A Huron County Mystery: The Murder of William Lark

The Huron County Courthouse c. 1866 where the trial of Robert Pierson took place.

With one bestiality and three murder cases, the November 1862 Fall Assizes promised to be a busy one in Huron County.

Yet, the one murder case that attracted the most interest was the case against Robert Pierson charged with the 1856 murder of his alleged business partner, William Lark, who had disappeared in the spring of 1856.

Lark had left his Clinton home to talk business with Pierson at his Grey Township farm.

Among the items that Lark was believed to have on his person was a silver watch, fine winter cloak and a sum of money. It was rumoured that Pierson and Lark were about to keep tavern together in Bluevale.

On his way to Pierson’s, Lark stopped at Lawrence Dobson’s place to ask directions to Pierson’s house, which was about three quarters of a mile north.

Yet, it seems Lark never made it to Pierson’s home. Lark had vanished except for a boot that contained the bones of a misshapen foot found by Pierson near his property.

At the subsequent 1856 inquest held in Ainleyville (Brussels), it was determined that the bones and boot were relics of William Lark who met his death in the primal woods and swamplands of Grey Township.

The inquest determined that Lark perished in a fate unknown, but it did seem odd that Pierson attended wearing the coat that many thought belonged to Lark.

Rumours persisted that Pierson had murdered Lark. Henry Savage later testified at trial that some time after Lark’s disappearance, he and Pierson had been drinking whiskey after a logging bee.

Pierson told him that on a visit to Goderich, he “had heard people say he had murdered Lark”.

Pierson warned Savage that “if anybody came about his place to search for Lark, he’d shoot them”.

Pierson did show the loggers where he claimed Lark’s boot had been found, but nothing resulted in the search. After several years passed, the matter of Lark’s disappearance was all but forgotten.

It was not until October 1862 when Peter Bishop, who resided on the 5th Concession of Grey, was searching for a missing child.

While combing the woods, while near a large cedar tree, Bishop stumbled across several bones, some articles of clothing, and a rib that was protruding from the rags, as well as a .25 cent piece, which looked like it had lain a long time, with the remnants of a purse.

Bishop also noticed that at least one of the bones had been cut. Bishop covered up his macabre finding until the child was found and he could alert the authorities.

Many drew the obvious conclusion, and Robert Pierson was arrested and charged with the murder of William Lark.

When Pierson was arraigned in the Goderich Courthouse, he pleaded Not Guilty.

The Huron Signal described the prisoner as a “stout man, about five feet ten inches in height’ and ‘about 45 years of age’.

Further, the paper reported that ‘judging from his physiognomy, he is one of the last men we would pick out of a crowd as a murderous looking individual’.

Dr. Earl, the first witness laid out Lark’s skeletal remains, describing each bone in particular but especially the ‘freshly cut’ upper arm bone and the deformed bones of the right foot, which Dr. Early stated ‘must have given a looseness or crookedness to the foot of the living man’.

Despite the anatomical display, Dr. Earl could ‘assign nothing as the probable cause of death’.

The malformed foot ones confirmed that the skeletal remains belonged to Lark.

John Steep, Lark’s brother-in-law, was a boot mater and knew of Lark’s deformity and how it affected his gait. He also stated that the boot shown in court undoubtedly belonged to his brother-in-law because he made it.

Medical science could not prove murder, but the testimony of others might.

Henry Savage testified that ‘I am one of those who believe that the charge against Pierson was true’. He felt Pierson’s threats to shoot anyone on his property was rather intimidating. He also did not believe that Pierson was truthful when he showed Savage where he found the original boot.

Another witness who thought Pierson was guilty was Grey Township resident James Churchill, who knew both men.

Churchill saw Lark on the way to Pierson’s the day he disappeared. Lark was also sporting a silver watch and claimed to have had $600 on his person for the purpose of starting a business partnership with Pierson to run a tavern in Bluevale.

The silver watch, or one very much like it, ended up in the possession of Mary Disney (grandmother of Walt Disney and cousin to both Pierson and Lark).

The Crown argued that Pierson robbed and murdered Lark. The location where Pierson claimed to have found the left boot back in 1856 was merely a red herring to throw any inquisitors off track.

Although Pierson did not testify at his trial, other witnesses testified that when they asked Pierson why, if he was so upset at the rumours and accusations against him, he did not try to clear his name.

His lawyer said that he had received correspondence from Lark whom he claimed that he had moved to Ohio (where Lark lived before coming to Huron County), or Iowa (where Lark had lived for a year).

Despite claiming to have letters from Lark, confirming his whereabouts, Pierson never produced them.

Yet, incomplete skeletal remains with marks of violence, an indeterminate cause of death, and wearing a coat resembling Lark’s to an inquest may be suspicious, was it enough to convince a jury to send Pierson to the gallows?

Pierson’s lawyer argued that the evidence was circumstantial.

Mr. Harrison, the defence lawyer, explained to the jury that that ‘great question is, was he murdered, and if so, was Pierson the murderer?’

The defence argued that the cut marks on the limbs could have been caused by wild beasts.

As for robbery as the motive, there is no evidence that Lark had the sum of money on his person other than Churchill’s testimony.

Churchill was also the only one who saw Lark with a silver watch that looked strikingly like Mrs. Disney’s. She explained that she traded several items for that watch years before Lark’s disappearance.

The defence explained that the witnesses who testified that the coat resembled Lark’s were simply mistaken.

As for Mrs. Disney’s silver watch, she was a most respectable woman whose integrity is beyond question. She explained how it was given to her by someone other than Pierson.

Harrison concluded by stating that “it would not be safe to hang a dog upon such evidence”. The Signal reported that Harrison’s summary of the case thrilled every person in the crowded court.

The jury retired and after a brief stay returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The Signal observed that “as Pierson left the box, his face wore a brightened and relieved expression” having escaped the gallows.

As for the bestiality case another hanging offence, the case was dropped for lack of evidence.

The two other murder cases were deemed accidental deaths, and the accused were released.

As for William Lark, whatever tragic end he met will forever remain a Huron County mystery.