On This Page
Charles Rawn and the Case of Dr. J. Gibbons Mills, 1849
This paper presents the results of a research project based on documents at the Dauphin County Historical Society. The project consisted of two stages. The first stage was the transcription of a portion of Book 20 of the journal of Charles Coatesworth Rawn. The portion transcribed was September 15, 1849 through November 30, 1849. The second stage of the project was research into a trial Rawn cited as beginning on October 15, 1849: the case of Dr. Jonathan Gibbons Mills.
The Mills Case: Rawn's Journal
The one topic which appears most frequently in this section of the journal is the Mills case. Jonathan Gibbons (or Gibbon) Mills was a dentist who practiced in the Harrisburg area. Mills was charged with seduction of Mary Elizabeth Lutz on promise of marriage; with fornication and bastardy with Catharine Ann Lutz, apparently Mary Elizabeth's sister; and with attempting to procure abortions for both Mary Elizabeth and Catharine Ann Lutz.
Rawn first mentions Mills in this section of the journal on September 17, 1849, when he states, "visited Mills at Prison". An almost identical entry appears throughout the rest of this section of the journal. On October 12, Rawn mentions serving a subpoena on one Sarah Ingram in the Mills case. The following day, Rawn interviews Sarah Ingram for half an hour. The most explicit entry, however, is that of October 15, in which Rawn writes, "Trial of J.G. Mills for Seduction commenced this afternoon at 2 1/4 P.M. We proceeded with it till 6 1/2 P.M. G. F. Emerson & Self for Defd. McAllister and Kunkle & Fox for Comth. - great excitement - Talk of mobbing him as he should be returning to jail in Even. - great crowd followed - I went ap [?] as one of his escort." (Rawn journal, Oct. 15, 1849). The next day, October 16, Rawn writes that the trial continued all day. Although he does not note exact times, he does mention riding on horseback until 7 a.m., then "being engaged in Court all day", and returning home after one short stop at 7:30 p.m. (Rawn journal, Oct. 16, 1849). On October 17, Rawn notes that the trial ran from 8:30 a.m. until 6 p.m., and on October 18, from 8:30 a.m. til 6:15 p.m., with a break for lunch. The trial resumed in the evening and ran from 7:15 p.m. til 10 p.m., when the jury was sent out. Perhaps surprisingly, Rawn did not begin his defense of Mills until October 18, the date on which the case was remanded to the jury, and Rawn states that his argument for the defense took only 3 hours 15 minutes (Rawn journal, Oct. 18, 1849). On October 19, Rawn notes that the court met at 7 a.m. to hear the verdict in the Mills case: Mills was convicted (Rawn journal, Oct. 19, 1849). This statement is immediately followed by reference to filing a Motion for New Trial and Arrest of Judgment (Rawn journal, Oct. 19, 1849).
Rawn continues to include entries throughout the remainder of this section of the journal which refer to Mills or to the Mills case. For example, Rawn's entry for October 27 includes a brief discussion of his purchasing a copy of the Police Gazette which contained "a portion of Mills' trial" (Rawn journal, Oct. 27, 1849). Similarly, on November 8, Rawn states that he and Emerson, his co-counsel in the Mills case, spent part of the day "comparing Mills letters as Published in New York Pol. Gazette with originals" (Rawn journal, Nov. 8, 1849). The following day, Rawn again states that he obtained copies of Police Gazettes - New York and Philadelphia - which contained discussion of the Mills case (Rawn journal, Nov. 9, 1849). Rawn also enters into his journal that, on various dates, he met with the judge in the Mills case to discuss his decision, spent time with Emerson at various law libraries reviewing materials germane to the case, and handled correspondence between Mills, his sister, Eliza B. Mills, and various other writers. Rawn and Emerson also continued to meet with Mills at the prison on an almost daily basis. The entry for November 2, however, contains a statement unusual for Rawn: "Emerson Self called at Ledgwicks office about Publication of Mills trial & I directed him in consequence of his now shown one sided course to publish nothing with my sanction." (emphasis in original) (Rawn journal, Nov. 2, 1849). It appears that Rawn went to a publishing office and argued with the publisher, or perhaps a writer, about the coverage of the Mills trial. On November 12, Rawn notes that he declined "arguing Motion for a New Trial in Mills Case today because not well. Postponed till tomorrow" (Rawn journal, Nov. 12, 1849). Accordingly, on November 13 and 14, Rawn and Emerson argued their Motion for New Trial, and McAllister and Kunkle argued against the Motion (Rawn journal, Nov. 13, 14, 1849). Rawn notes that the Court adjourned "sine ore", which is not defined in Black's Law Dictionary, but apparently means without (sine) speaking (ore).
On November 21, another strange entry: "was engaged in Court along with Emerson for Deft. from 10 A.M. till 12 noon & from 2 to 5 P.M. in trial of Dr. Mills on an Indt. for attempt to procure abortion on Cathe. Ann Lutz - one speech each side to Jury - myself for Deft. Kunkle for Comth." (Rawn journal, Nov. 21, 1849). This is, apparently, a new trial, since Rawn does not note that the Motion for New Trial was granted. There is an intervening period of time before Rawn returns to mentioning Mills, apparently because he was involved in other cases until November 24, a Saturday, on which day he writes: "Emerson & Self . . . were engaged from 12 noon to about 3 3/4 P.M. for deft. in trial of abortion Indt. against Mills Mary Elizth. Lutz prosn (v. 20 inst.) - Spent Evg. in Court till near 8 P.M." (Rawn journal, Nov. 24, 1849). This also raises questions, as it introduces a new character: Mary Elizabeth Lutz. All of Rawn's references to this point have been to a Catharine Ann Lutz. The November 24 entry is the last time Rawn mentions Mills for this section.
One interesting fact is that on every day in which Rawn is involved with the Mills case, he either reports that he is unwell, or he records a sleep disruption by noting that he either got to bed extremely late or woke extremely early, sometimes both. At least for this section of the journal, these--what are perhaps physical manifestations of stress--only occur in relation to the Mills case - they are not mentioned when Rawn argues other cases. For example, on October 14, the Sunday before the Mills trial begins, Rawn records "I not very well." (Rawn journal, Oct. 14, 1849). On October 15, he notes "I walked 3 ms. before breakfast by 7 1/4 A.M." While he does not note the time he went to bed for October 15, he does end his entry by stating "back to My office at 9 1/4 P.M." (Rawn journal, Oct. 15, 1849). October 16, then, brings a rough day: "Rose at 4 1/2 A.M. . . . Was engaged in Court all day in Case Commenced Yesterday [Mills case]" (Rawn journal, Oct. 16, 1849). Similarly, on October 17, the day before Rawn begins his oral defense of Mills, he notes "Spent Evg. in office to bed 11 1/2 P.M." (Rawn journal, October 17, 1849). The morning of the 18th, he woke early enough to ride on horseback for seven miles before 7:15 a.m. (Rawn journal, Oct. 18, 1849). On this day, Court did not adjourn from the Mills case until 10 p.m. (Rawn journal, Oct. 18, 1849). The following morning, at 7 a.m., the jury delivered its verdict. (Rawn journal, Oct. 19, 1849). In November, when things heated up again with regard to Mills, Rawn again suffers illness. On November 21, the day the trial for attempt to procure abortion began, Rawn was up early enough to have walked three miles by 7:30 a.m. (Rawn journal, Nov. 21, 1849). The next day, Rawn reports that he "walked before breakfast from 6 3/4 to 7 1/2 A.M.", and "unwell in Evg. with violent pain in Bowels etc." (Rawn journal, Nov. 22, 1849).
The Mills Case: Research
In an attempt to locate additional information on the Mills case, I first consulted the previous volume of Rawn's journal, Volume 19. In this volume, Rawn mentions going with Emerson to meet Mills at the prison on June 11, 1849, and notes that he was retained by Mills on this date (Rawn journal, June 11, 1849). Other references to Mills include one made on August 14, 1849, when Rawn served a subpoena on Philip Harman in regard to the Mills case (Rawn journal, Aug. 14, 1849). On August 16, Rawn mentions receiving a bill for dentistry on Mills' daughter, a bill to which Mills (who was also a dentist) objected. Rawn states that he convinced Mills to pay part of the bill and Rawn took the remainder of the bill to his church for payment (Rawn journal, Aug. 16, 1849). Interestingly, on January 31, 1849, Rawn states that "Geo. F. Emerson Jr. aged 27 examined for admission to bar (was prof. In Instn. East)" - and further states "not a good ex. by any means" (Rawn journal, Jan. 31, 1849). It is unclear whether this is the same Emerson who becomes Rawn's co-counsel in the Mills case, or whether this might be his co-counsel's son.
Since Rawn stated that people had threatened to mob Dr. Mills, and since he referred to speaking to a publisher about coverage of the Mills case, I next tried the Harrisburg newspapers published in 1848 and 1849 which are located at the State Library of Pennsylvania. Specifically, these papers included the Democratic Union, the Harrisburg Penn Telegraph, the Republican & Anti-Masonic, and the Keystone. Unfortunately, no items mentioning the case appeared in these publications. The State Library also had copies of the Harrisburg Argus, the Statesman & Anti-Masonic Republican, the Pennsylvanische Staats Zeitung, and the Old Warrior, but their records did not include editions of these papers for 1848 or 1849. I consulted 1848 since Mills was already in prison in June of 1849, and I thought it possible that he may have been arrested in 1848.
I was, however, able to locate a mention of the Mills case in the Boston Liberator published on December 21, 1849: "Dr. Mills, who was tried at Harrisburg and convicted on the charge of seducing three sisters, was sentenced to five years imprisonment in the penitentiary, and to $200 fine and costs." (Boston Liberator Dec, 21, 1849, Vol. 19, Iss. 51, p. 203) (Attachment 1).
Similarly, since Rawn mentioned reading articles published in Police Gazettes covering the Mills case, including an edition which published letters Dr. Mills had written, I tried to obtain copies of these Police Gazettes. Unfortunately, after looking at the State Library, the library of Shippensburg University (which was indicated by the State Library as having the most complete records of Police Gazettes), and several online resources, I was unable to locate any editions of the New York Police Gazette, the Philadelphia Police Gazette, or the National Police Gazette.
At this point, I turned to court records, beginning at the State Archives of Pennsylvania. The State Archives has the Dauphin County records, including the Common Pleas Dockets, the records of the Quarter Sessions, and the Session Minutes of the Quarter Sessions. While the Dockets and the Minutes of the Quarter Sessions proved fruitless, I was able to locate some information in the records of the Quarter Sessions. These records included file folders for Indictments, Recognizances, and Sessions (which turned out to be receipts). While no information appeared in the Indictments folders for 1847, 1848, or 1849, I was able to locate a recognizance sworn out by Catharine Ann Lutz against J. Gibbons Mills on August 8, 1849 and filed with the court on August 21, 1849 (Dauphin County Court records, Quarter Sessions, Recognizances 1849, Document No. 87 This Recognizance consisted of the caption, "Commonwealth v. J. Gibbons Mills", with the charge of "Fornication & Bastardy, on oath of Catharine Ann Lutz June 7, 1849 defendant comd." Underneath the caption, the following information is written: "Cost - $1.56/Dauphin County Lib [?, possibly Let]/Certified Aug. 8, 1849/C.A. Suyant [?] (Dauphin County Court records, Quarter Sessions, Recognizances 1849, Document No. 87). On a section attached by tape, the following information is written: "Catharine Ann Lutz on oath declares that J. Gibbon Mills at Harrisburg the 6. day of September 1848 Committed fornications and Bastardy (superscript note: "with her") and begat upon her body a male Bastard child. Contrary to the act of assembly./Sworn June 6, 1849/Cir. C.A. Suyant [?]" (Dauphin County Court records, Quarter Sessions, Recognizances 1849, Document No. 87).
Once again, this information was a bit confusing, since Rawn reports being retained by Mills as his counsel while Mills was in prison in June of 1849, two months before this Recognizance was sworn out.
At this point, I turned to the Clerk of Courts office at the Dauphin County Courthouse to see if this office might still have records of old cases on file, which the office did. In the Clerk's record book covering 1842 - 1853, an Indictment was entered against J. G. Mills for "Fornication and Bastardy on oath of Leah Nipe [?]" (Dauphin County Clerk of Courts Dockets 1842 - 1853, p. 195) (Attachment 2)1. Under the caption, the following information was noted: "January 20th A.D. 1849. Defendant and John Wyeth his bail test each in $300.00 for the appearance of Defendant at April Sessions next to Answer etc [?]" (Dauphin County Clerk of Courts Dockets 1842 - 1853, p. 195). Since the Boston paper had mentioned three sisters, and Rawn had mentioned Catharine Ann Lutz and Mary Elizabeth Lutz, I continued searching in an effort to locate information as to the specifics of the players involved in the case. Further in the Clerk's Docket book, another, more descriptive entry was made:
August Sessions A.D. 1849/Commonwealth v. Jonathan G. Mills/Indictment Fornication and Bastardy on oath of Catharine Ann Lutz/August 21, 1849. "True Bill"/This case Contd. Till Nov. Sess. Next. Augt. 24th 1849. Bail required in the sun of $500.00 by at least one good Surety and Defts own recognizances in like sun. And now, to wit: November 24, 1849. Defendant pleads Guilty and Submits. December 6th A.D. 1849. Sentence of the Court that the defendant Jonathan G. Mills pay fine of Five Dollars to the Commonwealth for the use of the County of Dauphin, that he pay the Costs of prosecution, that he pay to Catharine Ann Lutz the Sun of Twenty five dollars for her lying in expenses and Seventy five cents per week from the Sixth day of June A.D. 1856 if the Child shall So long live, that he give Security with One Good Surety in the Sun of Three hundred Dollars to indemnify the Directors of the Poor of the house of employment of the County of Dauphin against the maintenance of the Said Child, that the Said Sum of Seventy five cents per week be paid quarterly to Henry H. Lutz of the Borough of Harrisburg as Trustee for Said Catharine Ann Lutz the Said quarterly payment to Commence and be Computed from the 6th day of June A.D. 1849 and that the Said defendant Stand Committed till this Sentence be Complied with etc.
(Dauphin County Clerk of Courts Dockets 1842 - 1853, p. 225) (Attachment 3).
On the bottom of the same page, an entry refers to an action involving Mary Elizabeth Lutz:
Commonwealth v. Jonathan Gibbons Mills/Indictment Seduction under the Act of Assembly of 19th April on oath of Mary Elizabeth Lutz/August 21, 1849. "True Bill"/August 24, 1849. Mary Mowry tent [?] in $100.00 for her appearance on the 15th day of October next to testify on part of the Defendant. Augt. 24, 1849. Bail required by at least two sufficient Sureties in the sum of $15.00:00 each. Deft's Recognizance in like sum. Aug. 25 1849. at the instance of C. C. Rawn Esq Court Award an Attachment for John Andie Irwin and Ann Grab [?] witnesses for Deft. retbl. the 15th Oct. 1849. Augt. 25, 1849. This case Contd. Till October Adj. Ch. 1849 (15th) of Venue Awarded to the Sheriff and Commissioners for the drawing & Summons of thirty six Jurors etc [?] Exc't. "J. Andie Irwin and Ann Grabb arrested & entered into recognizances with Security before J. Henry Beader & John Walborn Esq. Vide attachment So ans J. Shell Shff. $2.96." October 15, 1849. At the instance of C. C. Rawn attorney for defendant Court grant an attachment for witnesses. October 15th 1849. Defendant being arraigned plead Not Guilty and Also Specially vide paper filed and as to So much of the defendants Special plea by him pleaded the Commonwealth moves to Strike the Same off. As amounting in effect to the general issue. on the above motion the Court directs the Special plea to be Stricken off as amounting to the general issue, and containing no facts required by law to be Specially pleaded but all of the facts therein Set forth may be the law of the land be given in evidence under the general issue (superscript note: "to this the Defendant objects") Attorney General Similites [?] et issues etc. Trial ordered whereupon a Jury of the Country being called came, to wit: John Balsbaugh, James Wilson, Jacob Zarker, Adam Ulrich, John Stotz, Henry Shellenberger, Philip Boyer, Samuel Garman, John Gingrich, William Smith, Joseph Fisher and James C. Corbett twelve good and lawful men of the County of Dauphin, duly selected Summoned returned empanneled [?] balloted and Sworn or Affirmed well and truly to try the issue joined etc. and who upon their oaths and affirmations aforesaid respectively do Say October 19th A.D. 1849. that they find the Defendant Guilty in manner and form as he Stands Indicted October 22nd 1849. Motion for a New Trial and in Arrest of Judgment for reasons filed October Adjd. Ct. 1849 (A.S.) [?] December 6th 1849. Motion for a New Trial and in arrest of judgment Overruled by judgment for the Commonwealth. Same day Sentence of the Court that the Defendant pay a fine of $100:00 to the punishment in the Dauphin County Prison by Seperate [sic] Confinement at labor. for and during the term of Three Years to be Computed from the above date and shall therein be kept, fed, Clothed, treated and governed, as is provided by an Act entitled "An act relative to the Dauphin County Prison." And the Sheriff of Dauphin County is directed to deliver him to the Keeper of the Dauphin County Prison, as soon as practicable, and that he be in Custody till this Sentence be complied with. (Exit "Cert to Keeper".)
(Dauphin County Clerk of Courts Dockets 1842 - 1853, p. 225) (Attachment 4).
Instead of clearing things up, these entries seem to confuse the matter further. It appears from these records that the initial action was in regard to Catharine Ann Lutz, the person who swore out the Recognizance while Mills was already in prison. Since no parties other than the defendant, Mills, are indicated on the first Indictment shown in the Clerk's records (that taken on oath of Leah Nipe), it is not possible to discern which Lutz woman was involved in that matter. Also, the sentence issued in the case pertaining to Mary Elizabeth Lutz contains different fines and prison terms than those indicated in the Boston paper, although that could be explained by a revision of the sentence issued closer to the date of publication or by a mistake made by the Boston paper.
As Rawn mentions, the Clerk's records continue with another trial in November, this time on the charge of Attempt to Procure Abortion on Oath of Catharine Ann Lutz:
August Sessions A.D. 1849/Commonwealth v. Jonathan Gibbons Mills/Indictment Attempt to Procure Abortion etc. on Oath of Catharine Ann Lutz."/August 21, 1849. "True Bill"/Aug. 24, 1849. Bail required at least two Sureties in $1000. each and his own recognizance in a like sum. And now, to wit November 20th A.D. 1849. Defendant being arraigned plead Not Guilty et de hoc Attorney General Similities et issues etc. issuing etc. Trial ordered whereupon a Jury of the Country being called came, to wit James R. Boyd, Andrew Ryan, Solomon Martz, Leonard Cerum, Henry Backenstose, Thomas McCord, Francis A. Denning, Jacob Gilbert, George Kinter, Michael Shirk, A. Mo. Piper, and Benjamin Musser, twelve good and lawful men of the County of Dauphin, duly Selected Summoned, returned, empanneled, balloted and Sworn or affirmed well and truly to try the issue joined etc and who upon their oaths and affirmations aforesaid respectively do Sat November 20th A.D. 1849. that they find the Defendant Guilty in manner and form as he Stands Indicted on the First Second and third Counts in the Indictment and Not Guilty on the fourth and fifth Counts in the Indictment, Nov, 24 1849. Motion for a new Trial and in arrest of Judgment for Reasons filed Oct. adjd. let 1849 (A.S.) December 6th 1849. Motion for a new Trial and in arrest of Judgment overruled and judgment entered for the Commonwealth. Same day Sentence of the Court that the defendant pay a fine of Fifty dollars to the Commonwealth for the use of the County of Dauphin, that he pay the costs of prosecution, and that he undergo punishment in the Dauphin County Prison by Seperate [sic] Confinement at labor, for and during the term of One Year to commence and be computed after the expiration of the Sentence in the Indictment for Seduction and Shall therein be kept, fed, clothed, treated and governed, as is provided by an act entitled "An Act relative to the Dauphin County Prison." And the Sheriff of Dauphin County is directed to deliver him to the Keeper of the Dauphin County Prison, as Soon as practicable, and that he be in Custody till this Sentence be complied with. Exit Cert to Keeper.) Dec. 12, 1851 Prison discharge filed.
(Dauphin County Clerk of Courts Dockets 1842 - 1853, p. 226) (Attachment 5).
The last record the Clerk of Courts office had in reference to Dr. Mills was contained on page 239 of the record book:
Commonwealth v. Jonathan Gibbons Mills/Indictment Attempt to procure Abortion on oath of Mary Lutz/November 21st 1849. "True Bill"/And now, to wit: November 24, 1849. Defendant being arraigns plead Not Guilty et de hoc Attorney General Similities et issues etc. Trial Ordered whereupon a Jury of the Country being called came to wit; Abner Mash, John N. Hoffman, Benneville Klopp, John M. Reigart, William Clendinin, Elijah Bell, Daniel Moyer, Thomas Oaks, Jacob Earnest (Tel.) George Stouffer (Tel.) John Miller and Abraham Snyder, twelve good and lawful men of the County of Dauphin duly Selected, Summoned, returned, empanneled, balloted and Sworn or affirmed well and truly to try the issue joined etc. and who upon their oaths and affirmations aforesaid respectively do Say November 23 1849. that they find the Defendant Guilty in manner and form as he Stands Indicted, Nov. 26, 1849. Motion for a New Trial and arrest of Judgment for reasons filed, December 6, 1849. Motion for a New Trial & in arrest of Judgment Overruled and judgment for the Commonwealth Same day Sentence of the Court that the Defendant pay a fine of Fifty Dollars to the Commonwealth for the use of the County of Dauphin; that he pay the costs of prosecution, and that he undergo punishment in the Dauphin County Prison by Seperate [sic] Confinement at labor, for and during the term of One Year to commence and be computed from the expiration of the Sentence on the Indictment for attempting to procure abortion on Catharine Ann Lutz (See August Sessions 1849.) and Shall therein be kept fed, clothed, treated and governed as is provided by an act entitled, "An Act relative to the Dauphin County Prison." And the Sheriff of Dauphin County is directed to deliver him to the Keeper of the Dauphin County Prison, as Soon as practicable, and that he be in custody till this Sentence be complied with, (Exit Cert. to Keeper.)
(Dauphin County Clerk of Courts Dockets 1842 - 1853, p. 239) (Attachment 6).
After reviewing these records, it appears that the only charges filed related to Catharine Ann Lutz and Mary Elizabeth Lutz. No mention is made in these records of a third sister, as reported in the Boston newspaper. It does, however, appear that Dr. Mills was indicted and tried for seducing, fathering children by, and trying to obtain abortions for both Catharine and Mary Lutz, although only Catharine's documents cite to a specific child (a male child, in her instance). It should be noted that Mills pled guilty to fornication and bastardy in the case of Catharine Lutz (and apparently was sentenced to pay child support although it seems that the child was to live in the poor house), but not guilty to the charge of seducing Mary Lutz. It also appears that these trials were quite intertwined, although they were heard by three different juries. While I was unable to find biographical information on Dr. Mills or the Lutzes, Rawn does mention in his journal that Mills had a daughter. It is possible that Mills had been married and likely that, of his family, at least his daughter was still living in Harrisburg. It is small wonder that the complexity and scandal of these cases would have caused stress to Charles Rawn., especially if his co-counsel was the Emerson who failed his law examination in January of 1849.
In an effort to find more information on the Mills cases, I went to Westlaw. Apparently Rawn and Emerson's days of research at the law libraries paid off; there was a citation of a case involving Jonathan Gibbons Mills in Westlaw. Mills v. The Commonwealth, dated May 1850, was argued before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania by Rawn with Emerson again as co-counsel (Mills v. The Commonwealth, 13 Pa. 631, 1850 WL 5803 (Pa.), 1 Harris 631) (Attachment 7). The Supreme Court case related to the charge of attempting to procure an abortion. Specifically, Rawn was apparently arguing two theories. The first theory was that the Commonwealth erred in alleging that Mills attempted to procure an abortion of Mary Elizabeth Lutz when it should properly have said that Mills was trying to procure an abortion of Lutz's child. The second was that, in common law, for an action claiming abortion, it was necessary to state that the mother had quickened, basically in order to prove that a viable fetus was aborted. The Commonwealth did not make such a statement, and since there was no Pennsylvania law dealing with this issue, the claim of attempting to procure an abortion was not an indictable offense.
The narrative of the Supreme Court's decision discusses the facts of the Mills cases more fully than any other resource, although it does not provide a complete picture. It does, however, state that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had overturned Mills' conviction for seducing Mary Elizabeth Lutz. His convictions for attempting to procure abortions for both Mary Elizabeth Lutz and Catharine Ann Lutz stood, however.
The final record of Jonathan Gibbons Mills which I was able to locate was obtained through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons). The Mormon genealogical index carries a record of a Jonathan Gibbons Mills, who was born on March 25, 1821 in Hibernia, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Rawn makes reference in his journal to receiving letters from Mills' sister, Eliza, who lives in Chester County. It is likely that this record is for the Jonathan Gibbons Mills involved in the Lutz cases. Mills received sentences which, in total, amounted to five years in prison, beginning in 1849. Rawn argued the Supreme Court case in 1850. The Mormons' record indicates that Jonathan Gibbons Mills died on May 16, 1852; if this is our Mills, he would still have been in prison when he passed away.
In sum, Rawn lost at least three jury trials relating to Mills, he lost at least one Supreme Court appeal relating to those convictions, and he may have won the Supreme Court appeal relating to the seduction of Mary Elizabeth Lutz (although I was unable to find records to support that supposition). It is clear that the Mills cases would have been important for Rawn, not only because there were multiple cases involving the same defendant and related parties, but also because these cases were apparently reported fairly widely, in the New York Police Gazette, possibly in the Philadelphia Police Gazette, in a Boston newspaper, and in whatever publication was associated with the party Ledgwick whom Rawn mentions. Although few records exist today to tell us exactly what happened with the Mills cases, it is likely that these cases would have been familiar to residents of Harrisburg in the late 1840s and early 1850s. Certainly arguing an appeal, and perhaps several appeals, before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would have been a feather in Rawn's cap, regardless of the outcome of the appeals. It therefore seems likely that the Mills cases would have contributed to Rawn's reputation as a prominent attorney in Harrisburg, and would have set the stage for his handling of other big-name trials, such as the defense of runaway slaves which he performed later in the 1850s.
Footnotes
1 - I am transcribing the text of the Clerk of Courts' records herein as the photocopies are of poor quality.
Works Cited
Boston Liberator Dec, 21, 1849, Vol. 19, Iss. 51, p. 203.
Dauphin County Court records, Quarter Sessions, Recognizances 1849, Document No. 87.
Dauphin County Clerk of Courts Dockets book 1842 - 1853, pp. 195, 225, 226, 239.
Journal of Charles Coatesworth Rawn, Vol. 19, 1849.
Journal of Charles Coatesworth Rawn, Vol. 20, 1849 - 1850, specifically September 15, 1849 - November 30, 1849.
Genealogical Records of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, IGI Individual Record of Jonathan Gibbons Mills, at http://www.familysearch.org/
Eng/Search/igi/individual_record.asp?recid=700035448548&I
Mills v. The Commonwealth, 13 Pa. 631, 1850 WL 5803 (Pa.), 1 Harris 631.
Download in PDF Format
PDF files contain the author's original formatting for the content appearing on this page. They require a PDF viewer such as the free Adobe® Reader®.