A THEATRICAL ROMANCE.
_Kale Fisher, the Famous Mazeppa, involved--Manager Hemmings charged
by Fast-paced Mrs. Bethune with Larceny._
A good many years since, at a fashionable boardinghouse in Philadelphia,
a handsome Adonis-shapen young man, well and favorably known by the name
of George Hemmings, became acquainted with a member of the fairer sex
who had scarcely passed "sweet sixteen," and was accredited with a
bountiful supply of beauty, named then Eliza Garrett. An intimacy at
once sprung up between the two, which at length ripened into a mutual
attachment.
A series of journeys were undertaken by Miss Garrett and Hemmings, and
for some time they lived together enjoying all the pleasures and sweets
of love; but for some cause the pair separated, and for a number of
years saw nothing of each other. Meantime, many changes had occurred in
the circumstances of both. Eliza had been transformed into Mrs. Bethune
and lived in a fashionable part of Gotham, her reputed husband, John
Bethune, Esquire, being a gentleman of wealth and sporting
proclivities.
George Hemmings, who, by the way, was very respectably connected, had
migrated from the "City of Brotherly Love" to "Gotham," and filled a
position as superintendent in a dry-goods establishment.
It was whilst in this city, when "walking down Broadway" one afternoon,
Hemmings' attention was attracted by a lady who seemed to have been
previously pleased with his acquaintance, and in whom he recognized his
former inamorata, Miss Garrett. A grand recapitulation of the
pleasantries of by-gone days ensued, and the damsel informed her "once
dear George" that she was now Mrs. Bethune, but prevailed upon him to
accompany her to her home. Here a hearty welcome was accorded him, and,
if his statement be correct, it is said that the intimacy of former
times was renewed.
Matters continued in this manner, and Hemmings was induced to leave his
former situation and take up his abode at the residence of Mrs. Bethune
as general superintendent of that household, inasmuch as Mr. Bethune
himself was occasionally absent from the city.
On one occasion, as Mr. Hemmings alleged, the beauteous Mrs. Bethune was
violently assaulted by her better-half for some alleged indiscretion,
and it was her early lover who played the part of Good Samaritan on the
occasion, comforting her as well as he was able himself, and calling in
a physician to bind up her wounds. During her sickness, the relationship
between Hemmings and the lady seems to have been of the most intimate
character. She gave him a pair of diamond ear-rings to pledge for four
hundred dollars, which money was a portion of an amount which was to be
called into requisition for the necessary engagements and other expenses
incurred at the opening of a theatre in Pittsburg, the management to be
assumed by Miss Kate Fisher, the well-known "Mazeppa" and equestrienne
actress, and George Hemmings. A troupe was thereupon engaged, and the
entire company, including Miss Fisher and Hemmings, started for
Pennsylvania, where they intended to delight the inhabitants with the
drama of the "fiery, untamed steed" order.
Soon after "Cupid George" departed for the West, Mrs. Bethune became a
prey to the "green-eyed monster." She realized the temptations that
would surely beset George as he basked in the smiles of the alluring and
classically modeled equestrienne. Other troubles beset Mrs. Bethune at
this juncture. Her husband asked her one day what had become of her
diamond ear-rings, and she was seized with confusion and dismay. To
disclose the truth would be to incur Bethune's jealousy, natural
indignation and too probable violence, and so the convenient idea seems
to have occurred to her that by accusing Hemmings of the theft of the
jewelry, she would achieve a two-fold success; namely, the one of
concealing her own frailty, and the other of snatching her beloved one
from a hated supposed rival. Bethune, believing her story, obtained a
requisition from Governor Fenton and procured Hemmings' arrest in
Pittsburg, and he was accordingly brought to this city. The services of
Howe & Hummel were called into requisition, and Hemmings brought into
court for trial.
The greatest excitement was aroused amongst theatrical and sporting
celebrities, and long before the opening of the court every seat was
filled by eager and expectant spectators, and when the prisoner was
called to the bar an immense throng surged to and fro to obtain a
glimpse at his features, and those of the accusing beauty.
City Judge Russel presided, and the Hon. Robert C. Hutchings, afterwards
Surrogate, conducted the prosecution.
Mr. Hutchings opened the case for the people in a fair and temperate
speech, stating that he was instructed that he should be enabled to
establish a clear case of larceny against the defendant, who then stood
indicted for having, on the 19th of October, 1868, at the city of New
York, feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away, one pair of diamond
ear-rings of the value of $400, the property of one James A. Lynch.
Mr. Hutchings then called Mrs. Eliza Bethune, who, amidst breathless
silence, was sworn, and testified that Hemmings was observed by her
daughter purloining the ear-rings from her boudoir drawer on the day in
question, and that immediately she was informed of the larceny she had
sought out Hemmings and ascertained that he had fled to Pittsburgh. On
inquiry, she had also traced the missing jewelry to a pawn-office kept
by Mr. Barnard, at No. 404 Third avenue, where the articles were pledged
by Hemmings. She also went to Pittsburg with Detective Young, and the
pawn-ticket of the ear-rings was found on Hemmings, which she took from
him. Mrs. Bethune further stated that the officer then handcuffed the
prisoner and brought him on to this city.
The witness was then subjected to a rigid cross-examination by Mr. Howe,
who propounded questions as follows:
Mr. Howe: Are you married to Mr. Bethune?
Mrs. Bethune (imploringly to Judge Russel): Am I compelled to answer
that question?
Judge Russel: Mr. Howe, I have already ruled that these kind of
questions are improper.
Mr. Howe (with pertinacity): Your honor, I desire to show that this
witness is not the wife of Mr. Bethune; and I contend that, in justice
to my client, the question should be answered.
Judge Russel: I rule it out.
Mr. Howe: I take exception to the ruling of the court, and will now put
another question, namely:
Is Mr. Bethune your husband? (Sensation in court.)
Judge Russel ruled the question inadmissible, and exception was taken.
Detective John Young, of the Eighteenth Precinct Police, was next
called, and deposed: I am connected with the Metropolitan Police of this
city; I was sent with a requisition issued by Governor Fenton to
Pittsburgh to arrest George Hemmings for grand larceny; I went there
with Mr. and Mrs. Bethune; I took Hemmings into custody at the
Pittsburgh Theatre; he made a violent resistance, and scuffled with me;
I was necessitated to handcuff him in the cars; he became very abusive
and threatening; in fact, so much so, that I was compelled to hit him on
the head with the butt-end of my pistol; at the time of his arrest he
had upon him the ticket of the ear-rings.
Alexander Barnard, a pawnbroker at No. 404 Third avenue, was the next
witness, and said: I know the prisoner at the bar; he pledged me with
two diamond ear-rings on the 20th of last October, which Mr. Lynch
subsequently identified as his property.
Cross-examined by Mr. Howe: Hemmings has frequently pawned articles of
jewelry with me; he pledged them in the name of Mrs. Bethune.
Mr. Howe here requested that the pawnbroker should be directed to
produce his book in order that the jury might see the dates, the
production of which the counsel insisted would entirely contradict Mrs.
Bethune's testimony.
The book was subsequently produced, and Mr. Barnard testified, on
further cross-examination by Mr. Howe, that Hemmings had pledged with
him a watch belonging to Mrs. Bethune on the 17th of November, being
_nearly one month_ after the date the ear-rings were pledged.
Mrs. Lynch proved that the ear-rings were her property, and that she had
loaned them to Mrs. Bethune.
Mrs. Bethune now took the witness stand, and she was asked by Mr. Howe
how long she had known Hemmings, the prisoner at the bar?
Mrs. Bethune: About twelve years.
Mr. Howe: Where did you first become acquainted with him?
Mrs. Bethune: At Philadelphia; I was employed in the United States Mint,
and we boarded together in the same house.
Mr. Howe: Did you subsequently come on to New York with him?
Witness (hesitatingly): I did.
Mr. Howe: Were you on terms of peculiar intimacy with him?
Mrs. Bethune: I was not (sensation in the court): we were friends.
Mr. Howe: Was it not at your solicitation that he was taken to live in
the same house with yourself and Mr. Bethune?
Mrs. Bethune: Yes, it was; but I merely took him in out of charity, as
he was poor and had no clothes (sensation in court).
Mr. Howe: Did you ever stay at the Washington Hotel in this city with
him?
Judge Russel here interposed, and informed Mrs. Bethune that she need
not answer that question.
Mr. Howe: Did you not visit him when he was employed at A. T. Stewart's
store in this city?
Mrs. Bethune: I did; but I got him employed there.
Mr. Howe (aside): Compassionate woman (laughter). Now, Mrs. Bethune,
through whom did you get him employed at that store?
Mrs. Bethune: Through Mr. Griswold, a gentleman of my acquaintance.
Mr. Howe: Did you not know at the time you had Hemmings in your house
that he was a married man?
Mrs. Bethune: I did. (Sensation.)
Mr. Howe: Have you not been to the Whitney House with Hemmings?
The court also decided that witness need not answer that question,
whereupon counsel took exception.
Mr. Howe: Have you not frequently been to the Chanler House in this city
with Mr. Hemmings?
Question overruled.
Mr. Howe: Did you not receive visits from Hemmings in East Fourth
street, in this city?
Mrs. Bethune: Am I bound to answer that question?
Judge Russel: I overrule that question, and you need not answer it.
Mr. Howe: Did you ever live in a house in Lombard street, Philadelphia,
kept by a Miss Graham, and did you ever meet Hemmings there.
Mrs. Bethune (indignantly): I did not.
Mr. Howe: Did you ever introduce Hemmings to any person at Saratoga as
your brother?
Mrs. Bethune (reluctantly): Yes, I have. (Sensation.)
Mr. Howe: How many times have you given Hemmings your jewelry to pledge
that he might have money?
Mrs. Bethune: I never gave him permission to pledge any of my jewelry.
Mr. Howe: Do you mean to swear that he has never pledged any of your
jewelry prior to the present occasion?
Mrs. Bethune: Yes, he has, but not with my consent. (Sensation.)
Mr. Howe: Was that whilst he was living in your house?
Mrs. Bethune: It was.
Mr. Howe: Why did you not have him arrested for so doing?
Mrs. Bethune: Because he cried, and I forgave him. (Sensation.)
Mr. Howe: Yes, you forgave your "BROTHER" (roars of laughter). Now,
madam! will you swear that you did not give Hemmings your watch to
pledge on the 17th of November last, nearly one month after he pledged
the ear-rings?
Mrs. Bethune: I did not; I will swear that I never gave him anything to
pledge after he pawned the ear-rings; I did not give him the ear-rings;
I paid Kate Fisher the money with which to open the theatre, and not to
Hemmings; I did not pay her in the Chanler House, in Hemmings' presence;
I paid her on the street, the reason Hemmings went to Saratoga with me,
was to take care of Mr. Bethune's horses (immoderate laughter); I will
swear that I had not seen Hemmings since he took the ear-rings until I
had him arrested; I did not arrest him right away, because I was sick;
the ear-rings were not mine, they belonged to Mr. Lynch; I borrowed them
from Mrs. Lynch.
Mr. Howe: What was your name when you became acquainted with Hemmings?
Mrs. Bethune: Eliza Garrett.
This closed the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Howe, for the defense,
called Dr. J. Kennedy, who testified as follows:
I am a physician, and reside in East Tenth street in this city; I have
seen the prisoner before. In October last, I saw him in a house in East
Fourth street.
Mr. Howe: What were you doing at that house?
Dr. Kennedy: I was attending a lady there, professionally.
Mr. Howe: Would you know that lady again?
Dr. Kennedy: I should.
Mr. Howe (to Mrs. Bethune): Madam, will you oblige me by standing up and
raising your veil?
The lady complied with Mr. Howe's request, and amidst breathless silence
Mr. Howe, addressing Dr. Kennedy, said, "Doctor, is that the lady?"
Dr. Kennedy: It is. (Flutter in the court-room.)
Mr. Howe: How many times did you visit her?
Dr. Kennedy: Eight or ten times.
Mr. Howe: Was Hemmings in the room with her?
Dr. Kennedy: He was. (Sensation.)
Mr. Howe then applied for attachments against two witnesses who had been
subpoenaed to prove that Mrs. Bethune had been at the Whitney House and
the Washington Hotel with Hemmings, but Judge Russel declined to grant
any time, and peremptorily ordered Mr. Howe to proceed with his defense
to the jury.
Mr. Howe then arose and addressed the court. He said:
Gentlemen of the Jury: I approach the consideration of this case with
some degree of embarrassment, which is necessarily forced upon me, from
the fact, that whilst discharging, as I shall endeavor to do, to the
best of my ability, my duties as an advocate to the young man accused of
this larceny, I regret that I am called upon to animadvert in terms of
censure and reproach, upon one who leaves a name which is dear and
hallowed to us all--the originator of our being--a name that we all
revere and respect when we view it in the beauteous and lovely purity
which is thrown around it. But I think, gentlemen, it is not unfair when
that name is divested of its purity, and becomes shrouded with that
which is base and vile--when the guard which we naturally and
intuitively throw around it is dispelled, and, instead of the beauteous
statue of monumental alabaster, we see a black, foetid, loathsome thing
before us, from which we shrink with indignation and horror, knowing it
is that which drags our young men down to degradation, disgrace and
death--I say, in entering upon this prisoner's defense, such is the
distinction between pure and hallowed and virtuous women (against whom
none dare point) and her who forgets herself--forgets the holy ties due
to her sex, and her own self-respect: and who assumes the place of wife
to a man without that sanction which God has instituted and commanded,
and who, entrapping others, comes to court to-day--not the pure being to
demand your respect--but one whom we can but contemplate with loathing
and disgust, and who has proved herself utterly unworthy of belief.
Gentlemen, I simply wish to direct your attention to the proven facts. I
have thus ventured to allude to the distinction I have endeavored to
draw, not for the purpose of warping your minds, or in any degree
throwing an unfair prejudice around this case; but, in view of the
solemnity of the oaths you have taken, to do justice between the People
of the State of New York and the prisoner at the bar, and to see upon
what testimony you are asked to consign an innocent, but foolish young
man, for a long term of years to the state prison.
I find in the book before me, gentlemen, to my surprise--and when it
will be handed to you I think you will agree with me and share my
astonishment--that on the first day of October last Mr. Lynch has sworn
that _his_ diamond ear-rings were stolen. I find that from the first day
of October until the 8th day of December--a long lapse of nearly two
months--no steps are taken by those who are alleged to have sustained
the loss, and nothing is done until the latter date. I will show you why
this demand is made upon the Executive--a novel proceeding altogether,
without any indictment being preferred in this office--and a journey is
made to Pittsburgh, not by the officers alone, but as we have it on the
sworn testimony of the woman in this case, that she, without her
protector, without the man Bethune (who is with her now as her husband,
and who professed to be so then), proceeded alone to Pittsburgh, and is
subsequently followed by Mr. Bethune. That is the first era, the first
of October. We next find Mrs. Bethune detailing to you that these
ear-rings were taken (how she does not know), but only what she was told
by a little girl whom we have not seen. So her story runs. It is pretty
for the present; but I hope to destroy the poetry of it very shortly.
That this man stole, not on the first of October, but on the 19th of
October, and subsequently corrected to-day, by the lady of treacherous
memory, to the date of the 20th. At all events, it is perfectly clear,
now, according to her last amended allegation, that on the 20th of
October she claims a larceny to have been committed. But a Mr. Lynch is
supposed to be the owner of the earrings, and not Mrs. Bethune! It
transpires that she had merely borrowed them for a while, as she tells
you; and then on the 20th of October she learns the loss. Why,
gentlemen, did not Mrs. Bethune tell you, that nearly a month after that
and in November, she had met this man on the street with Miss Kate
Fisher? That they had business transactions, that she knew him--the
theatrical manager--that he was to open a theatre--that money was
supplied by her for that express purpose? Did not she know within one
month after this transaction the same state of facts which she deposes
to-day? Why not have had the prisoner arrested on the street then?
No, gentlemen, I will give you my theory of this case; I will render to
you what this man has told me, and if it be not a common-sense view of
it, no logic--no metaphysics--then discard every word uttered and
condemn this man. The pawnbroker throws additional light upon this
transaction, and, gentlemen, if you will refer to the date in his book
of the 17th of November (a month after his alleged larceny), you will
find an important fact which I beseech you to hold, pointedly, in your
own estimation. You will remember that she contradicts herself, and
stated that she had had no transactions with Hemmings after the alleged
larceny. One of the gentlemen on the jury put the very pertinent
question (seeing the force of this), whether she had transactions with
the prisoner after this alleged stealing. You will remember for
yourselves, gentlemen, and I point to it without fear of contradiction,
that at first she stated the ear-rings were taken on the 19th of
October, but, seeing, with a woman's keen perception, the fatal error
she had made in stating that admission, seeing that you, as common-sense
men, would have at once said: "Why not have had him arrested then?" she
quickly drew back, like a snail when the crashing foot is coming upon
it, and drew the horns within the shell which covered it; and,
yesterday, corrected the date. She changed the date and put it back from
November to October. I congratulate her upon the change! For all the
trickery and malice which were embodied in it, only enured to the
prisoner's benefit. It was here sworn, to-day, that on the 17th of
November last, her watch and chain (her watch and chain, gentlemen) not
Mr. Lynch's, but Eliza Bethune's, was pledged in New York at Mr.
Barnard's, the identical pawnbroker with whom the earrings were pledged.
By whom? By Mrs. Bethune? Oh no! gentlemen! but by Hemmings, the man
here. If he accomplished this ubiquitous feat, like the ghost in Hamlet,
to be in two places at one time, he is one of the most wonderful
performers of the modern day. (Laughter.) He could not be in Barnard's
pawn-shop in New York pledging Mrs. Bethune's watch on the 17th of
November, a month after the larceny, and be, as she would have you
believe, with Kate Fisher performing in Pittsburgh. Why, look at that
contradiction! I invoke that book (pointing to the pawnbroker's record),
as in other temples I appeal to the Holy one, for my protection. In your
hands I place it. Upon your altar do I offer it up; and I believe that
you will grant my prayers, that this will be taken as the strongest
evidence of the prisoner's innocence. Records cannot lie here. The
testimony is that this man had subsequent transactions with Mrs.
Bethune, supporting, beyond a doubt, my theory that she gave him the
ear-rings to pledge. Now let us see. She tells you (and there are other
circumstances of greater peculiarity still around this case)--she tells
you that she became acquainted with this man some twelve years since;
and although I was prohibited (perhaps properly) by the court from
putting other questions, I think I am not saying too much, when I urge
that I did elicit from that lady sufficient to justify any one of you in
forming an opinion as to the immoral terms of intimacy subsisting
between Hemmings and that lady who was upon the witness stand. I can
only say that I think there is not one of you composing that jury who
would be pleased to have a wife of yours detailing circumstances in any
way similar. I think that not only jealousy, but indignation of the
strongest character, would be aroused in each of you, and you would
unhesitatingly brand her as an adulteress.
Now, gentlemen, we find they have known each other for twelve years, and
what besides? Why, she takes him into her house; she gives him an
apartment there. Nay, she does more, according to her confession. She
saw that he was poor and had no clothes (to use her own expression.) I
do not think, gentlemen, that she exactly meant that, when she said it,
in its literal signification (laughter), but she certainly said that he
had no clothes, and that she clothed him and she "took him in" (loud
laughter). She went to A. T. Stewart's (kind-hearted charitable woman!)
and saw Mr. Griswold. She interceded with Griswold and got Hemmings a
situation in A. T. Stewart's. What relation was Hemmings to her, at this
time, to induce her to take this kind and charitable interest in him? I,
gentlemen, am not so charitable as she professed to be; neither do I
think you will be, gentlemen. I apprehend that the motive which actuated
the taking in, the clothing and the obtaining a situation at Stewart's,
was another motive altogether (immoderate laughter). What it was, I will
leave you to conjecture. Look a little further. Hemmings is no relation
to her, and yet we find her taking him to Saratoga! In what capacity?
Why, she tells you, to attend Bethune's horses at Saratoga (laughter).
Yes, gentlemen, and this hostler, this stable boy, in the same breath,
is introduced by this lady as what--a lover! oh, no, she dare not do
that--but as a relation--a blood relation! She makes him, for that
occasion, her brother at Saratoga! Well, so far, there is no
impropriety, you will say; but coupled with several other facts--coupled
with the act that that book (the pawnbrokers book) teems with the name
of Bethune, as pledging jewelry pledged by Hemmings, and belonging to
the lady, you must see the intimacy which unquestionably existed. She
admitted to you that time and again he had pledged what? Why, he had
pledged her studs, her brooches and God knows what all! What did she?
Why not have him arrested then? Oh! well, she says, "he cried--my
brother cried." (Loud laughter.) "I did not like to hurt my brother."
She forgave him, and I will tell you why.
You know the quotation that "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
Mr. Hemmings, who is a fine, healthy, fashionable, well-rounded and
vigorous, and, some women might say, good-looking young man, had
migrated from the city of New York to spend some time in Pittsburgh, and
he was in dangerous proximity to a very enticing and attractive actress,
Miss Kate Fisher. (Loud laughter).
Gentlemen, in the play of Othello, which many of you have doubtless seen
and read, you will find the episode of the handkerchief, which you will
remember belonged to Desdemona; being the gift of her husband, the Moor.
You remember Iago (in that case it was a man, however,) instigated his
wife to purloin the handkerchief, and to deposit it in the chamber of
Cassio, if I am correct; and Cassio, unfortunately, not seeing the
little trap that was prepared for him, wound that spotted piece of
cambric around his knee to stop the blood flowing from the wound he had
received in a drunken brawl. Upon Othello seeing that, he states, that
not being jealous, he "was perplexed in the extreme," and the sequel was
the murder about which we have so often heard. I say, gentlemen, if ever
there was the play of Othello reduced to private life and reacted, it is
here. These ear-rings are the handkerchief, and Mrs. Bethune is the
Iago. (Laughter.) This young man tells me, that in accordance with
ancient usage and time-honored customs existing between this gentleman
and lady, she had given him, as she narrated here, money to enable Kate
Fisher to open a theatre at Pittsburgh, and that Hemmings was to be the
manager. She had given them, from time to time, money obtained from
Barnard's pawn office, through the instrumentality of the unfortunate
Hemmings.
That is the history; that is all before you, and it cannot be gainsayed.
Then why the arrest this time more than at the others? It explains
itself. You have it in testimony that these ear-rings were the property
of Mr. Lynch, and that Mrs. Lynch had loaned them to Mrs. Bethune.
Hemmings alleges, and I believe with truth, that Mrs. Bethune, whilst
riding in a coach with him, and after a "love encounter" (laughter) gave
to him these jewels to hypothecate in the place to which he had been a
frequent visitor for Mrs. Bethune. He goes to this pawnbroker's not in
his own name, but, as the pawnbroker tells you (and I point to that fact
as one of the strong points in the defense), that he panned them with
him, telling him at the time that they belonged to Mrs. Bethune. Would a
thief who stole your property or mine go to a place where he was known,
that is if he stole them with the intention of keeping them? There was
no larceny here, no dishonest motive about the transaction. Would he go
to the pawnbroker to whom he was known and say, "Here is some property;
it is not mine, it is Mrs. Bethune's?" On the contrary, you know,
gentlemen--you must know--that there are a thousand other pawnbroker's
establishments in New York City; and if this had been a felonious taking
of these ear-rings, Hemmings could have gone to Simpson's across the way
from this court house, or to another place at the Battery, or east,
west, north or south, upon any corner in New York to a strange
pawnbroker, who did not know him, had there been any felony about the
transaction. Another point is, that a felon who steals invariably covers
up his crime. The Prosecution brought out this fact, and I appeal to it
as their own destruction, why in the name of Heaven did this man, if he
intended to appropriate these ear-rings to his own use, carry about him
the evidence of his guilt? Why, they told you when they got to
Pittsburgh, after the altercation, that he produced the pawn-ticket! Did
that look like stealing?
But to revert to the ownership. Mr. Lynch, in a moment of kindness,
loaned these ear-rings to his wife. Mrs. Lynch again loaned them to Mrs.
Bethune; and, as Hemmings says, whilst riding in a coach, she (Mrs.
Bethune) gave him those ear-rings to pledge. He did so pledge them. Mind
you, gentlemen, there has been no dispute about that since the
commencement; he has never denied the pledging. Having pledged them, as
he represents, a request was made to Mrs. Bethune for the return of the
ear-rings. She could not produce them, and for the best possible reason;
and not until nearly two months after the occurrence is the complaint
made before the police magistrate. She wished to hide from Mr. Bethune
(the gentleman who sustained the relation of husband to her) what had
become of the ear-rings; and, necessarily, she had no resort but to turn
round and say: "It is not very pleasant to tell my husband (or the man
who stands in that capacity) that I have given those ear-rings to a
lover! I cannot, without offending you, tell you the true cause of this
affair, but I must, in order to save myself, say, O, this George stole
them, and he is in Pittsburgh with Kate Fisher." This is _two months_
after the occurrence! And then, on the first of December, a requisition
is gotten out, and the more marvelous part of it is, that she goes on
alone in the first instance while Mr. Bethune followed subsequently. Now
see what occurred in Pittsburgh. She told you she did not know whether
he was arrested or not. She "believed" there was a form gone through of
getting out some papers. She "believes" she was taken before the mayor;
and what became of the case she did not know. But Mr. Bethune, who could
not shield himself in this way, very promptly answered that he was
arrested at the suit of this man; and Hemmings could not make idle
charges there. He was a theatrical manager in Pittsburgh, a public man!
and, as they told you, boasted that he was intimate with the members of
the press and police force, who were dead-heads at his theatre, and who
witnessed the performance gratuitously; so that you perceive he was very
well known. Do you believe, will any sane man of common sense credit the
statement, that a man who was as well known in Pittsburgh as G. L. Fox
is in this city, could afford to arrest a citizen and have the matter
made public unless he had reasons to do so?
I say, gentlemen, that the entire case, from the commencement to the
end, abounds in doubts suggestive of this man's innocence, especially
the fact which cannot be denied, that this lady, _she is not like
Caesar's wife_, above suspicion, shields herself, as no honest woman
would, behind that protection which the judge afforded.
Good God, gentlemen, in a court of justice, where jurors are empanelled
to decide upon the future prospects and the life of this young man,
would your wife or mine refuse to answer such a question? Is it a
_shame_ for us to acknowledge that the holy bonds of matrimony have
united us with a being--the mother of our offspring? Would you deny that
you were the husband of a lady, placed upon the witness stand to support
a charge against a thief for having stolen your watch? Why, I think,
gentlemen, that honor, affection, duty and every obligation known to
society, demands, in imperious tones, that instead of denying the wife
of your bosom, you stand forward as her champion and say, "Thank God,
she is my wife and I am proud of it!" That is what you or I would have
answered. But the gauzy curtain that was covered over this foul tableau,
has been lifted up, and you see it in all it hideous deformity. As I
have before stated, you have seen, gentlemen, the flimsy evidence upon
which is attempted to predicate a conviction for grand larceny. I am
confident that in spite of all the attempts that have been made by a
shameless wanton and her pretended husband, to crush this man, despite
the meretricious trickery and villainous conspiracy which instigated,
concocted and carried out this _persecution_, relying as I do, on your
sense of justice, your strict integrity, and the independence of an
American jury, that you will not permit our temples erected to justice,
to be prostituted to the accomplishment of the designs of the polluted
and the infamous and that innocence will triumph, and your verdict be
"Not guilty."
At the conclusion of Mr. Howe's address, Mr. Hutchings summed up for the
people. Judge Russel proceeded to charge the jury. After recapitulating
very carefully the whole of the testimony, told them that if they were
satisfied that the prisoner Hemmings had taken these ear-rings from Mrs.
Bethune, and had pledged them without her consent, then they should
convict; but if they had any well-founded doubt arising from the
testimony itself, and not engendered by the eloquent speech of the
prisoner's counsel, then they should give the prisoner the benefit of
the doubt and acquit him.
The jury then retired, and after a quarter of an hour's absence returned
into court and rendered a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
Hemmings was accordingly discharged, and he quitted the court amidst the
congratulations of his friends.
Mrs. Bethune also brought a charge of theft against Kate Fisher, which
was heard at Essex Market Police Court. The New York _Herald_ reported
the proceedings next day as follows:
Essex Market court-room was this afternoon densely crowded with
theatrical personages of all grades, apparently deeply interested in the
progress of the case which concerns the position and honor of an actress
so well known as Kate Fisher. The seats of the court would not contain
more than half the number of the persons present, the remainder being
compelled to stand around against the walls and in the nooks of the
doors, etc. Among those present were W. B. Freligh, manager of the
Bowery Theatre; John Jones, the treasurer; Clark, the stage manager;
Deane, leader of the orchestra, and others. The court-room was at last
found to be too small, and the whole party adjourned to examine the room
on the second floor of the building, which was also found to be rather
small, but yet more convenient for the purposes of an examination.
Justice Shandley then took his seat on the bench, and the parties
concerned appeared in court. Mrs. Bethune was rather flashily dressed,
and evidently intended to make a show. Kate Fisher was quietly dressed
in black, and was very modest in her demeanor; attracting no attention,
except from those who were acquainted with her. Mr. Bethune accompanied
the complainant, and Messrs. Howe and Hummel, appeared for Miss Kate
Fisher.
Having taken their respective seats, the case of Eliza Bethune, of
Centreville, Long Island, against Kate Fisher, for the larceny of a gold
watch and chain, valued at $200, was then called on.
Mrs. Bethune, the first witness, was then examined by her counsel. She
stated that her name was Eliza Bethune, and that she resided at
Centreville, L. I. She knew Kate Fisher, and knew her on the 16th of
last November. She was then living in East Fourth street. On that day
she missed her watch, and her daughter told her that Miss Fisher had
taken it. Acting on this information, she sent for Kate Fisher on the
afternoon of that day. Mrs. Bethune then asked her where her watch was.
Kate Fisher was very much intoxicated at the time, but understood all
that was said to her. She answered that she had taken it, and had given
it to Hemmings. The watch and chain was worth $200. Mrs. Bethune
subsequently learned that the watch had been pledged. Some time after,
she, Mrs. Bethune, caused the arrest of Kate Fisher at Pittsburgh, but
the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Mr. Howe then asked if the counsel had closed his case, but received an
answer in the negative, as there were more witnesses to be examined. Mr.
Howe stated that he was sorry that the case was not closed, as before he
desired to commence a cross-examination he would take all the evidence
to be exhausted. His case was a revival of one which had already been
settled at the General Sessions, and bore on its very face the evidence
of a malicious prosecution to injure the character and spotless
reputation of a lady whose profession brought her constantly before the
public, and whose good name became thereby part of her business capital.
He regretted it, therefore, that the counsel for the complainant would
not exhaust his case, as it made it necessary to adopt a course of
procedure in his cross-examination that he should have preferred not to
have done.
The counsel for Mrs. Bethune persisting that the cross-examination of
each witness should go on in regular order as each witness appeared on
the stand, Mr. Howe then proceeded by asking the witness her name.
My name is Eliza Bethune.
Are you married?
I am.
To whom?
Mr. Bethune.
What is his first name?
That is not your business.
Counsel appealed to the court, when the magistrate said the question was
a proper one, and she answered:
My husband's name is Bethune. His first name I do not choose to give.
After further questioning, she at last replied:
My first husband's name was John Bethune.
What is the name of your present husband?
That is not your business.
Is he here in court.
He is. He represents me here.
What is his first name?
After a great deal of cross-firing the answer was elicited that it was
George Bethune.
Were you ever married to George Bethune, the one who is now in court?
Objected to by counsel.
Justice Shandley: That is a proper question, and must be answered.
That is my business. He has been my husband for over ten years.
Were you ever married to him?
Objected to. Objection overruled.
I have answered already. I have answered all I am going to do.
Justice Shandley insisted that she must answer the questions, but when
she still refused, almost in a defiant manner, he rose from the bench,
and declared the case dismissed. His action was received with rounds of
applause from the persons assembled.