The Murder of Andrew Rowland
Part 5: The Verdict
The testimony being all in, the Court stated it would allow six hours before the jury to the prosecution, and the same amount of time for the defense.
It was now Wednesday afternoon of May 5, 1869. The jury, after sitting through six days of testimony, now had 12 hours of closing arguments to take in.
Henry K. Douglas, Esq., one of the counsels for Mrs. Rowland, stated to the Court, that to save embarrassment in the division of the time, he thought it proper not to claim any proportion of it. His associates for Mrs. Rowland, were by years his senior in age and wisdom. In deference to their ability, and because he thought they would require all the time the Court allowed them in presenting the cause of his client, he resigned his right to go before the jury.
Messrs. Mason and Keedy made arguments for the prosecution, taking up the bulk of Thursday’s court time. Messrs. Pearre and Weisel delivered arguments in defense of the accused.
Case Given to the Jury
As prescribed by the Court’s time allotments, closing arguments were completed around noon on Friday. At that time, the Court gave the case over to the jury. Less than 15 minutes later, the jury returned with a verdict of “not guilty.”
A search of newspaper accounts and clippings provided no explanation for the quick deliberations or the determination of innocence. One must surmise that the State simply failed to make its case in the mind and eyes of the jury.
Newspaper accounts of the testimony appeared to provide sufficient evidence of a murder-for-hire scheme. However, the only person claiming to witness the attack was one of the accused, and she was not required to testify. Between the secret second husband (polyandry) and proclaimed plans for the insurance money, the motive seemed obvious. Perhaps Mrs. Rowland was successfully flirtatious with the all-male jury. Perhaps, the jury members just wanted to get back to their farms and finish their spring planting. Additionally, this trial took place more than 150 years ago, putting a large distance between that time frame and today’s public perceptions of law, order, and justice.
The time span also vastly alters the capabilities of forensic technology. No DNA evidence was preserved, which current technology may have helped identify the actual murder weapon. Today’s touch-DNA technology may have also been able to help identify who was handling the murder weapon. If the assailant really did come in through the kitchen window, and exit via the dining-room door, then fingerprints and DNA evidence would be in abundance. Perhaps even something as mundane as footprints could have helped. None of the suspects carried cell phones, so call records and GPS tracking technology would not be of any help.
The medical examiners and detectives mentioned that blood was on the bed, but the concept of blood splatter analysis was not in their bag of tricks at the time. Which objects in the room received splatter? Whose clothing had blood splatter, and was it the blood of Andrew Rowland?
The murder of Andrew Rowland will forever remain an unsolved cold case.
Mary E. Rowland
The murder trial was over, but Mary E. Rowland and Harry Weaver still had indictments of attempted poisoning hanging over them. As a result, Mary Rowland was immediately remanded to jail in Hagerstown after being acquitted of murdering her husband. Three months later, in August of 1869, the State abandoned its attempted poisoning case. As a result, Mary E. Rowland was discharged from jail, and once again free woman.
The Knickerbocker Insurance Company paid her $2,000 for the life insurance policy where she was the named beneficiary. It is not known if she ever received the $100 she was hoping to get from the Odd Fellows. As for the Estate of Andrew Rowland, his children filed and won a civil suit against her, preventing her from getting anything more. Whether or not she ever made good on her promised payment for the “hit” also remains a mystery.
Mary went to live with her parents in Hagerstown, where she is listed as a member of their household in the 1870 and 1880 census records. She continued to use the Rowland surname and was employed as a seamstress. By the 1900 census, both of her parents had died, and she was living in the home of her brother Luther Gelwicks. She never had any children.
Mary Elizabeth (Gelwicks) Rowland passed away on March 21, 1910, and is buried in Rose Hill Cemetery, Hagerstown, Washington County, Maryland.
Harry Weaver
It is not clear why Harry Weaver was not a suspect in the murder, although he did still face charges of attempted poisoning. When the State abandoned its attempted poisoning case against Harry and Mrs. Rowland in August, Harry Weaver was not discharged from jail. It appears that he was indeed a scoundrel and faced trial for additional crimes.
Back in June 1868, when he was one of the two living husbands of Mary Rowland, he forged a letter and expropriated cash. Adams’ Express Company was hired to deliver a package containing $48.75 from Mr. John Wilson to Mrs. William Reary in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. Harry Weaver went to the Express company, presented a forged letter stating the package had been delivered and kept the package for himself.
In November 1869, a jury found him guilty of “false pretenses” and the Court sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment in the Eastern Penitentiary.
After serving his time, he returned to Hagerstown. In August 1871, he and accomplice Anna Hull were standing trial for larceny and receiving stolen goods. Once again, it was H. H. Keedy prosecuting for the State of Maryland. Weaver, after seeing what the team of Syester, Douglas & Mealy did for Mary Rowland in her murder trial, hired them for his defense. Once again, Keedy was unable to win this battle, and the jury returned a verdict of “not guilty.”
Charles Carroll
The jury acquitted Charles of the first-degree murder charge, and he was released from jail. No post-trial information about Charles has been located.
This is Part 5 of a 5-Part Series
- Part 1: The Life and Times (and Murder) of Andrew Rowland, published February 22, 2022.
- Part 2: Arrests Made, Trial Date Set, published February 23, 2022.
- Part 3: The State Presents Its Case, published February 24, 2022.
- Part 4: Mounting a Defense, published February 25, 2022.
- Part 5: The Verdict, published February 26, 2022.
Sources
This article is compiled from accounts portrayed in the following articles:
- “Murder, the dark side of local history.” Linda Irvin-Craig, published February 22, 2014 by Herald-Mail Media.
- “Murder Trial at Cumberland.” The Baltimore Sun, May 5, 1869, page 1.
- “The Rowland Trial.” The Herald and Torch Light, Hagerstown, Maryland, May 5, 1869, page 2.
- “The Murder Trial at Cumberland.” The Baltimore Sun, May 7, 1869, page 1.
- “The Murder Trial at Cumberland – Acquittal of the Accused.” The Baltimore Sun, May 8, 1869, page 1.
- “The Trial of Mary E. Rowland and Charles Carrol – Their Acquittal.” The Herald and Torch Light, Hagerstown, Maryland, May 12, 1868, page 2.
- “Court Proceedings.” The Herald and Torch Light, Hagerstown, Maryland, August 11, 1869, page 2.
- “Discharge and Arrest.” The Baltimore Sun, August 20, 1869, page 1.
- “Court Proceedings.” The Valley Spirit, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, November 3, 1869, page 3.
- “Court Proceedings.” The Herald and Torch Light, Hagerstown, Maryland, August 16, 1871, page 2.
References and Additional Information
Featured image: The Jury, by John Morgan, 1861 (oil on canvas transformed into grayscale image)
DNA: Andrew Rowland, and the entire Washington county Rowland genetic line, are part of Rowland Y-DNA Group I. If you are related to this line, please consider joining the Rowland Xref Project.