trefethen, the suspected man’s mother, at her home in Everett.
She was composed and collected, being firmly convinced of her son’s innocence.
Mrs. Smith of Maplewood was also present and consented to make a statement.
She said:
“So much has been insinuated against my brother and husband, both of whom are now in jail for a crime that probably never happened. I do not feel much like speaking to the newspaper men.
“My brother said the other day he was tempted to make a statement of explanation if he were reasonably sure of being quoted with accuracy in the newspapers.
“I hope this time he will be given a fair showing.
“My brother was not at home when I arrived here on the night of Wednesday, Dec. 23.
“I left my husband at home with the baby and came over to see the folks. I arrived about 9 o’clock and went in the store.
“It was soon after 10 when James came in from the stable. I asked him what he was going to give the folks Christmas, and he told me. We talked about business and holiday matters, and he said he had run up in Charlestown to deliver goods.
“I left him in about an hour.”
Since this affair he has talked with me about the case.
“He said many times in my hearing, ‘I can’t understand how Mrs. Davis could have accused me. She knew I was not keeping company with Tena, and she must know I never was alone with her any length of time.’
“Yes, I know all about his losing the letter he received from Tena.
“It worried him a great deal, and we have searched high and low for it, thus far without success.
“One night a short time ago James came in and commenced searching in a drawer in the kitchen table where he was in the habit of putting some of his papers.
“He did not find what he was after, and he asked us if we had seen anything of a white envelope with a blue lining that he had placed there a day or two before.
“My mother said she did not remember it, and I had no knowledge of it.
“Then we began looking everywhere, but without success.
“My brother was much provoked at the loss, and said he would not have mislaid it for anything.
“Since his arrest he had told us it was from Tena, and that he wanted us to search for it more carefully, which we have been doing, but thus far without avail.
“Now James says he is not certain where he put it, and it may be that it is in his office at the store.
“He instructed us to look there, but owing to the presence of a keeper we have been unable to do so thus far.
“I have asked permission of the deputy sheriff in charge to look over the effects in the store tomorrow, and then the written proof of my brother’s innocence may be forthcoming.
“As to my husband, I haven’t the slightest idea in the world that he is guilty of this or any other wrongdoing. What ground the police had on which to arrest him is a mystery to us.
“My brother James was born in East Saugus 32 years ago. He never drank, chewed or smoked tobacco, and I never heard of his doing a dishonorable act. His father’s name was Nathaniel.
“He was in the dry goods business on Hanover st., Boston, prior to his death, six years ago.
“My brother went through the grammar school and then studied bookkeeping prior to going to work for Mr. Griswold, a wholesale dry goods man on Chauncy st., Boston.
“James afterward worked for the firm of Messenger & Smallage, and on the death of the senior partner went into the firm. That was in 1881 or 1882. Later he went in for himself, and for a long time had an office at 10 Chauncy st., where he sold retailers by sample.
“After our father’s death the family moved from Linden to Everett. This was while my brother was doing business in Boston. He soon after decided to open a small store in Everett, which he did, still supplying his trade in the vicinity of the city.
“Over a year ago he sold his store on Nichols st. to Mrs. Mary Jane Davis, mother of the unfortunate girl.
“Then he began the erection of another store with tenements above, which was finished last August. This we occupy.
“No, I never met Miss Davis; I never heard my brother make any statement regarding her at any time, not even since the beginning of this affair.
“In speaking of the old lady, however, he said she must be crazy to accuse him as she had done.
“Yes, I know Miss Rose Lindsay of Dorchester av.; my brother has been engaged to her for a long time. She is a beautiful girl and we have known her seven years.
“You may be certain there were no illegal relations between my brother and Miss Davis. He thought too much of his fiancée for that.
“Beyond denying the fact of Mrs. Davis’ accusation, however, I don’t think he has spoken of Tena to any one, unless it is his lawyer, Mr. Coggan, in whom he has very great confidence.
“My brother has represented some very good firms, and his reputation has never been questioned. I am confident he will come out of this affair unscathed.
“I married the other prisoner, Mr. Smith, seven years ago. He is a machinist by trade, and was born in Charlestown, where he attended school. Of late he has been working as engineer of a stationary engine in the employ of the New York and Boston express.
“He was formerly a private detective employed by the Armstrong Transfer Company. We live on Tyler st., Maplewood, and have a family.
“My mother is very nervous and sick in consequence of the day’s happenings.
“I think, however, she will be better in the morning if she gets a good night’s rest. If I get permission to search for the letter in the store tomorrow morning I shall do so without delay. That is all I think I care to say tonight.”
Mr. Trefethen is found upon careful inquiry to possess an excellent reputation in Everett and Malden, where he has been long well known.
It is, nevertheless, a fact, which no one appreciates more than his counsel, that a very strong feeling against him has been growing in the vicinity during the past 48 hours.
This opinion has been largely formed by newspaper publications, some of which have been made upon superficial investigation and a lack of familiarity with the facts as developed above.
THE GLOBE has made an unceasing endeavor to penetrate the mystery surrounding the unfortunate girl’s death and Trefethen’s silence.
The latter portion is now explained, but who was responsible for Tena’s misfortune is a question still awaiting solution.
The Day’s Proceedings
opened with the arraignment early in the forenoon of Trefethen and Smith in the District Court at Malden before Judge Pettengill.
The prisoners had been confined since their arrest in the little brick lockup in Everett, where conveniences for meditation are better than for almost anything else.
Nevertheless they appeared in court with much of their usual air of neatness and content with the world.
Though they were the cynosure during the proceedings in court of the eyes of as many people as could possibly be packed into the little court room, they bore the ordeal coolly and acted much more like men who felt their release certain than men who saw the coils of the law slowly tightening around them.
Confident of his ability to prove an alibi, Trefethen calmly pleaded “not guilty” of the charge of the murder of Deltena J. Davis preferred against him, and his example was followed by Smith when he in turn was charged with being an accessory.
The defendants were represented by Lawyer Marcellus Coggan, who, after the pleas had been made, asked for a brief continuance of the case.
He did not desire to hamper the government, he said, but in justice to his clients, who were prepared for a speedy examination, he hoped that the time would be made as short as possible.
Judge Pettengill decided, however, that the 22d was soon enough, and therefore bound Trefethen over without bail to appear at that time and held Smith in $10,000.
Lawyer Coggan thought that Smith might procure bail, but as he was not able to at 2 o’clock the prisoners were at that hour removed to the East Cambridge jail.
No demonstration was made against them while they were in Malden, but previously in Everett, as they were being taken from the lockup, quite a crowd had gathered, and there were several expressions of opinion as to the propriety of inflicting summary justice.
While these things had been going on in court the autopsy on the body of the girl was being held in Medford.
The autopsy was performed by Medical Examiner Durell of Somerville, assisted by Medical Examiner Swan of Cambridge.
Other physicians were present by invitation, and among them was Medical Examiner Harris of Boston.
The Autopsy Was Carefully
made and its full results are given elsewhere.
Briefly stated, it showed that the girl was drowned; that she was alive when she entered the water, and that there were no marks of violence.
It did not and could not show whether or not she was insensible and was thrown into the water, or whether she jumped in voluntarily.
Either conclusion could be equally well argued from the autopsy.
Present at the autopsy, in addition to the medical men, were the officers who have been at work on the case—Chief Emerton and Sergt. Hewitt of Everett, Deputy Chief Sullivan of Malden. Chief Holmes of Medford and Officer Whitney of the State police.
They awaited the result with as much anxiety as any one, and when the finding of the medical examiner was made known they retired for a long consultation on what was best to be done, in view of the indecisive results of the autopsy and the arrests that had been made.
Later in the day the result of their conference was made known, and it may be now stated from the police end of the case that it will be prepared for trial on the same supposition of murder as was held before the result of the autopsy was known.
Some little work was done late in the day looking to that end, but it is not known that anything new or of importance was brought to light.
And now with the day’s proceedings well in mind, a little look into the bearings of the various events may not be amiss.
In the first place, then, as to the theory of murder, so strongly held until the result of the autopsy was made known, so strongly held, in fact, as to cause the arrest of the persons against whom popular as well as police suspicion was directed.
It cannot be denied that in spite of the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the girl’s death, the autopsy deals the theory of murder a telling if not finally a fatal blow, and raises the theory of suicide to a place it had not before occupied.
At any rate, it has shown the extreme difficulty of convicting any one of the murder of the girl when no medical testimony can be produced to show that her death was a violent one.
The theory of murder can alone be hung on the slender possibility that the girl was chloroformed before being thrown overboard, and upon the outside evidence which would lead rather to show violence than suicide.
But the police hold to the possibility, and if James A. Trefethen is not the man they will look for the man who, if a murder has been committed, must be responsible for the girl’s death—the man who brought her to her critical condition, and who could not or
Would Not Give Her Justice.
“I wish to be distinctly understood,” said Chief Emerton, last evening, “on this point, that we are not hounding or trying to convict Trefethen, whether innocent or guilty.
“We believe fully that a murder has been committed in spite of the negative evidence of the autopsy, and we shall not rest till we find the right man.
“There is so much that is suspicious against Trefethen that his arrest was a necessity.
“If he shall show his innocence, well and good: if he is guilty we shall convict him.”
And in this connection the grounds of suspicion against Trefethen may be briefly re-stated.
They are his refusal to account for himself Wednesday night, his contradictory stories in that connection, his known acquaintance with the girl and the accusations brought against him by the girl’s mother.
He has always said that he could account for himself at the proper time, that he was not on terms of criminal intimacy with the girl and that the accusations were a surprise.
He now carried out his promise of explanation.
If his statements be proven true, what is left against him?
Absolutely nothing but the accusations of the mother, a blonde hair in a buggy which had not been in use for two months, and the letter received by the mother in a handwriting resembling his.
Simply these and nothing more!
The police are not able to show affirmatively that he was with the girl on the night she disappeared, that he knew anything of her whereabouts on that night, or that he was elsewhere than in the places he claims.
He has told them false stories indeed of his movements that fatal night, but his last statement to the police on the night of his arrest was that he went to Charlestown to deliver goods to a man named Weymss, the statement he had previously made to a confidential friend.
He prevaricated and refused to make statements in order that a sacred confidence might not be violated.
He speaks the truth now when he sees that the keeping of that confidence is no longer possible, and that in justice to himself his name must be cleared.
But it may be said that his actions since the mother’s accusation on the morning of the girl’s disappearance have been those of a guilty man.
Many who have watched him closely will not concur in that opinion.
Those who have seen and talked with him, who have noted his coolness and apparent frankness on all points save those of his own movement, who have
Marked the Steady Eye
and straightforward look, have been loth to believe the actions and looks those of a guilty man.
Injudicious and sometimes badly advised –as, for instance, in his movements about the river with his detective—they have thought him, but of his guilt stronger proof was needed than that produced by the police.
Nay, it may even be hinted quietly that at least one police official shared in these last-named views.
But the letter—the letter postmarked in Boston, and which bears so strong a resemblance to his handwriting?
It is true there is a resemblance, but in turn it may be asked: What would become of that resemblance if the letter to him when found should be seen to be in the same hand as that to the mother.”
Handwriting is an uncertain thing to bank upon, and the particular handwriting in question has not yet been submitted to an expert.
Confirmation as to the statement now made by Trefethen concerning his knowledge of the girl’s condition comes from another Source.
At one of the times he was questioned by Chief Emerton he told the chief substantially the story now related, but did not name his suspicions as to the man who was the cause of the girl’s condition.
In view of the turn the case has taken, no confidence is violated in thus bringing a previous statement to the support of a more recent one.
Turning, however, from Trefethen and his statements, it may be well to see what are the grounds for believing that a murder has really been committed and that Tena Davis did not commit suicide.
Trefethen’s explanations do not explain the wagon tracks at Wellington bridge, the peculiar condition of the hat when found and the bits of wool on the railing of the draw.
THE GLOBE can tomorow (sic) throw a little light on the matter.
The bits of wool fibre correspond very closely with those ravelled from a piece of the girl’s dress, but they might just as well have been swept from the girl’s dress as she climbed the rail to leap into the dark waters below as from the same dress when she was thrown over when insensible.
The wagon tracks are reported as being made on Christmas night.
The chances are that they were made before.
The draw-tender, Thomas Leahey, is
By No Means Sure
that they were made that night.
“I think they were made then,” he said in conversation with a GLOBE reporter yesterday, “but I do not now remember of being down beyond the draw for three or four mornings previous.”
“And the hat?” he was asked.
“The hat was light,” he replied, “and if there was any wind it might easily have floated to where it was found without being very wet.”
It is by no means certain that a murder has not been committed, but the grounds for such a theory are now shown to be not so strong as originally believed.
The question of whether or not Tena Davis committed suicide or was murdered may never be answered to the satisfaction of those who have sought to solve the mystery.
It may never be known whether she leaped voluntarily to her death or was thrown overboard to perish.
Certain it is, however, that there lives one man who, if the girl committed suicide, is as much a murderer as if he had himself given her body to the river.
Upon him rests the awful responsibility of having refused justice to an erring girl, of having driven her to that madness which ends in self-destruction.
His life must be a joyful one: his pillow an easy one.
In the meantime the law will take its course in dealing with the men now in its hands, accused of crime.
The finding of the medical examiner will be returned to Judge Pettingill and to the district attorney.
If the judge deems an inquest necessary he will hold one, and upon his finding will depend much future action.
Should he find that death was not from foul play, there would be no ground upon which to longer hold the prisoners.
Regardless of the inquest, however, they will have a chance to show their innocence at the examination on the 22d.
Will they be able to do so?
The answer appears to be “Yes!”
Henry G. Trickey.
William E Robinson.
The Boston Globe - January 12 1892
Fall River Daily Evening News (Fall River, Massachusetts) · 3 Feb 1892, Wed · Page 2 Transcribed
Return to the top of the page.
THE TENA DAVIS MURDER CASE
Trefethen and Smith Arraigned at Malden—Tena’s Mother’s Evidence
MALDEN, MASS., Feb. 3.—The district court room was crowded Tuesday, as the Tena Davis case came on for trial. At 9:30 o’clock James A. Trefethen and his brother-in-law, William H. Smith, were brought into the court room by Officer Blanchard, Trefethen being arraigned upon a complaint charging him with the murder of Tena J. Davis at Everett on Dec. 23, and Smith on being his accomplice before the fact. Mrs. Davis, mother of the drowned girl, was present.
District Attorney Cooney conducted the case for the government. The first witness called was Professor Edward A. Wood of Harvard college, who testified that the stomach of the Davis girl was in a healthy condition; that the food was under process of digestion, and was probably eaten about three hours before death occurred.
Mary J. Davis, the mother, was very weak and had to be assisted to the stand. She testified that the night of her daughter’s disappearance the latter left the house at 7 o’clock, stating that she was going to the corner to meet Bert Trefethen. The(sic) never saw her alive again. Trefethen called the next day. He denied all knowledge about Tena’s disappearance. Trefethen also called on her several times to learn if she had learned anything of her missing daughter. The letter which Mrs. Davis received the day after her daughter’s disappearance was then produced, and Mrs. Davis testified that it was not in her daughter’s hadwriting(sic). She also testified that the day before her daughter’s disappearance her daughter went over to Charlestown to meet Trefethen, and that she said that when they went over the Malden bridge Trefethen told her that it was a good place for her to jump overboard.
The witness was on the stand several hours, and had two or three fainting spells. The case will not be finished before Wednesday evening.
Fall River Daily News February 3 1892
The Boston Globe (Boston, Massachusetts) · 14 Mar 1892, Mon · Page 2
TENA DAVIS MURDER TRIAL Trefethen and Smith to be at East Cambridge, April 25.
The trial of Trefethen and Smith for the murder of Tena Davis at Everett will take place at East Cambridge April 25, that day having been fixed by the authorities acting for the government and ex-Gov. Long and Marcellus Coggan, counsel for the defendants.
This is the first case to be tried since the passage of the act transferring the trial of murder cases from the Supreme to the Superior Court, and the trial will therefore take place before three judges of the latter court.
No assignment of judges has yet been made, although it is understood that Judge Bond will be one of the number.
The Boston Globe (Boston, Massachusetts) · 25 Sep 1893 · Page 1
Return to the top of the page. The transcription follows the photo of the newspaper.
JURYMEN JOINED IN SINGING Under Escort of Deputy Sheriffs the Trefethen Jury Attended Church and Later in Day Had a Barge Ride.
The 12 good men and true who compose the Trefethen jury were treated to a change of scene and a little exercise yesterday which was most acceptable.
In the morning the jurymen, in charge of Deputies John R. Fairbairn and John E. Tidd, two of Sheriff Cushing’s most responsible men, left the court house about 10 and walked to the Prospect at Congregational church, Cambridgeport, which is one mile from the court house, and listened to a sermon by the pastor, Rev D.N. Beach.
They sat well up front but a few pews from the preacher, and all joined heartily in the singing.
They returned to East Cambridge on a special electric car.
About 2.30 they started on a three hours’ barge ride accompanied by Deputies John R. Fairbairn, John E. Tidd and W. H. Walsh. The route extended out through Mt Auburn, Waverly, Belmont, Arlington and back to East Cambridge.
Trefethen passed the day in much the same way he has during his 20 months confinement.
The Boston Gobe – 25 Sep 1893 – Monday – Page 5
The Boston Globe (Boston, Massachusetts) · 25 Sep 1893 · Page 1