"Wild Bill" Hickok in Valley Falls history

by Betty Jane Wilson, society president

Perhaps lesser known in Valley Falls history than William "Buffalo Bill" Cody, James "Wild Bill" Hickok has some association with the town and community.

Bill Hickok was involved in a shoot-out and killed a man named Dave Tutt at Springfield, Mo., in July 1865. Ben Heuertz, secretary-treasurer of the Valley Falls Historical Society, related the story at the December 28, 1971, meeting of the society.

Heuertz emphasized that various versions of the shoot-out were given by those who may or may not have been present. The trial of Hickok took place Aug. 5, 1865. The jury took about 10 minutes to render a verdict after the judge instructed the jurors in the following 16 points:

1st. If they believe from the evidence that the defendant intentionally shot at the deceased, Dave Tutt, and the death of said Tutt was caused thereby, they will find defendant guilty, unless they are satisfied from the evidence that he acted in self-defense.

2nd. That defendant is presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his own acts.

3rd. The defendant cannot set up in justification that he acted in self-defense if he was willing to engage in a fight with deceased.

4th. To be entitled to acquital on the ground of self-defense, he must have been anxious to avoid a conflict, and must have used all reasonable means to avoid it.

5th. If the deceased and defendant engaged in a fight or conflict willingly on the part of each, and the defendant killed the deceased, he is guilty of the offense charged, although the deceased may have fired the first shot.

6th. If it appear(s) that the conflict was in any way premeditated by the defendant, he is not justifiable.

7th. The crime charged in the indictment is complete, whether there was malice or not.

8th. If the jury have any reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, they will give him the benefit of such doubt, and acquit him.

9th. But such doubt must be a reasonable doubt, not a mere possibility. It must be such a doubt as leaves the mind disatisfied with a conclusion of guilt.

10th. This rule, as to a reasonable doubt, does not apply as to matters set up in justification.

11th. If the defendant claims to have acted in self-defense it is his duty to satisfy you that he so acted, and it is not sufficient to create a doubt in your minds whether he so acted or not.

12th. The jury will disregard evidence as to the moral character of deceased, and as to his character for loyalty, as the character of the deceased could afford no excuse for killing him.

13th. Every murder includes in it the crime of man-slaughter, and if the jury believe that the defendant has committed the crime of murder in the first or second degree, they will find him guilty under this indictment of man-slaughter, the crime charged in this indictment.

14th. The Court instructs the jury that they may disregard all that part of the evidence of Tutt's declaration to Lieut. Warner.

15th. The Court instructs to disregard all Warner's testimony.

16th. That the jury will disregard any threats made by Tutt against Haycock (Hickok) prior to the meeting at the Lyon House in Haycock's room.

The verdict—Not Guilty!

(Note: Dave Tutt is not known to have been related to any Valley Falls Tutts.) The 16 points are from the Kansas Historical Society Quarterly Vol. XXVI.
The society museum will be open at 10 a.m. Saturday. The 2014 historical society calendars are available at the museum.