CHAPTER FIVE

On August 11, 1845, the name of Thompson Helms was shown on a list of Peters Colonists as number 110, a married man, having three children and one cabin. ¹ On April 25, 1846, William Rice personally appeared before Justice of the Peace, Z. Roberts, who was also a blacksmith, and "made oath in due process of law that the following names of persons ware (sic) not settlers in the colony of W. S. Peters and Company previous to the first day of July 1844."² Listed were the following names: John Barr, who moved away before receiving land, E. Robinson, T. C. Simkins and Thomson Helm (sic). Also listed were Page Stanley, ________Stanley, ________Stanley (probably Page Stanley’s sons), and George Willcox, who died before 1850. William Rice, who gave the oath, was a forty-nine year old farmer who was born in Virginia and who migrated to Collin County through Tennessee and Arkansas with his wife and nine children. ³ These actions officially recognized Thompson as a Peters Colonist, who migrated to the Colony after July 1, 1844, but before August 11, 1845.

Official establishment as Peters colonists did not prevent the Helms and other families from worry, for all was not right in the Peters Colony. During the mid-1840s, there had been rumors that the Peters Colony company’s contract with the Texas government would be annulled. Probably the fact that there had been three different contracts between the company and Texas, the volatile nature of land speculation, and politics led to these rumors and the resulting uneasiness of the colonists. In 1847 the company sent Henry O. Hedgcoxe to be their agent and to clear up the problems. He issued certificates to colonists, stating the amount of land to which the colonists were entitled. These actions reassured colonists, who were beginning to worry about whether or not they would get titles to their land. Unfortunately Hedgcoxe also made unpopular demands of colonists, which coupled with his abrasive personality, and their fears concerning their land titles, led to widespread controversy. ⁴

By 1847 Thompson had been on his land for three years. Assuming that he had built a "good and comfortable cabin" and had fenced and cultivated at least 15 acres, Thompson would have qualified for his claim of 650 acres as a Peters Colony settlers at this time. Yet in 1848, the same year that Thompson and Abby’s fourth son and fifth child, George, was born, Thompson lists no land for taxation and paid only $3.15 in poll, county, and state taxes.

By 1848 the colonists were asking the Texas legislature (Texas had become a state in 1845) to settle some of the Colony’s problems. They wanted the county courts to be authorized to issue land titles. The majority of the land surveys had been completed in 1848-49. This probably accounts for Thompson’s listing 640 acres, valued at 25 cents an acre, in the 1849 Collin County tax list. The acreage had a notation of "colony certificate". He also lists one horse valued at $75, making his total property value $395, on which he paid estate tax of $1.80 and a county tax of 65 cents.

The year before, however, in 1848, trouble concerning land titles had come closer to home for Thompson. It would involve Thompson and many of his neighbors in law suits for the next several years. This feud over a land title had repercussions that would echo all the way to 1910, but the roots went back to the time that Thompson and Abby first settled on Honey Creek.

In 1844, the Carter ⁵ brothers came to north central Texas and settled west of the present town of Weston, Texas near where Thompson and Abby had settled. John Carter, the son of one of the Carter brothers, lived on his claim of 320 acres as a single man. His father, Abraham, maintained that John had fulfilled the requirements of the Peter Colony. When John died before the claim was secured, his father claimed the land as heir. With the uncertainty of the claims and lack of surveys until 1848-49, this claim was disputed, leading to strong feelings and eventually a court settlement.

The event that brought Thompson to the District Court of Collin County occurred one day in the spring of 1848. After working in his field, Thompson started back to his home. He heard someone talking and turned to see Bill Carter, Andrew Carter (brothers of Abraham Carter) and James Ledbetter coming toward him. Thinking that Bill Carter was calling him, Thompson went toward him. But when Thompson got within eight or ten feet of Bill Carter, Bill ordered him to stop, saying, "I will drop you" and brought down his gun. Thompson stopped and replied that Bill need not do that as he was not armed. Thompson and Bill had some words, and Bill Carter raised his gun and pointed it toward Thompson saying, "I will blow your brains out." Thompson could see Bill Carter’s eye through the fork of the hand support. Thompson said that that was no way to settle difficulties. Bill Carter set his gun down with the breech on the ground and put his hand upon the muzzle of the gun. They talked some more with Thompson unable to see distinctly, but believing the gun was cocked when Carter had raised it at him.

That was what Thompson testified to in court on June 13, 1848, as the incident resulted in an indictment against Bill Carter (State of Texas v. Bill Carter) for assault with intent to murder. Another witness for the State, James Savage, testified that he was at Bill Carter’s house and heard Carter say that he had lost some fence rails. Carter said that he had followed a wagon track from the place where the rails were taken to the field of Helms. Savage testified that Carter said, when he got to Thompson’s field, he saw Thompson and called to him. Carter related to Savage that when Thompson came up in short distance of him, he told Thompson to stop three times. When Thompson did not stop, Carter told Savage that he raised his gun upon Thompson, and he had "as good a bead upon his forehead as ever he had upon an old buck."

The question, as far as the law was concerned, was whether the gun was loaded or not, because if Bill Carter’s gun was unloaded, and he knew it, then he had no intent to murder Thompson.

The next to testify was Andrew Carter, brother of Bill Carter. Andrew Carter said that they had been engaged in killing hogs when someone brought them information that Thompson had been stealing his fence rails. After dinner (lunch) Andrew Carter, Bill Carter and James Ledbetter went to see if the rails were gone. They tracked the wagon to Thompson’s field where they found Thompson engaged in cutting sprouts from a tree stump. Thompson stopped working and looked toward Bill Carter and Andrew Carter and immediately threw down his axe or grubbing hoe and started towards his house. Bill Carter called to Thompson. Thompson turned and came toward them until he was within about twenty yards. Bill Carter told him to stop three or four times, telling him that a man who would steal his rails would be armed, and that Thompson always carried a butcher knife. According to Andrew Carter, Thompson did not stop, and while he was still advancing, Bill Carter presented his gun and said, "If you don’t stop, I’ll split your skull." Andrew Carter could not say whether the gun was presented immediately, but that when Thompson stopped, Bill Carter put his gun down with the breech upon the ground and threw his hand over the muzzle. After some conversation, they separated. Andrew Carter stated that he had shot all the hogs that had been killed that day, and that when he had shot the last hog he laid the gun empty on the bed. James Ledbetter, the other eye witness, stated that he agreed with Andrew Carter’s testimony, except that he did not see the gun presented as he was looking the other way. ⁶

Some official doubt concerning the testimony of Bill Carter was evidenced by the State of Texas v. Bill Carter in an indictment for perjury. The testimony in this case, however, was not found in the Collin County Courthouse and it should be noted that Bill Carter won the perjury case. ⁷

The verdict, however, in the assault case was not in favor of the defendant, Bill Carter, because in the spring of 1849 Bill Carter was back in court moving for a new trail based on three reasons. The first reason was that the jury could not be charged that the indictment was sustained without proof that the gun was loaded. Second, the court had refused to charge that if the defendant, Bill Carter, qualified "the presenting of the gun by saying, ‘Stop Helms or I’ll shoot you, you commonly carry a butcher knife and must not come closer,’ it would authorize the jury to conclude the defendant intended no assault. Thirdly, the verdict of the jury was contrary to law and evidence." ⁸ Eventually, on June 13, 1849, one year after the first trial, the court decreed that since the indictment said that the gun was loaded, the prosecutor had to prove assault. Thus Bill Carter was acquitted as the gun was not loaded and assault could not be committed. ⁹

The location of the land from which the fence rails were cut provides the real issue. Thompson had been cutting timber for fence rails on land whose ownership was disputed by two fellow colonists, Robert Skaggs and Abraham Carter. In the cooperative setup of the pioneer times, Thompson helped Skaggs cut the timber and was to receive some to use as rails in building fences. This land was just to the south of Thompson’s on what was known as the Robert Skaggs survey. The east half of this 640 acre section was claimed by Abraham Carter as heir of his son John. In 1848 it was not clear if heirs of deceased colonists could inherit. This 320 acres of land was also claimed by Robert Skaggs, who came to the Colony prior to 1848. The importance of this part of the section to Robert Skaggs would have been considerable as it contains the major water source for his 640 acre claim. This source was Honey Creek, which at this point of its course contained natural springs. Because of Honey Creek this half of the section also would have the timber necessary for fencing and for firewood.

The tenacity with which Skaggs pursued his claim and the expense he bore, illustrated his appreciation of this land. On the other side, Abraham Carter apparently felt strongly that the land his dead son settled should have been his, as shown by his equally dogged pursuit of his claim.

The incident between Thompson Helms and Bill Carter was the opening round of lawsuits and an increasingly emotionally charged situation. On October 26, 1848, Robert Skaggs filed a suit against Bill Carter for trespass for damage, stating that he, Skaggs, had a Colony title for a part of the land upon which he lived and has possession, and that Carter "with force continually therefrom up to the commencement of this suit, did enter upon said land and did then and there continually upon said tenth day of February and on diverse other days...cut down and fall one thousand timber trees and did then and there as aforesaid cut up, split into rails the said trees so as aforesaid and cut and felled into rails and did then and there and upon diverse other days as aforesaid haul off rails of great value to wit of the value of five hundred dollars." ¹⁰ Certainly this makes a statement as to the prowess of these pioneers in cutting down trees.

In his answer to the complaint of Skaggs, Abraham Carter on the same day stated that he was the owner of the land "described in the Colonial Certificate of which certificate is marked Exhibit A..." Carter stated that Skaggs was "clearing and settling up a title" to the disputed land thereby "disturbing" his title. Carter asked for an "order of survey directed to some competent person" in order to settle the claim. The Court ordered that Fountain I. Vance, Deputy District Surveyor, survey the land and return the field notes and the plat showing the conflict to the Court. ¹¹

Skaggs’s attorneys asked that the Court charge the jury that if Skaggs was in possession of the land, he could maintain the action of trespass against the wrongdoer. Then, unless Abraham Carter set up title or justified himself, it would be presumed that he was the wrongdoer. It appears that the jury was so charged. In any event, Abraham and Bill Carter were found not guilty.

Skaggs was not giving up, however, and his attorneys filed a motion for a new trail, listing four reasons that a new trail was needed. First the jury verdict was "contrary to Law and the Evidence." Second, the verdict was contrary to the instructions of the jury. "In this, ‘That the Court did charge the jury, that if they believe from the evidence, that Skaggs was in possession of Said land, on which the trespass was committed, that it was sufficient to maintain the action, against the wrongdoer’." Third, "the jury ought not to have gone beyond the proof of Possession, and the fact that Trespass was committed." Fourth, that this suit was not "Trespass to try Title", but "instead a simple action for Damage for Trespass." ¹² Whatever justification there was for a new trail, there is no record of one being granted.

Thompson’s part in this appears to be peripheral. The only actual testimony found, the assault with the intent to murder, indicates that emotions were running high. It is helpful to remember the times in which these events took place. It was a sparsely settled area, where everyone had guns and were not shy about protecting themselves and possessions. The frontier was not a place for the meek and retiring. These people worked hard, found illness and death common companions, and were, in general, hard drinkers. It was a romantic time of high ideals and in Collin County in the mid-1800s a place of hard reality. A lot was at stake as the settlers carved out homes. It is interesting, in view of their somewhat impulsive actions, that they were willing to settle disputes in court. It is probable that some issues never made it to court.

The next round in the battle was more emotional. In December of 1849, Thompson Helms filed suit against Abraham Carter for slander. On December 15, 1849, his and Abby’s sixth child and second daughter, Sarah Elizabeth, was born. In his petition to the court Thompson stated that he "was a man of good name, fame and credit and that the had never been guilty of any infamous crime or offense and that he never had been nor was suspected to be guilty of the crime of Horse Stealing." He said that "he was taken and accepted in and amongst all his neighbors to be a person of good name and an honest worthy citizen," yet Abraham Carter had brought him into "public scandal and disgrace" by "contriving wickedly and maliciously to injure" him. Abraham had in a "certain conversation" in 1848, and other days, told others that, "There is two mustangs, Helms is the man that stole my horses. It needs no proof, it proves itself, it is no secret, it is a public thing." To Pleasant Wilson, Abraham Carter said, "he (meaning Thompson Helms) is a Horse Thief". Thompson asked for $5,000 damage. ¹³ Naturally Thompson was upset over the smearing of his good name. Certainly the amount of damages indicates that.

Leonidas Wilson, Jonas Dawson and Pleasant Wilson were summoned to testify for Thompson. The same names show up repeatedly in these suits. Then in June of 1850 Thompson dropped the slander suit. It is possible that witnesses did not wish to testify. It is logical to assume that Thompson did not feel himself guilty of horse stealing or he would not have filed suit and risked things coming out in the trial, but it is possible that elements could not be proved. Another possibility is that cooler heads prevailed. Either Abraham Carter made amends, or Thompson decided that nothing would be gained in a sensational court trial where emotions would be fanned even higher. Or perhaps, other events were occurring, making the pursuit of this case less important.