Tag: O K Corral

A Brief History

The gunfight at the O.K. Corral summary refers to an infamous shootout in the American West in the streets of Tombstone Arizona at at 3:00pm, October 26,1881. Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, and Wyatts brothers Virgil and Morgan confronted Ike Clanton, Billy Clanton, Billy Claiborn and brothers Frank and Tom McLaury in a vacant lot next to the uninteresting O.K. Corral over death threats made in recent days.

The thirty second gunfight caused witnesses to see nine men fire dozens of times at distances of under twenty feet. The aftermath left three men dead and became the most notorious gunfight of the wild west.

Following the trial, murder charges were filed against the Earp brothers and Doc Holiday. I preliminary hearing in front of Justice of the Peach Wells Spencer. The thirty day trail held court in the Tombstone Mining exchange and heard testimony from both sides of the confrontation. The defendants were found not guilty and only promoted a deadly feud between the Earps and the Clantons.

The transcribed testimony of J H Behan regarding the gunfight on Fremont Street in Tombstone, Arizona Territory.

Testimony of J H Behan

On this thirteenth day of November, 1881, on the hearing of the above entitled cause of the examination of Wyatt Earp and J. H. Holliday; John H. Behan, a witness of lawful age, being produced and sworn, deposes and says as follows: 

My name is John H. Behan. I reside in Tombstone. I am Sheriff of Cochise County. I know the defendants, Wyatt Earp and John H. Holliday. I know the defendants, Virgil Earp and Morgan Earp. In their lifetime I knew Thomas McLaury, Frank McLaury, and William Clanton. I know Isaac Clanton. I was here in Tombstone on the 26th of October, when a difficulty took place and a shooting occurred between the parties mentioned.

(Q) Will you state what you know about this difficulty?

(A) The first that I knew that there was likely to be any trouble; I was sitting in the barber’s chair, getting shaved-Barron’s Barber Shop. It was about half-past one, I think. It might have been later. I saw a crowd gathering on the comer of Allen and Fourth Streets. Someone in the barber shop said there was liable to be trouble between the Earps and Clantons. There was considerable said about it by parties sitting around. I asked the barber to hurry up, that I was anxious to go out and disarm and arrest the parties. I then went over to Hafford’s Comer. I saw Marshal Earp standing there and asked him what was the excitement. This was Virgil Earp, the marshal. He said there were, “a lot of sons-of-bitches in town looking for a fight.” I don’t think he mentioned any names.

I said to him, “You had better disarm the crowd.” He said he would not, that he would give them a chance to make a fight. I said to him, “It is your duty as a peace officer instead of encouraging a fight to disarm the parties.” I don’t remember that I said exactly, “cowboys,” but I meant, “the boys,” I meant the parties to the fight; I meant any parties connected with the cowboys who had arms.

Marshal Earp and Doc Holliday were standing out at the middle of the intersection of the streets-Allen and Fourth Streets. I only saw Virgil Earp and Doc Holliday in the middle of the streets, between Smith’s Corner and Hafford’s.

Virgil Earp had a shotgun, with the muzzle touching the doorsill, down by the side. I did not see any arms on the others at the time. I left Hafford’s  Comer and walked down on the east side of Fourth Street and crossed over to the southwest comer of Fremont and Fourth where I met Frank McLaury holding a horse and talking to someone? I greeted him and said to him. . . [Defense makes objection to any conversation of Frank McLaury being related. Overruled] I told McLaury I would have to disarm him; that there was likely to be some trouble and I proposed to disarm everybody having arms. He said that he would not give up his guns; that he did not intend to have any trouble. I told him he would have to give [up] his gun all the same, or his pistol. [The following two lines were illegible in the hand-written original.] About that time I saw Ike Clanton and Tom McLaury down below Fly’s building. I said to Frank McLaury, “Come along with me.” We went to where Ike Clanton and Tom McLaury were standing. I said to them, “Boys, you must give up your arms.” [Defense objects. Overruled.]

When I arrived there, I found Ike Clanton, Tom McLaury, William Clanton, and William Claiborne there. Frank McLaury went along with me. I said to the boys, “You have got to give up your arms.” Frank McLaury demurred. He did not seem inclined at first to be disarmed. Ike Clanton told me that he had nothing, that he was not armed. I put my arm around his waist to see if he was. I found that he was not. Tom McLaury showed me by pulling his coat open that he was not armed. I saw five standing there. I asked them how many there were of their party. They said, “Four.” Claiborne said he was not one of the party that he was there wanting them to leave town. I then said, “Boys, you must go up to the Sheriff’s Office and layoff your arms, and stay there until I get back.” I told them I was going to disarm the other party.

At that time I saw [the] Earps and Holliday coming down the sidewalk on the south side of Fremont Street. They were between the Post Office and Bauer’s Butcher Shop. I mean Morgan Earp, Wyatt Earp, Virgil Earp, and Doc Holliday. I said to the Clanton party, “Wait here. I see them coming down. I will go up and stop them.” I walked up the street about 22 or 23 steps. I met them at Bauer’s Butcher Shop, and told them not to go any further, that I was down there for the purpose of disarming the Clantons and McLaurys. They wouldn’t heed me, paid no attention. And I said, “Gentleman, I am Sheriff of this County, and I am not going to allow any trouble if I can help it.” They brushed past me. I turned and went with them. I was probably a step or two in the rear as we went down the street. I was expostulating with them all this time.

When they arrived within a very few feet of the Clan tons and McLaurys I heard one of them say-I think it was Wyatt Earp-“You sons of-bitches, you have been looking for a fight, and now you can have it!” Also, about this time I heard a voice say, “Throw up your hands!”

During this time, pistols were pointed. I saw a nickel-plated pistol in particular [which] was pointed at one of the party. I think at Billy Clanton. My impression at the time was that Holliday had the nickel plated pistol. I will not say for certain that Holliday had it. These pistols I speak of were in the hands of the Earp party.

When the order was [given] to “Throw up your hands!” I heard Billy Clanton say, “Don’t shoot me. I don’t want to fight!” Tom McLaury at the same time threw open his coat and said, “I have nothing,” or “I’m not armed,” or something like that. He made the same remark and the same gesture he made to me when he showed me he was not armed, by catching hold of his coat on both sides and throwing it out that way [illustrating]. When Billy Clanton made the remark about not wanting to fight, I did not see the position of his hands. My attention was directed to the nickel-plated pistol for a couple of seconds. The nickel-plated pistol was the first to fire, and instantaneously a second shot3-two shots right to­gether simultaneously-these two shots couldn’t have been from the same pistol-they were too near together. The nickel-plated pistol was fired by the second man from the right; the third man from the right fired the second shot, if it can be called a second shot. Then the fight became general. After the first two shots, there were two or three shots fired very rapidly-I couldn’t tell by whom. The first two shots were fired by the Earp party. I can’t swear by whom the shots immediately after the first two shots were fired. My impression at the time was that the next three shots came from the same side as the first two shots-that is, the Earp party. [Defense counsel objects to witness stating his impressions. [Overruled] This was my impression at the time, from being on the ground and seeing it.

After the remark, “Throw up your hands!” was made; the nickel plated pistol went off. I think it was V. [Virgil] W. Earp who said, “Throw up your hands!” There was a good deal of fighting and shooting going on. The next [a few words here are illegible] that I saw, Frank McLaury [was] staggering on the street, with one hand to [his] belly and his pistol in his right. I saw him shoot at Morgan Earp, and from the direction of the pistol, I should say he hit the ground. Frank McLaury shot twice towards Fly’s building, and [as] he started across the street, he was shooting at Morgan Earp at the time. I heard a couple of shots from that direction. I didn’t see him after he got about halfway across the street. My attention was directed in another direction. I looked then in that direction and saw Frank McLaury running and a shot was fired and he fell on his head, and I heard Morgan Earp say, “I got him!”

That’s about the end of the fight. There might have been a couple of shots afterwards, but I don’t remember. I can’t say that I saw the effect of the first two shots. The only parties I saw fall in the fight were Morgan Earp and Frank McLaury. I saw Morgan Earp fall and recover himself. I did not see any movement of any person that indicated any effect from the first two shots. I didn’t notice any indication [illegible].

The first man I was satisfied was hit was Frank McLaury. I saw him staggering and bewildered and I knew he was hit. This was shortly after the first five shots. I never saw any arms in the hands of anyone of the McLaury party, excepting Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton. I saw Frank McLaury on the sidewalk, within a very few feet of the lil1e of the fronts of the lots opposite the vacant lot between Fly’s building and the boarding house below it.

I suppose there was as many as eight or ten shots before I saw arms in the hands of any of the McLaury or Clanton party. Frank McLaury is the first man of that party in whose hands I saw a pistol. Ike Clanton broke and run after the first five shots were fired. I saw him at the back corner of Fly’s house, the last I saw of him there. I should judge he ran into an addition on the back of Fly’s building.

[COURT ADJOURNED UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING AT 9 O’CLOCK]

[EXAMINATION OF JOHN H. BEHAN RESUMED]

 
I couldn’t tell where he [Ike Clanton] was going to. I found him on Toughnut Street, at Judge Lucas’ old office. I saw him at the comer of the Photograph Gallery. I never saw him after he passed the comer of the gallery. He seemed to be trying to get away. I should judge he went through the house. I saw a shotgun before the fight commenced. Doc Holliday had it. He had it under his coat. I do not know of my knowledge that it was fired, as I did not see it go off. I could not distinguish it from the other shots. I did not notice it afterward. I do not know what became of it. I saw the bodies of the deceased after they were dead. Clanton was not quite dead. I saw Clanton lying on the sidewalk. I heard him say, “Go away and let me die.” He said it after being taken in the house. I saw him lying on the sidewalk, and I saw him when he shot at Morgan Earp, while lying down. Quite a number was in the room. I do not know who they were. I saw Dr. Giberson in the room. He said nothing would do him, Clanton, any good he was dying. I was not in the house when he died. I left before he died. Tom McLaury was in the same room. Clanton’s feet were toward the door. I do not remember McLaury’s position.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

(Q) Did you receive the first information of the anticipated difficulty between the Earp party and the Clanton party at the barber shop, of which you have spoken?

(A) My recollection is that I heard of it first in the barber shop.

(Q) Had you previous to that time heard of a difficulty between Wyatt Earp and Tom McLaury in the neighborhood of Wallace’s office?

(A) I had not.

(Q) You being in town and assumedly mingling with the people, if those difficulties were a matter of common comment, how did it happen that a report of it did not reach you? [Objected to by Prosecution. Sustained.]

(Q) Were you not in Hafford’s Saloon some 15 or 20 minutes before the fight?

(A) I was in Hafford’s Saloon some 10 or 15 minutes before the fight.

(Q) Did you not cross the street in company with one Shibell?

(A) I did, with Charles A. Shibell.

(Q) Did you see Virgil Earp?

(A) I do not remember whether I did or not.

(Q) Did you not say to Virgil Earp at the time, “We are going to take a drink. Won’t you join us?”

(A) I do not remember whether he took a drink or not.

(Q) Do you not remember that while the parties were drinking, that Captain Murray came in and called Virgil Earp to the lower end of the counter?

(A) I do not remember.

(Q) Do you remember that when Virgil Earp came back from Murray’s to where you were standing, you said to him: “What does that son-of-a-bitch stranger want?”

(A) I do not remember, and I do not think such words passed my lips as Captain Murray and I are on the best of terms.

(Q) Do you remember that you then asked Virgil Earp what he was going to do?

(A) No, I do not.

(Q) Do you recollect Virgil Earp replying: “I am going to disarm them.”?

(A) No.

(Q) Do you recollect replying to that remark: “Don’t undertake to do that,” or: “They will kill you”-referring to the Clanton crowd. “They were just down in my corral having a gun talk against you and threatening your life?”

(A) No such conversation happened. I made no such reply. I had not been down in my corral.

(Q) Do you recollect further saying: “I will go down where they are; they won’t hurt me, and I will get them to layoff their arms”-this was said to Virgil Earp?

(A) This conversation did not take place at that time.

(Q) Did you, subsequent to the fight, somewhere in the city of Tombstone, and upon the day of the fight and speaking of the fight between the Earp crowd and the Clanton crowd, say to Charles Shibell that it was a dead square fight and that you could not tell who shot first?

(A) No sir.

(Q) Did you not make that remark, or [one] of similar import to Wyatt Earp after the fight, on the comer of Fremont and Fomth Streets, and upon the day of the fight?

(A) No sir.

(Q) If anything, how much have you contributed or have promised to contribute to the associated attorneys who are now prosecuting this case?

(A) I have not contributed a cent, nor have I promised to.

(Q) Were not you and Wyatt Earp applicants to General Fremont for the appointment of Sheriff of Cochise County, and did not Wyatt Earp withdraw his application upon your promise to divide the profits of the office and did not you subsequently refuse to comply with your part of the contract? [Objected to by the Prosecution. Overruled.]

(A) In the first place we were both applicants for the office. I was, and I understood Mr. Earp was. When I became satisfied that I would get the appointment, I went to Mr. Earp and told him that I knew I would get the appointment of Sheriff, and that I would like to have him in the office with me. I also told him that I did not want him to cease his efforts to get the office if he could. I told him I was sure I could get it and that if I did, I would take him in, that in case he got the office, I did not want anything to do with it. He said it was very kind of me, that if he got the office he had his brothers to provide for, and could not return the compliment if he got it. I said I asked nothing if he got it, but in case I got it, and I was certain of it, I would like to have him in the office with me. I said, “Let this talk make no difference with you in your efforts to get the office.” Something afterwards transpired that I did not take him into the office.

(Q) Up to the time of this difficulty under consideration, have you not regarded Wyatt Earp as an aspirant for the office of Sheriff of Cochise County?

(A) I have not.

(Q) [Question not written.]

(A) I did not see anyone take a pistol from William Clanton.

(Q) After the fight was over, how soon did you leave the battleground and where did you go?

(A) I cannot say how long; probably four or five minutes. I came up Fremont Street, thence to Hafford’s Corner.

(Q) Did you meet Wyatt Earp at the corner of Fremont and Fourth Streets?

(A) I did. 

(Q) Did you have any conversation with him?

(A) We had some conversation.

(Q) After the fight, were you upon the stoop in the passageway between the lodging house and the photograph gallery, and how long?

(A) I was on the stoop a very [few] seconds after the fight.

(Q) Did you not at the time suppose that you were [the] only, or about the only witness, outside of the parties concerned in the difficulty, who witnessed the difficulty? [Objected to on the ground that it is irrelevant and immaterial. Objection sustained. ]

(Q) Did you not, at the time and place, say to one of the Fly’s: “I’m about the only witness to that fight, am I not?”

(A) I don’t remember. I told him I saw it all. He was trying to get Claiborne out of the house. I told him to let him stay, as he was not to blame and might get killed.

(Q) After you followed or accompanied the Earps from under the awning of the butcher shop, and the fight commenced, did you occupy one position until the shooting ceased?

(A)No sir, I did not stand still. I moved around pretty lively.

(Q) When you heard the expression: “You sons-of-bitches, etc., hold up your hands, etc.” locate on this diagram [diagram shown] the exact position of the Clanton crowd.

(A)[Here witness makes use of diagram marked “Exhibit A,” and the witness indicates the position of the parties as follows: 1.Frank McLaury; 2. Billy Clanton; 3. Thomas McLaury; 4. Ike Clanton.] Claiborne was standing back of them, farther into the lot. I cannot state exactly where. The four numbered were not standing in as straight a row as the figures on the diagram. [Here witness corrects the positions.]

(Q) How long was it after the expressions of, “You sons-of-bitches, etc.,” and “throw up your hands!” was it that the firing commenced?

(A) I don’t think it was more than a second interval.

(Q) What interval of time between the expression, “You sons-of-bitches,” and “Throw up your hands!”?

(A) One expression followed the other-it was almost simultaneous.

(Q) At the time of those two expressions, I understand you to say you had your eye on a nickel-plated pistol. Did you see the nickel-plated pistol before you heard the expressions?

(A) I saw the nickel-plated pistol at the same time the expressions were made.

(Q) Did you see it in any interval before the expressions were made?

(A) I saw it at the same time.

(Q) Was it pointed, the first time you saw it?

(A) Yes, it was pointed at Billy Clanton.

(Q) Was it the commencement of the expressions, “You sons-of-bitches, etc.,” that diverted your attention from the Clanton crowd and concentrated it upon the Earp crowd?

(A) My attention was on the Earp crowd.

(Q) How long had your attention been especially on the Earp crowd?

(A) From the time I turned to go with them.

(Q) Did you see a shotgun in the hands of the Earp party, and if so, which one of them?

(A) The last time I saw the shotgun [it] was in the hands of Doc Holliday-he had it under his coat.

(Q) Did you see the shotgun employed in that difficulty?

(A) I did not.

(Q) Holliday having a shotgun just preceding the difficulty, and on the way to the difficulty, and your attention being especially directed to the Earp party, how does it happen that you do not know what became of the shotgun?

(A) I do not know-it might have been used and I not know of it.

(Q) Locate Holliday at the time, as you say, you think he discharged the nickel-plated pistol.

(A) [Witness marks on the diagram marked “Exhibit A”, by the figure 5, the position occupied by Holliday at the time he thinks Holli­day fired the shot.

(Q) And at what distance from the nearest of the Clanton Party?

(A) About five and a half or six feet, I should judge.

(Q) Do you still insist that the first shot was fired from the nickel plated pistol?

(A) Yes.

(Q) Is it not a fact that at the time of the firing of the first shot, Holliday was in the street, at least 25 feet from where you have located the Clanton crowd?

(A) No, it is was not.

(Q) Is it not a fact that the first shot fired by Holliday was from a shotgun; that he then threw the shotgun down and drew the nickel-plated pistol from his person and then discharged the nickel-plated pistol: Pre­suming Holliday to be number 5 on the diagram, is it not a fact that he fired the shotgun first

(A) [Question not answered.]

[COURT HERE RECESSES UNTIL 1 O’CLOCK] [HEARING RESUMED]

(Q) Had not the Clanton party, meaning the parties named as engaged in the conflict, a reputation for courage and determination?

[Objection by the Prosecution. Overruled.]

(A) They have that reputation. That is Frank McLaury and Ike Clanton-I never heard the reputation of the other two discussed.

(Q) Have not the Earp party the same reputation as to courage and determination?

(A) They have.

(Q) With your knowledge of the character of the two parties, were you not satisfied after the first hostile demonstration that the contact would proceed to a bitter end, and beyond the power of ordinary or extraordinary interference?

[Question objected to. Question overruled on the ground that it is mere opinion of the witness, upon the acts, that he has already related, and as being such opinion, is immaterial and irrelevant.]

(Q) With Allen fleeing into an alleyway, Claiborne, or the Kid, hiding in the photograph gallery, [and] Ike Clanton running away, why did you hover around there, exposing your person and life?

[Question overruled in its present form.]

(Q) What was the exterior dress of Doc Holliday at the time you saw him with a shotgun?

(A) He had on a heavy overcoat of gray color which came below his knees.

(Q) Did he change the overcoat from the time you first saw him until you think he discharged the nickel-plated pistol?

(A) I don’t think he changed it. He did not have time.

(Q) Did any other of the Earp party have a similar garment on?

(A) I think not.

(Q) What space of time was occupied between the first and last shot?

(A) I don’t think the fight lasted over 20 or 30 seconds.

(Q) Were you satisfied when you put your arm around the waist of Ike Clanton, Tom McLaury threw the lapels of his coat aside, and Billy Clanton said he did not want to fight, that these parties had no arms?

(A) When I left the Clanton party to meet the Earps, I was satisfied that Ike Clanton and Tom McLaury had no arms on them.

(Q) Could they not have had arms and you not know it?

(A) Ike Clanton could not without my knowing it. Tom McLaury might have had a pistol and I not know it.

(Q) As you examined him simply around the waist, could he not have had a pistol in his pocket?

(A) He could not have had a pistol in his pocket, as I examined him very closely with my eye.

(Q) Did you see a horse in that neighborhood?

(A) Yes sir.

(Q) Where exactly-noted on the diagram.

(A) I cannot designate precisely on the diagram where the horse was.

(Q) At what time connected with the hostilities did you see Frank McLaury hold that horse?

(A) He had hold of the horse when the Earp party first went down there.

(Q) What became of the horse when Frank McLaury occupied the position designated on the diagram as Figure I7?

(A) As long as I saw him occupy that position, he was holding the horse.

(Q) Then was the horse inside or outside the vacant lot?

(A) Inside the vacant lot.

(Q) How long before the difficulty did you see the horse in that position?

(A) They were occupying that position when I left to meet the Earp party and walked 21 or 22 steps and back, and the party all seemed to be in the same position.

(Q) Where was the horse immediately previous to and during the shooting?

(A) At the beginning of the shooting he was occupying that position.

(Q) Did the horse intervene between the Clanton party and Doc Holliday?

(A) I think not. It is possible that Frank McLaury may have stepped back behind the horse.

(Q) Did you see Tom McLaury discharge one or more pistol shots toward the Earp party-or, in other words, did you see Tom McLaury shoot over the horse’s back?

(A) No sir.

(Q) Did you see or hear any evidence of a shot proceeding from the alleyway between Fly’s house and the building east of it?

(A) No.

(Q) Did you not know that Tom McLaury shot Morgan over the horse’s back?

(A) No.

(Q) Have you ever heard any threats within the last few months on the part of the Clan tons and McLaurys against the defendants in this prosecution?

(A) I never heard any threats at any time.

(Q) Once or twice in your direct examination, you spoke of cowboys. What is a cowboy?

(A) My idea of a cowboy is men who deal in cattle Stockmen.

(Q) Do you regard the Clantons and McLaurys as cowboys?

[Question overruled on the ground that it is eliciting the opinion of the witness and is immaterial and irrelevant.]

(Q) Do you know the reputation of the Clantons and McLaurys in the section of the county in which they live and roam for turbulence? [Objected to on the ground that it is not cross-examination and is immaterial. Answer delayed. Objection sustained on the ground that it is not cross-examination and is immaterial.]

(Q) Have not the disturbances and main difficulties, breaches of the peace, and killings in this city and county been, in your opinion and knowledge, or either, connected with Clan tons or their confederates? [Prosecution objects on the same grounds as above. Overruled.]

(A) I never knew the McLaurys to be in any trouble or rows. Ike Clanton I have seen in one row here, and Billy Clanton I know nothing about.

(Q) Do you know William Allen?

(A) Yes sir.

(Q) Did you see him that day at or near the difficulty or shooting, at or near the time of said shooting?

(A) I don’t remember seeing him there.

(Q) Were you, during the time of the shooting, in the alleyway between Fly’s Gallery and the building on the east?

(A) I was not in any alleyway during the progress of the fight. (Q) When you left the Clanton party, as you stated, and ascended Fremont Street to meet the Earps, did you not say, addressing Wyatt Earp and Morgan Earp: “I have got them disarmed.” Or words to that effect?

(A) No sir.

(Q) Did not the Earp party, after some remark made by you to them, put their pistols farther back in their pants and did not Holliday pull his coat over his gun?

(A) No sir. Holliday pulled his coat over his gun before I spoke to him.

(Q) Have you, since the difficulty, had any interview with William Allen, to compare your recollections with him in regard to the difficulty?

(A) I had no interview with Allen about the matter; have met him and talked about it on the street. [Verbatim as in original.]

(Q) During the progress of the fight, did you see Ike Clanton take hold of Wyatt Earp’s left arm and hear Wyatt Earp say to him, “This fight has commenced either fight or get away!”?

(A) No sir.

(Q) Indicate on the diagram the position of the Earp party at the time of the firing of the first shot.

(A) I can locate the party but cannot give the position of each particular one [here witness marks on diagram “A”]. [The figures] 6, 7, and 8 represent three of the Earp party, and number 5 represents the one with the nickel-plated pistol. The Earp party was facing the Clanton party.

(Q) To the best of your belief, how far apart were the two parties?

(A) About five and a half or six feet; very close together.

(Q) Which represents [number] 8, to the best of your knowledge?

(A) I can’t tell exactly; my impression is that number 8 represents Virgil Earp.

(Q) What party is number 7, to the best of your knowledge?

(A) I don’t know.

(Q) Mark the position of the horse as number 9.

(A) Number 1, Frank McLaury was holding the horse. I cannot designate on the diagram the position of the horse, for I have forgotton; there may have been two horses there for all I know.

(Q) If one or two horses, were they inside of the vacant lot?

(A) They were inside of the vacant lot.
 

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

 (Q) When you first saw the Clanton and McLaurys on the day of the difficulty were they, or either of them, making any noise or disturbance?

(A) No sir. They were not.

(Q) When you saw the Earp party going down Fremont Street towards the Clanton party, what noise or disturbance were they making, if any?

(A) They were making no noise or disturbance.

(Q) Did you personally know Billy Clanton, and if so, how long, and about how old was he, if you knew him?

(A) I knew him, have known him about three or four months. He was a boy; I should not take him to be of age.

(Q) During the time you knew him; did you know or hear of his being in any difficulty?

(A) I never knew or heard of his being in any rows. I knew very little about him.

(Q) In your cross-examination you state that Isaac Clanton had been in some difficulties. Please state the number, with whom, and where, and when.

(A) The only difficulty that I know of his being in, was with Danny McCann, in Tombstone, about a month or two ago.

(Q) In your cross-examination you were asked if you know of Isaac Clanton being in any difficulties, please state if you heard of his being in any difficulties; if so, with whom, and where?

(A) I heard he had a difficulty with the Deputy Sheriff at Charleston some months ago, and then again I heard he had some trouble with Holliday the night before the shooting. I can’t call to mind any other.

(Q) Did you hear of any difficulty on the morning of the 26th of October?

(A) I heard of a difficulty on the morning of the 26th, with Morgan and Virgil Earp.

[COURT ADJOURNED UNTIL FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1881, AT 9 O’CLOCK A.M.]
[FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1881, EXAMINATION RESUMED]

[On motion of L. [yttleton] Price, District Attorney, W. R. McLaury was admitted as associate counsel on the party of the prosecution.]

[All answers of witness Behan touching [the] character of the deceased were stricken out, on the ground that they were not proper matters of cross-examination.] [The following question [was] asked witness Behan by the defense, by consent.]

(Q) Did you visit Virgil Earp at his residence the evening after the fight?

(A) I did.

(Q) Did not some discussion ensue between you and Virgil Earp about the fight?

(A) There was some.

(Q) Did you not make use of this language: “I went to see the Clanton crowd and told them to disarm? They would not do it. I went back and met you and spoke to you and you did not stop. I heard you say, ‘Boys, throw up your hands, I have come to disarm you.’ When one of the McLaury boys said, ‘We will,’ and drew his gun, and the shooting com­menced. I am your friend, and you did perfectly right. “Or language of such substance or like import.

(A) I went down that evening and when I got in the house, Virgil Earp said, “You better go slow, Behan, and not push this matter too far.” I told him I did not come there to have any words-which I intended to do my duty as an officer. Then he said he heard I tried to get the vigilance committee to hang them. I told him I did nothing of the kind that I never called for them. He said about the same thing that Wyatt Earp did, about me deceiving them or throwing them off. Then is when I explained to him about stopping him and telling them to stop. In the conversation he told me he was my friend. I told him I had always been his friend. That seemed to settle the matter about the vigilance committee. I suppose I told him that I heard him say, “Throw up your hands!” I never told him I heard McLaury say anything or that I saw him draw a pistol.

 RE-EXAMINATION

 (Q) On your cross-examination you stated that you promised Wyatt Earp a position in your office, and that something subsequently occurred that caused you not to do it. Please state what that something was.

(A) It was this: Shortly after I had the conversation with Wyatt Earp, I received a telegram from Charles A. Shibell, Sheriff of Pima County to subpoena Ike Clanton. I was Deputy Sheriff [in Tombstone, before Cochise County was formed] under Shibell. I didn’t know where Clanton lived at the time. I went to Virgil Earp and asked him. He told me where [Ike] lived. I hitched up a team and started to Charleston. I had gotten about halfway to Charleston, and a man dashed by me on horseback, on the run; and about five minutes afterwards another passed me on the run. I got to Charleston and found a man going out to Clanton’s place. I gave him the dispatch and told him to hand it to Ike Clanton, and stayed around Charleston an hour or so and met Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday. I think I asked them what they were doing or what they were on. Wyatt Earp told me he was down after a horse that had been stolen from him sometime before.

Nothing more was said and I returned to Tombstone. I went over to Tucson a few days afterwards and was told by Clanton that I came near getting myself in a hell of a scrape-[Defense counsel objects to the witness testifying to verbal statements of Clanton not connected [with] or a part of the circumstances of the homicide. Objection overruled and objected to.] He, Ike, said Earp sent him word that I had taken a posse of nine men down there to arrest him and send him to Tucson, and then he told me he had armed his crowd and was not going to stand it, and they got out [a word here is illegible] guns and was not going to Tucson.

(Q) Who was the first and the second man that passed you on the [Charleston] road of whom you spoke?

(A) It was dark, and my impression was that it was Virgil Earp, I did not know, but thought it his form, and the next [man] I thought was Holliday. When I got to Charleston, I saw Wyatt Earp instead of Virgil, and concluded I had made a mistake.

(Q) Who was with you, if any person?

(A) Les Blackburn and a man named Laurence Geary.

(Q) Who did you send the dispatch by, from Charleston to Ike Clanton?

(A) I think by a man named Oates.

(Q) Can you tell anywhere near about the time of month it was, or what case the subpoena was in?

(A) No, I cannot tell the time; [it was] in [the] case of Paul vs. Shibell.

(Q) Was there any conversation between you and Wyatt Earp immediately after the difficulty as to your deceiving him about the McLaurys and Clantons being armed, and if so, what was the conversation?

(A) There was a conversation on Fremont Street near the Butcher Shop on the sidewalk. Wyatt Earp said, “Behan, you deceived me,” or, “threw me off. You said you had disarmed them.” I told him he was mistaken, I did not say anything of the kind. Then I related to him what I had said. I said, “Earp, I told you I was there for the purpose of arresting and disarming them.” He said he thought I had said I had disarmed them.

(Q) What was the distance you were from the Clanton and McLaury party, and how near the Earp party when you told the Earps to stop, and that you were there for the purpose of disarming and arresting the Clanton party?

(A) I was within 9 or 10 feet of the Earp party when I commanded them to stop, and about 19 or 20 yards from the Clantons and McLaurys.

(Q) Where did this difficulty occur?

(A) In Tombstone, Cochise County, Arizona Territory.

(Q) [No written question appears.]

(A) The [man] named, spoken of as Captain Murray is known as Billy Murray and is a partner of F. A. Tritle.

(Q) At the time you demanded [his arms] of Frank McLaury, at the comer of Fremont and Fourth Streets, and he demurred to giving them up, was the demurrer a conditional one or an absolute refusal?

(A) He did not want to give up his arms unless the other party was disarmed.

[The defendants reserved the right to further cross-examine the witness after they opened their case for the defense.]

References

• Arizona Memory Project
• University of Missouri

The Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, one of the most famous shootouts in the American Old West, took place on October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, Arizona Territory. The confrontation involved lawmen Virgil, Wyatt, and Morgan Earp, along with Doc Holliday, against the outlaw Cochise County Cowboys, including Ike and Billy Clanton, Tom McLaury, and Frank McLaury. Tensions had been building for months between the Earps and the Cowboys, stemming from political differences, law enforcement disputes, and personal grudges. The actual gunfight lasted only about 30 seconds, with the Earps and Holliday emerging victorious, killing Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton.

Although the gunfight was relatively brief and took place in a small alley near the O.K. Corral, its impact on American folklore and the mythos of the Wild West has been significant. The shootout was later romanticized in literature, film, and popular culture, often portraying the Earps and Holliday as heroic figures standing up against lawlessness. However, the events leading up to and following the gunfight were complex, involving legal battles, public opinion, and ongoing violence, reflecting the broader conflicts of power and law in the tumultuous frontier society.

The following a transcript of Judge Wells Spicer after the Preliminary Hearing in the Earp-Holliday Case

Territory of Arizona
VS.
Morgan Earp, et al Defendants

Defendants Wyatt Earp and John Holliday, two of the defendants named in the above entitled action were arrested upon a warrant issued by me on the 29th day of October, on a charge of murder. The complaint filed, upon which this warrant was issued, accuses said defendants of the murder of William Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Thomas McLaury on the 26th day of last month, at Tombstone, in this County. This case has now been on hearing for the past thirty days, during which time a volume of testimony has been taken and eminent legal talent employed on both sides.

The great importance of the case, as well as the great interest taken in it by the entire community, demand that I should be full and explicit in my findings and conclusions and should give ample reasons for what I do.

From the mass of evidence before-much of which is upon collateral matter-I have found it necessary for the purposes of this decision to consider only those facts which are conceded by both sides or are established by a large preponderance of testimony.

Viewing it in this manner, I find that on the morning of the 26th day of October, 1881, and up to noon of that day, Joseph I. Clanton or Isaac Clanton, the prosecuting witness in this case, was about the streets and in several saloons of Tombstone, armed with revolver and Winchester rifle, declaring publicly that the Earp brothers and Holliday had insulted him the night before when he was unarmed, and now he was armed and intended to shoot them or fight them on sight. These threats were communicated to defendants, Virgil Earp and Wyatt Earp.

Virgil Earp was at this time the chief of police of Tombstone and charged as such officer by the city ordinance with the duty of preserving the peace, and arresting, with or without warrant, all persons engaged in any disorderly act, whereby a breach of the peace might be occasioned, and to arrest and disarm all persons violating the city ordinance which declares it to be unlawful to carry on the person any deadly weapon within the city limits, without obtaining a permit in writing.

Shortly after noon of October 26th, defendant Virgil Earp, as chief of police, assisted by Morgan Earp, who was also at the time a special policeman in the pay of the city and wearing a badge, arrested and disarmed said Isaac Clanton, and in such arrest and disarmament, inflicted upon the side of his head a blow from a pistol-whether this blow was necessary is not material here to determine.

Isaac Clanton was then taken to Justice or Recorder Wallace, where he was fined and his arms, consisting of a revolver and Winchester rifle, taken from him and deposited at the Grand Hotel, subject to his orders.

While at Justice Wallace’s court and awaiting the coming of Judge Wallace, some hot words passed between Isaac Clanton and Wyatt Earp. Earp accused Clanton of having previously threatened to take his life, and then proposed to make a fight with him anywhere, to which Isaac Clanton assented, and then declared that “Fight was his racket,” and that when he was arrested and disarmed, if Earp had been a second later, “there would have been a coroner’s inquest in town.”

Immediately subsequent to this, a difficulty occurred in front of Judge Wallace’s courtroom, between Wyatt Earp and the deceased Thomas McLaury, in which the latter was struck by the former with a pistol and knocked down.

In view of these controversies between Wyatt Earp and Isaac Clanton and Thomas McLaury, and in further view of this quarrel the night before between Isaac Clanton and J. H. Holliday, I am of the opinion that the defendant, Virgil Earp, as chief of police, subsequently calling upon Wyatt Earp, and J. H. Holliday to assist him in arresting and disarming the Clantons and McLaurys-committed an injudicious and censurable act, and although in this he acted incautiously and without due circumspection, yet when we consider the conditions of affairs incident to a frontier country; the lawlessness and disregard for human life; the existence of a law-defying element in [our] midst; the fear and feeling of insecurity that has existed; the supposed prevalence of bad, desperate and reckless men who have been a terror to the country and kept away capital and enterprise; and consider the many threats that have been made against the Earps, I can attach no criminality to his unwise act. In fact, as the result plainly proves, he needed the assistance and support of staunch and true friends, upon whose courage, coolness and fidelity he could depend, in case of an emergency.

Soon after the conclusion of proceedings at Judge Wallace’s court, Isaac Clanton and Thomas McLaury were joined by William Clanton and Frank McLaury, who had arrived in town. In the afternoon these parties went to [the] gun shop, where they were seen loading their guns and obtaining cartridges. These proceedings were seen by Wyatt Earp, who reported the same to Virgil Earp, chief of police, said Wyatt Earp at the time being a sworn policeman.

After this, the Clantons and McLaurys went to the Dexter Stables, on Allen Street, and shortly after, crossed the street to the O.K. Corral and passed through to Fremont Street. With what purpose they crossed through to Fremont Street will probably never be known. It is claimed by the prosecution that their purpose was to leave town. It is asserted by the defendants that their purpose was to make an attack upon them or at least to feloniously resist any attempt to arrest or disarm them that might be made by the chief of police and his assistants.

Whatever their purpose may have been, it is clear to my mind that Virgil Earp, the chief of police, honestly believed [and from information of threats that day given him, his belief was reasonable], that their purpose was, if not to attempt the deaths of himself and brothers, at least to resist with force and arms any attempt on his part to perform his duty as a peace officer by arresting and disarming them.

At this time Virgil Earp was informed by one H. F. Sills, an engineer from the A. T. & S. F. R. R., then absent from duty, on a lay-off furlough, and who had arrived in town only the day before and totally unacquainted [with] any person in town, or the state of affairs existing here. Sills had overheard armed parties just then passing through the O.K. Corral say, in effect, that they would make sure to kill Earp, the marshal, and would kill all the Earp.

At the same time, several citizens and a committee of citizens came to Virgil Earp, the chief of police, and insisted that he should perform his duty as such officer and arrest and disarm the cowboys, as they termed the Clan tons and McLaurys.

Was it for Virgil Earp as chief of police to abandon his clear duty as an officer because its performance was likely to be fraught with danger? Or was it not his duty that as such officer he owed to the peaceable and law-abiding citizens of the city, who looked to him to preserve peace and order, and their protection and security, to at once call to his aid sufficient assistance and persons to arrest and disarm these men?

There can be but one answer to these questions, and that answer is such as will divest the subsequent approach of the defendants toward the deceased of all presumption of malice or of illegality.

When, therefore, the defendants, regularly or specially appointed officers, marched down Fremont Street to the scene of the subsequent homicide, they were going where it was their right and duty to go; and they were doing what it was their right and duty to do; and they were armed, as it was their right and duty to be armed, when approaching men they believed to be armed and contemplating resistance.

The legal character of the homicide must therefore be determined by what occurred at the time and not by the precedent facts. To consti­tute the crime of murder there must be proven not only the killing, but also the felonious intent. In this case, the corpus delicti or fact of killing is in fact admitted as well as clearly proven. The felonious intent is as much a fact to be proven as the corpus delicti, and in looking over this mass of testimony for evidence upon this point, I find that it is anything but clear.

Witnesses of credibility testify that each of the deceased or at least two of them yielded to a demand to surrender. Other witnesses of equal credibility testify that William Clanton and Frank McLaury met the demand for surrender by drawing their pistols, and that the discharge of firearms from both sides was almost instantaneous.

There is a dispute as to whether Thomas McLaury was armed at all, except with a Winchester rifle that was on the horse beside him. I will not consider this question, because it is not of controlling importance. Certain it is that the Clantons and McLaurys had among them at least two six-shooters in their hands, and two Winchester rifles on their horses. Therefore, if Thomas McLaury was one of a party who were thus armed and were making felonious resistance to an arrest, and in the melee that followed was shot, the fact of his being unarmed, if it be a fact, could not of itself criminate the defendants, if they were not otherwise criminated.

It is beyond doubt that William Clanton and Frank McLaury were armed, and made such quick and effective use of their arms as to seriously wound Morgan Earp and Virgil Earp.

In determining the important question of whether the deceased offered to surrender before resisting, I must give as much weight to the testimony of persons unacquainted with the deceased or the defendants, as to the testimony of persons who were companions and acquaintances, if not partisans of the deceased. And I am of [the] opinion that those who observed the conflict from a short distance and from points of observation that gave them a good view of the scene, to say the least, were quite as likely to be accurate in their observation as those mingled up in or fleeing from the melee.

Witnesses for the prosecution state unequivocally that William Clanton fell or was shot at the first fire and Claiborne says he was shot when the pistol was only about a foot from his belly. Yet it is clear that there were no powder burns or marks on his clothes. And Judge Lucas says he saw him fire or in the act of firing several times before he was shot, and he thinks two shots afterwards.

Addie Bourland, who saw distinctly the approach of the Earps and the beginning of the affray, from a point across the street, where she could correctly observe all their movements, says she cannot tell which fired first-that the firing commenced at once, from both sides, on the approach of the Earps, and that no hands were held up; that she could have seen them if there had been. Sills asserted that the firing was almost simultan­eous. I could not tell which side fired first.

Considering all the testimony together, I am of the opinion that the weight of evidence sustains and corroborates the testimony of Wyatt Earp, that their demand for surrender was met by William Clanton and Frank McLaury drawing or making motions to draw their pistols. Upon this hypothesis my duty is clear. The defendants were officers charged with the duty of arresting and disarming armed and determined men who were expert in the use of firearms, as quick as thought and as certain as death and who had previously declared their intention not to be arrested nor disarmed. Under the statutes [Sec. 32, page 74 of Compo Laws], as well as the common law, they have a right to repel force with force.

In coming to this conclusion, I give great weight to several particular circumstances connected with [the] affray. It is claimed by the prosecution that the deceased were shot while holding up their hands in obedience of the command of the chief of police, and on the other hand the defense claims that William Clanton and Frank McLaury at once drew their pistols and began firing simultaneously with [the] defendants. Wil­liam Clanton was wounded on the wrist of the right hand on the first fire and thereafter used his pistol with his left. This wound is such as could not have been received with his hands thrown up, and the wound received by Thomas McLaury was such as could not have been received with his hands on his coat lapels. These circumstances being indubitable [indubitable] facts, throw great doubt upon the correctness of the statement of witnesses to the contrary.

The testimony of Isaac Clanton, that this tragedy was the result of a scheme on the part of the Earps to assassinate him and thereby bury in oblivion the confessions the Earps had made to him about “piping” away the shipment of coin by Wells Fargo & Co. falls short of being a sound theory, [on] account of the great fact, most prominent in this matter, to wit: that Isaac Clanton was not injured at all, and could have been killed first and easiest, if it was the object of the attack to kill him. He would have been the first to fall; but, as it was, he was known or believed to be unarmed, and was suffered and, as Wyatt Earp testified, told to go away, and was not harmed.

I also give great weight in this matter to the testimony of Sheriff Behan, who said that on one occasion a short time ago Isaac Clanton told him that he, Clanton, had been informed that the sheriff was coming to arrest him and that he, Clanton, armed his crowd with guns and was deter­mined not to be arrested by the sheriff-or words to that effect. And Sheriff Behan further testified that a few minutes before the Earps came to them, that he as sheriff had demanded of the Clan tons and McLaurys that they give up their arms, and that they “demurred,” as he said, and did not do it, and that Frank McLaury refused and gave as a reason that he was not ready to leave town just then and would not give up his arms unless the Earps were disarmed-that is, that the chief of police and his assistants should be disarmed.

In view of the past history of the county and the generally believed existence at this time of desperate, reckless and lawless men in our midst, banded together for mutual support and living by felonious and predatory pursuits, regarding neither life nor property in their career, and at the same time for men to parade the streets armed with repeating rifles and six-shooters and demand that the chief of police and his assistants should be disarmed is a proposition both monstrous and startling! This was said by one of the deceased only a few minutes before the arrival of the Earps.

Another fact that rises up preeminent in the consideration of this said affair is the leading fact that the deceased, from the very first inception of the encounter, were standing their ground and fighting back, giving and taking death with unflinching bravery. It does not appear to have been a wanton slaughter of unresisting and unarmed innocents, who were yielding graceful submission to the officers of the law, or surrendering to, or fleeing from their assailants; but armed and defiant men, accepting their wager of battle and succumbing only in death.

The prosecution claims much upon the point, as they allege, that the Earp party acted with criminal haste that they precipitated the triple homicide by a felonious intent then and there to kill and murder the deceased, and that they made use of their official characters as a pretext. I cannot believe this theory, and cannot resist the firm conviction that the Earps acted wisely, discretely and prudentially, to secure their own self preservation. They saw at once the dire necessity of giving the first shots, to save themselves from certain death! They acted. Their shots were effective, and this alone saved the Earp party from being slain.

In view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the threats made, the character and positions of the parties, and the tragic results accomplished in manner and form as they were, with all surrounding influences bearing upon resgestae of the affair, I cannot resist the conclusion that the defendants were fully justified in committing these homicides-that it is a necessary act, done in the discharge of an official duty.

It is the duty of an examining and committing magistrate in this territory to issue a warrant of arrest in the first place, whenever from the depositions given there is reasonable ground to believe that the defendant has committed a public offense [Sec. 87, page 111 of Compo Laws].

After hearing evidence, however, the statute changes the rule, and he is then required to commit the defendant only when there is “Sufficient cause to believe” him guilty. [Sec. 143, page 111 of Compo Laws].

My interpretation is that the rule which should govern an examin­ing magistrate is the same as that which should govern the conclusions of a Grand Jury. That such as prescribed by statute [Sec. 188, page 121 of Compo Laws] is: “The Grand Jury ought to find an indictment when all the evidence before them, taken together, is such as in their judgment will, if unexplained or uncontradicted, warrant a conviction by the trial jury.”

The evidence taken before me in this case, would not, in my judgment, warrant a conviction of the defendants by trial jury of any offense whatever. I do not believe that any trial jury that could be got together in this territory, would, on all the evidence taken before me, with the rule of law applicable thereto given them by the court, find the defendants guilty of any offense.

It may be that my judgment is erroneous, and my view of the law incorrect, yet it is my own judgment and my own understanding of the law as I find it laid down, and upon this I must act and decide, and not upon those of any other persons. I have given over four weeks of patient attention to the hearing of evidence in this case, and at least four-fifths of my waking hours have been devoted, at this time, to an earnest study of the evidence before me, and such is the conclusion to which I am forced to arrive.

I have the less reluctance in announcing this conclusion because the Grand Jury of this county is now in session, and it is quite within the power of that body, if dissatisfied with my decision, to call witnesses before them or use the depositions taken before me, and which I shall return to the district court, as by law required, and to thereupon disregard my findings, and find an indictment against the defendants, if they think the evidence sufficient to warrant a conviction.

I conclude the performance of this duty imposed upon me by saying in the language of the Statute: “There being no sufficient cause to believe the within named Wyatt S. Earp and John H. Holliday guilty of the offense mentioned within. I order them to be released.”

[Signed] Wells Spicer, Magistrate

References

• Famous-Trials.com

Heard before Judge Wells Spicer

On this twenty-eighth day of November, 1881, on the hearing of the above entitled cause, on the examination of Wyatt Earp and J. H. Hol­liday; Addie Bourland, a witness of lawful age, being produced and sworn, deposes and says as follows;

Addie Bourland, a dressmaker, of Tombstone, Arizona.

(Q) [No written question.]

(A) I live on the opposite side of Fremont Street from the entrance to Fly’s lodging house.

(Q) Questioned on the difficulty.

(A) I saw first five men opposite my house, leaning against a small house [the Harwood house] west of Fly’s Gallery and one man was holding a horse [Frank McLaury], standing a little out from the house. I supposed them to be cowboys, and saw four men [the Earps and Doc Holliday] coming down the street towards them, and a man with a long coat on [Doc Holliday] walked up to the man holding the horse and put a pistol to his stomach and then he, the man with the long coat on, stepped back two or three feet, and then the firing seemed to be general. That is all I saw.

(Q) Where were you at the time you saw this?

(A) I was in my house at the window.

(Q) How long after the two parties met, did the firing commence?

(A) It was very shortly, only a few seconds.

(Q) Which party fired first?

(A) I don’t know.

(Q) Were you looking at both parties when the firing commenced?

(A) I was looking at them, but not at anyone in particular. I did not know there was going to be a difficulty.

(Q) Did you know, or do you know now, the man with the long coat on?

(A) I did not know him then. I recognize Doctor Holliday, the man sitting there writing, as the man to the best of my judgment.

(Q) Did you notice the character of weapon Doc Holliday had in his hand?

(A) It was a very large pistol.

(Q) Did you notice the color of the pistol?

(A) It was dark bronze.

(Q) Was it or was it not, a nickel-plated pistol?

(A) It was not a nickel-plated pistol.

(Q) Did you see at the time of the approach of the party descending Fremont Street, any of the party you thought were cowboys, throw up their hands?

(A) I did not.

(Q) Did you hear any conversation or exclamation between the two parties after they met, and before the firing commenced?

(A) I did not, for my door was closed.

(Q) How long did you continue to look at the parties after they met?

(A) Until they commenced to fire and I got up then and went into my back room.

(Q) What did these men that you speak of as cowboys’ first do when the other party approached them?

(A) They came out to meet them from the side of the house, and this man with the long coat on stepped up and put his pistol to the stomach of the man who was holding the horse, and stepped back two or three feet and the firing seemed to be general.

(Q) About how many shots were fired before you left the window?

(A) I could not tell; all was confusion, and I could not tell.

(Q) Were all the parties shooting at each other at the time you were looking at them?

(A) It looked to me like it.

(Q) Had any of the parties fallen at the time you left the window?

(A) I saw no parties fall.

[Signed] Addie Bourland

ADDIE BOURLAND IS RECALLED BY THE COURT

[Inserted loose part of page reads: “The prosecution objects to the further examination of the witness Addie Bourland after she has been examined by the defense, and cross-examined by the prosecution, her testimony read to her and signed by her and not brought before the court at the solicitation of counsel on either side. The court voluntarily states that after recess, and the witness had retired, he went to see the witness at her house and talked with her about what she might further know about the case, and that he, of his own motion, says that he believed she knew more than she had testified to on her examination, now introduces her upon the stand for the purpose or” further examination without the solicitation of either the prosecution or defense.]

[Objection overruled, and questions asked of witness by the court as follows:]

(Q) You say in your examination in chief, that you were looking at parties engaged in [the] fatal affray in Tombstone on the 26th of October last, at the time the firing commenced. Please state the position in which the party called the cowboys held their hands at the time the firing commenced; that is, were they holding up their hands, or were they firing back at the other party. State the facts as particularly as may be.

[Counsel for the prosecution objects to court questioning witness after he admits he has talked with the witness, etc., crossed out.]

(A) I didn’t see anyone holding up their hands; they all seemed to be firing in general, on both sides. They were firing on both sides, at each other; I mean by this at the time the firing commenced.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

(Q) Did you say this morning, that you did not see who fired the first shot?

(A) I did say so.

(Q) Did you say this morning, there were two shots fired close together?

(A) I did not.

(Q) Did you say there were any shots fired at all?

(A) I did.

(Q) Did you say this morning, that when the first two or four shots were fired, you were excited and confused, and got up from the window and went into the back room?

(A) I didn’t say how many shots were fired, for I didn’t know when I went into the other room.

(Q) What conversation did you have with Judge Spicer, if any, with reference to your testimony to be given here since you signed your testimony this morning?

(A) He asked me one or two questions in regard to seeing the difficulty, and if I saw any men throw up their hands, whether I would have seen it, and I told him I thought I would have seen it.

(Q) Did you not testify this morning that those men did not throw up their hands that you saw?

(A) Yes sir, I did.

signed Addie Bourland

References

• Famous Trials

The Gunfight at the O.K. Corral is one of the most famous events in the history of the American Wild West. It occurred on October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, Arizona Territory, and was a culmination of long-standing tensions between two groups: the Earp brothers—Wyatt, Virgil, and Morgan—along with their ally, Doc Holliday, and the Clanton-McLaury faction, which consisted of cowboys Ike and Billy Clanton, Tom and Frank McLaury, and Billy Claiborne. The confrontation lasted just 30 seconds but left three men dead—Tom McLaury, Frank McLaury, and Billy Clanton—and became a symbol of the lawless nature of the American frontier.

The gunfight was sparked by a series of disputes over cattle rustling, stagecoach robberies, and political control in Tombstone. The Earp brothers, who were lawmen, and Doc Holliday, a gambler and gunman, sought to maintain order, while the Clanton-McLaury group represented the lawlessness that plagued the region. Although the gunfight took place near the O.K. Corral, it actually occurred in a narrow lot on Fremont Street, a detail often overlooked in popular culture. The aftermath of the shootout led to a complex legal battle and further violence, cementing the event’s place in American folklore and solidifying Wyatt Earp’s reputation as a legendary figure of the Old West.

Testimony

Testimony of Martha King in the Preliminary Hearing in the Earp-Holliday Case,Heard before Judge Wells Spicer

On this fourth day of November, 1881, on the hearing of the above entitled cause of the examination of Wyatt Earp and J. H. Holliday; Mrs. Martha J. King, a witness of lawful age, being produced and sworn, deposes and says as follows:

Mrs. Martha J. King, a housewife of Tombstone, says she was in Bauer’s butcher shop on Fremont Street at the time the shooting com­menced, and heard it. She saw some armed parties pass the door. She could not say they were all armed. “I saw one man, Mr. Holliday, with arms. He had a gun. I mean a gun, not a pistol. I cannot tell the difference between a shotgun and a rifle. Do not know whether he had a shotgun or a rifle.”

She identifies Holliday. She says he had an overcoat and his gun on the left side, with his arm thrown over it, and the gun under his coat. “I saw the gun under the coat as he was walking and his coat would fly open.” She saw the Earp party first between the butcher shop and the Post Office, going down Fremont Street toward Third Street. She only knew the Earp brothers by sight. She says Holliday was on the side next to the building. She heard them say something. The one on the outside looked around to Holliday and said, “Let them have it!” He [Holliday] replied, “All right.” She heard nothing else. She did not see any of the fight. She ran back in the shop. She does not know the Sheriff by sight. She did not see anyone talking to the Earps. She says the one who said, “Let them have it!” has been pointed out to her as one of the Earp brothers.

(Q) Did you know what was meant by the words? “Let them have it!”?

(A) I suppose I did. saw a man just previous to that holding a horse and he said to another man, “If you wish to find us, you will find us just below here.”

(Q) How long before the men passed the door was it that you heard the man holding the horse say, “You will find us just below here.”?

(A) I don’t think it was more than four or five minutes. Witness gives more detail of the various positions of the men and where she was [just inside the folding doors of the market]. She did not hear any other words other than those already quoted.

(Q) Was the hearing of those words the only reason you had for knowing who was meant by the word, “them?”

(A) When I first went in the shop, the parties who keep the shop seemed to be excited and did not want to wait on me. I inquired what was the matter, and they said there was about to be a fight between the Earp boys and the cowboys, and they said the party who had the horse was one of the cowboys.

[Objected to. Overruled, exception noted.]

Further questioning as to whether she was frightened. Then to query says she did not see anyone speak to the Earp party to try to stop them. She believes she would have seen any person that had come close to them.

References

• Famous Trials