CHAPTER V

CRIMINAL AND CIVIL COURTS

=Type of story.= As all forms of judicial procedure are included

under court news, stories of this class cover such matters as police

court news, criminal trials, civil suits, divorce suits, bankruptcy,

wills and other probate court matters, decisions of higher courts,

and findings of judicial officers. Since much court news is of a

routine character, the matter-of-fact informative news story is a

frequent medium for presenting it. This does not imply that such news

is necessarily dry and uninteresting, for by bringing out salient and

significant phases of such matters as decisions of higher courts, legal

documents, wills, and bankruptcy cases, as well as of criminal and

civil suits, the facts of the news can be made of interest even to the

casual reader (cf. “Supreme Court Decision,” p. 88, and “Opinion of

Attorney General,” p. 90). Criminal and civil cases often have a strong

human interest element that, if rightly developed, may be a valuable

part of the story (cf. “Criminal Court,” p. 83, and “Supreme Court

Decision,” p. 89). The little comedies and tragedies of the police

court have long been favorite subjects for entertaining and appealing

human interest stories (cf. “Municipal Court,” p. 78, and “Forgery

Case,” p. 78).

=Purpose.= To give fair and accurate publicity to significant

phases of the administration of justice is the obvious reason for the

publication of court news. Court proceedings, like those of legislative

bodies, are activities of important branches of government and hence

are matters of public concern. In reporting sessions of these bodies,

the writer’s aim should be to direct the reader’s attention to those

details of the proceedings (1) that are significant to him personally,

(2) that affect the interests of the community, and (3) that relate to

the welfare of society as a whole.

The wide-spread publicity given by newspapers to the punishment

inflicted on wrong-doers tends to deter others from similar illegal

acts, and thus aids in accomplishing the chief object of punishment.

“The wages of sin is publicity,” as one editor has expressed it. What

has been said of the value of constructive stories of crime applies

with equal force to stories of criminal trials.

Destructive, or anti-social, influences, opposed to the best interests

of organized society, are found in those court stories--particularly

those of criminal and divorce cases--that play up disgusting or

scandalous phases of such trials in order to gratify the morbid taste

of some of their readers. Another evil connected with the newspaper’s

treatment of court news is the so-called “trying the case in the

newspaper” by means of news stories and editorials published before

or during a trial. Some newspapers undertake to prove the innocence

or the guilt of an accused person by printing whatever evidence they

can secure, even though some of it would be excluded from the trial

under the rules of evidence. In this way they create public opinion

and arouse public feeling to such an extent as to prevent the accused

person’s having the fair trial to which he is entitled.

=Treatment of material.= To find matters of general significance

and interest, particularly when they are buried in legal technicalities

and verbiage, and to present them clearly and attractively without

sacrificing accuracy, are the main problems in handling court news. The

task is not an easy one, but it is worth doing well, for court news,

if well treated, can be made interesting and significant even to the

casual reader.

The body of court news stories usually consists of summaries of

arguments, decisions, testimony, or legal documents, or of excerpts

from them, with the necessary connective material. In some instances

the story is largely a history of the case or action and of the persons

involved. The lead is usually determined by the status of the case. Any

one of the important points may be made the feature.

Testimony in news stories is given in one of three forms: (1) the

question indicated by “Q” and the answer by “A,” both question and

answer given in one paragraph without quotation marks, (2) the question

and the answer in quotation marks, each followed by the necessary

explanatory matter and each in a separate paragraph, like verbatim

conversation in fiction, (3) a summary of the testimony of each witness

in indirect quotation form, with the name of the witness at or near the

beginning of the first sentence of the summarized testimony.

=Contents of story.= Because of the variety of material presented

by different kinds of court news, it is difficult to indicate

specifically the points to be considered in each story. Among the

important details, however, are (1) the verdict and the conditions

under which it was rendered, (2) the sentence imposed, (3) the decision

rendered and its significance, (4) important testimony, (5) net results

of the day’s proceedings in a trial, (6) the history of the case or

action, (7) provisions of a will, (8) liabilities, assets, and cause in

bankruptcy, (9) the award, or finding, (10) the grounds on which a suit

is based.

* * * * *

POLICE COURT CASE

_Savannah News_

If you own an automobile and are fond of joy rides

in the evening, it will be a good idea to keep your

weather eye on the gasolene tank, for none will be

filled in Savannah after sundown if the efforts of

the fire department are successful.

Chief John H. Monroe is seeking to have enforced

the ordinance prohibiting the handling of gasolene

after sundown, believing it will reduce the fire

hazard.

Every city has a number of laws that are forgotten

because they are seldom enforced. This is true of

the gasolene ordinance here. It was not generally

known that such a law was on the statute books

until Barney Kolman was arraigned in the Police

Court yesterday, charged with violating it by

selling fuel to a motorist at night. He was fined

$10 or thirty days in jail by Judge John E. Schwarz

and the fine was remitted.

“No gasolene shall be handled in any way for

charging or filling any tank or repository by

artificial light, and never at all after sundown,”

reads the ordinance, passed in 1906. A fine of

not more than $100 and imprisonment not exceeding

thirty days, either or both, is provided.

“It is dangerous to handle such a fire producer

as gasolene after sundown because people become

careless and in many cases use open torches,

candles or matches, to get enough light to see

what they are doing,” said the fire chief. “Such

carelessness leads to increased danger from

gasolene explosions.”

It was because of efforts of the fire department to

stop violations of the law, which, it is said, have

become common, that Kolman, whose place of business

is at No. 435 West Bond street, was docketed.

The ordinance was passed April 13, 1904, and

amended Oct. 10, 1906, and August 14, 1907.

Recorder Schwarz remarked, in hearing the case

against Kolman, that he had never heard of the

ordinance, and that if it did exist he had seen it

violated a number of times.

* * * * *

MUNICIPAL COURT

_Kansas City Star_

Down Main Street drove Carl Wilson, 1228 Jenifer

Street, yesterday on the seat of an undertaker’s

ambulance, blowing on his fingers to warm them.

Presently he saw a familiar figure on the sidewalk.

It was Gus Hart, 2231A Holton Street.

“Hey, Gus,” he called. “Come on and take a ride.”

Gus climbed to the seat beside Wilson and smiled

expansively.

“Fine day, ain’t it?” said he.

“Yes, it ain’t,” said Carl. “I’m cold through and

through.”

“Oh, this is real weather,” said Gus.

“How can any man like this?” said Carl angrily.

“You must be crazy.”

“Crazy yourself,” said Gus.

“Bing!” said Carl’s fist.

“Crack!” said Gus’s chin.

Then they fought on the seat of the undertaker’s

ambulance, while the horse took the opportunity to

snatch a few moments of rest.

Both were taken into the South Side Municipal Court

this morning. Carl looked at Gus and Gus at Carl.

“Say, judge,” said Carl. “We’re friends. But even

friends fall out about the weather. Let us off,

will you?”

Acting Judge Casimir J. Welch let ’em off.

* * * * *

FORGERY CASE

_Milwaukee Sentinel_

With his young wife clasping him in her arms and

sobbing bitterly, Louis Short stood with hanging

head in District court on Friday, heard himself

branded as a forger, and in a shaking voice told

how he had forged the check because his baby had

died and he had no money to bury the little body.

A hush fell over the courtroom at the sight of

the young couple standing in the prisoners’ dock,

crushed and broken after the bitter, losing fight

against poverty and temptation. They have been

married but two years and were happy in their

little home in Chicago until the boy husband lost

his job.

Misfortunes crowded upon them after that. They

became driftwood on the sea of life, washed hither

and thither and finally cast upon Milwaukee. Then

the baby died. It was the last blow, and nagging

temptation won its victory.

Short forged a check for $48 on the German-American

bank. He made it out to Louis Short, signed the

name “J. Seikler, president,” and passed it in Mrs.

Mary Moore’s saloon, 251 Herst avenue, on July 28.

With the money the baby was buried. Then came the

law and Short’s arrest.

Short pleaded guilty, admitted everything, and

tried to be brave. So did his girl wife, but the

strain was too much. She broke down, threw her arms

around his neck and hid her face on his shoulder.

“O, Louis, Louis!” she sobbed.

Judge Neelen adjourned the case one week, for there

is a possibility that Short’s father will send him

the money to pay Mrs. Moore back.

* * * * *

CHILDREN’S COURT

_New York Evening Sun_

There was a soft patter on the floor of the

Children’s Court this morning, and in through the

gates, swung open for them by a tall policeman,

advanced two little maids, eyes cast down, doll

feet taking quick, small steps. Justice Wyatt

brushed aside the dry legal documents before him

and looked down from the bench with more interest

than he had displayed all the morning. The benchers

craned their necks and the court officers were

all eyes. Here was something out of the usual

routine--two little Chinese maids. Somehow they

didn’t fit into the picture of juvenile offenders,

mothers from the tenements full of cares and

burdened with babies, the motley array of parents,

complainants, street arabs and heavyfooted

guardians of the law. On the Yang-Tse-Kiang,

perhaps, the little maids would have fallen into

harmony with their surroundings, but not in the

hurly-burly of an Occidental court room. Who were

they and what was the occasion of their coming?

An agent of the Children’s Society explained. He

was Obadiah Cunningham. The almond-eyed visitors

were the Misses Moy You Toy and Chin Fung Toy, who

had strayed beyond the boundaries of the three

crooked streets which mark the limits of the local

Chinatown. For two moons the quarter had been

upset. The joss gave no comfort when his aid was

sought and one night threw the luck sticks into

the air in his temple ever so many times; but no

matter if they came down with the wished for side

uppermost, not a word came from beyond the pale,

out of the wide spreading territory of the “white

devils,” about either Moy You Toy or Chin Fung

Toy--that is, not until this morning, when the

lost were found again and taken to the Children’s

Court. Then the Chinese women--the men do not care

so much about the disappearance of a girl as of a

boy--could once more eat with a relish their dried

fish, and duck eggs dug from the soil of their

native land, in which they had remained packed

until the day of consumption.

Chin Fung Toy and Moy You Toy, the first named 13,

and the other 14 years old, trembled much in the

presence of the austere figure on the high seat,

who they had no doubt was a ruler of mighty power;

but he spoke kindly to them and they saw that it

was not his intention either to eat them or cast

them into a dark dungeon. Still, though his voice

was gentle, they longed somehow to be at home again

at 30 and 34 Mott street, respectively, to look

upon their own people and hear their own tongue

spoken.

It was not to be--not at once, anyhow. The

agent who had charge of them submitted a paper

to the Magistrate, in which was contained the

information in terse, legal phraseology that

there was no proper guardianship for the two

maids, and Justice Wyatt committed them to the

care of the Society, setting the case down for an

examination next Wednesday. It was represented to

the Court that there was reason to believe that

their so-called parents were not their parents at

all. Superintendent Jenkins of the Gerry Society

promised to say something about that phase of the

question later. In the meanwhile Moy You Toy and

Chin Fung Toy will look on the world through the

windows of the Society’s building at Twenty-third

street and Fourth avenue, and not from the closely

shuttered blinds of Mott street.

How were Chin Fung Toy and Moy You Toy found? That

is another story, which has not been told yet; but

there are hints of interesting developments to

follow before the wanderings of the children of

Mott street become known.

The statements issued from the offices of the

Gerry Society this afternoon, statements made

by the little girls through an interpreter,

put an entirely different complexion on their

disappearance and made it appear that they had been

little white slaves in Mott street. They were both

sold like common chattels in China, they said,

and in the quarter they got more kicks and blows

than kindness. For instance, Moy You Toy, after

stating that she is 14 years old, according to

our reckoning, and 15 years old according to the

Chinese, giving the place of her nativity as Sung

Hing district, Moy-how city, said:

“My address has been 34 Mott street, Room 11.

My father died when I was very young, and my

mother married again and left me alone with my

grandmother, who was very, very poor. I was sold to

the wife of Moy See Chai, who brought me over here

to America about two years ago, and I have been

with her ever since.

“I have had to work very hard in the house, making

buttons and button loops from early morning until

late at night. When I take a rest I get scolded and

beaten. Whenever my mistress’s boy called to me to

do certain things, and when I was not able to do

them fast enough, the boy would beat me.

“I do not want to say anything that is not true

against them; they fed me well, of course, nothing

luxurious.

“My mistress often said to me: ‘You must be

careful of Miss Banta [Miss Mary E. Banta,

superintendent of a school in Chinatown]; you can’t

depend upon her all the time, and complain to her

and display your feelings’ (meaning by this that I

should not make any complaints to Miss Banta).”

The girl continued that her mistress had even said

to her, “If I killed you they could only arrest

me.” Once, she added, she got a terrible beating

because she had gone to the country with Miss Banta.

Chin Fung Toy or Choy said that there was a man

named Ing Yee Yue of Washington, D. C., who has a

son and wife in China, and that Fung Choy was sold

to his son.

“I was sold to his son and was brought to America

by Pang Sam,” she continued. “Pang Sam was a friend

of Ing’s. I was told that the price the son paid

for me was $160.

“I came from a village in China, but don’t know

its name. About eight or nine months ago Ing Yee

Yue said he was going back to China and was not

able to keep me any longer; he then brought me to

New York and sold me to Chin Hing for $500 gold. I

have been with Chin Hing ever since, about eight

or nine months. I have had to work in the family

all the time, making buttons and button loops for

stores. Some mornings I had to get up at 7 o’clock

and sometimes work right on until 2 o’clock in the

morning. I was not allowed to go out.

“If I didn’t work all the time I got beaten,

although I am told I was treated much better than

the former slave girls. The other two were married.

One is here in New York yet and the other has gone

down South. I had to do all the washing--sheets and

all. The only teaching I ever received was from

Miss Banta, who taught me for an hour or so every

Monday.”

Fung Choy did not want to go back to Mott street,

after all, she told the Gerry agents, no matter how

downcast she may have seemed in court. She would

rather die than be sent back to Mott street, she

declared.

She won’t be.

* * * * *

RUNAWAY BOY IN COURT

_New York World_

Morris Steiner is a bad boy and Morris Steiner is

a good boy, and whichever he is most Magistrate

Naumer in the Flatbush Court, Brooklyn, must soon

decide.

Morris, now in Raymond Street Jail, says he will

not live with his stepmother. He braved hunger and

privation because of this idea. He built himself

a hut, lived a queer gypsy life for weeks, cooked

his own meals and slept in his queer camp. He did

his own washing and cooking. And, curious boy that

he is, he did his own praying, which was that his

own mother would forgive him for running away,

and would come to him as he slept and kiss his

forehead. That, he says, was the prayer he made in

his hut.

Morris, who is sixteen years old, could never

get along with his stepmother. He has a brother

eighteen years old and another fourteen, and they

live on good terms with their stepmother. It was

nine years ago that the brisk little woman married

Aaron Steiner, a travelling salesman. He was a

widower with four children.

The Steiners have not only a comfortable but a

pretty home at No. 991 Sixtieth street, Brooklyn.

It possesses shade trees and carefully trimmed

hedges and a beflowered piazza. Mrs. Steiner said

to a World reporter there yesterday:

“Such a queer boy! This home is not for him. He

will not have it because I am his stepmother. From

the time he was seven years old he would hardly

speak to his father, because I had come to the

home. My other stepchildren love me. But he will

not. I could not pet him. He would shrink from me.

Or he would laugh. I thought all the time that when

he got older it would be all right. But it was not.

The older he got the less he would think of this as

his home. He would always run away.”

This habit of the boy brought him into the Flatbush

Court yesterday on a charge of being incorrigible.

When the boy disappeared the last time he made his

way to a spot about half a mile from his home. It

is in a garden overgrown with rank weeds back of

an abandoned carpenter shop. The lot is at New York

and Thirteenth avenues, Brooklyn.

The boy built a house of old planks, nailed

together with a carpenter-like proficiency. Inside

he constructed for himself a couch and a fireplace

with a chimney outlet; on a peg on the wall hung

a stiff whisk-broom with which the earthen floor

might be kept smooth.

The youngster also put up pegs on which he hung

an extra suit of clothes. He was not without

an artistic sense, for he nailed to the walls

cartoons and other newspaper drawings, the most

prominent one being that of President Taft, with a

background portraying the reception on the return

of the ex-President and the lonely Taft exclaiming:

“Nobody loves a fat man.” The boy was evidently in

sympathy with the loneliness of the fat man.

For six weeks the youngster made his home in this

hut. Scraps of dry bread were the only signs of

food in the place when he was arrested. But word

was sent him that one of his little stepsisters,

of whom he was very fond, had been awake all night

crying for his return. When he heard that he went

back home. It was true about the little girl crying

for him. But also, when he got back his father

handed him a summons to appear in the Flatbush

Police Court. At that the boy flew into a rage.

He tore the summons to bits and flung them at his

father. His father thereupon caused his arrest.

In court yesterday the youngster stolidly looked at

his stepmother. He frowned at his father.

“Do you know,” demanded the father, “that you are

arrested?”

“I don’t care,” said the boy.

“Don’t you see what a trouble you are?” insisted

his parent.

The boy for answer turned to the Judge.

“I can’t live with my stepmother,” he said. “I

don’t do anything wrong. I don’t want to. But I get

along by myself. I’ve been living in my little hut,

and I like it there all by myself, with nobody to

get sore on me. That’s all. I wish I could only be

left alone--that’s all.”

His Honor, with an eye on the youthful face,

shook his head and held the boy in $300 bail for a

further hearing Friday morning.

* * * * *

CRIMINAL COURT EXAMINATION

_Milwaukee Sentinel_

For the first time the inner history of the daring

theft of the Boston store’s $3,500 pay roll from

the messenger in the First National bank on Feb. 15

was told on Tuesday, when Joseph Wilson, awaiting

trial for complicity, turned state’s evidence

against George O. Watts, in his preliminary

examination in District court.

Wilson said that Watts recruited in Chicago a

quintet for the express purpose of “cracking a

crib” in Milwaukee. Wilson said that the theft of

the money-laden satchel was not premeditated, but

that the gang had set out to “work” the banks.

According to Wilson’s story, Chester Bangs, who is

now awaiting trial, cleverly sneaked the satchel

at the feet of the Boston store messenger, and the

other four “blanketed” him while he slipped out of

the bank.

Watts, whom Wilson’s testimony clearly showed

to have been an accomplice, was bound over to

Municipal court. Bail was set at $9,000 despite

Attorney W. H. Rubin’s plea for a lower figure.

Wilson said that the gang was composed of Watts,

Bangs, Oates, Carter and himself. Of these, Oates

and Carter are still at liberty. The other three

have been bound over for trial.

Wilson told his story freely and fully, using

considerable slang.

“Two days before this deal was pulled off I had a

talk with Watts in a saloon in Chicago; he sent me

a note by Oates to meet him,” said Wilson. “I had

been out of jail four days. Watts asked me to come

in on the scheme of cracking a crib in Milwaukee

and told me that he had three other fellows to go

along.

“I agreed and Watts ‘made a meet’ opposite the

union depot in time to take the 7 o’clock train to

Milwaukee on Feb. 15. We met there, the five of us,

and came to Milwaukee.

“After we left the station we stopped in for a

drink in a small hotel at the corner of the station

park. Watts said: ‘This’ll be a good place for a

meet if we’re piped off.’ After that we started in

to work the banks. We went to the First National

twice.

“On the second trip we piped the messenger filling

his pay roll satchel. That was our chance. It was

fixed that Bangs should turn the trick. We four sat

on one of the benches near a window. In a minute

Bangs signaled us to come up, and we did.

“While the messenger was looking over some papers

Bangs reached under and grabbed the satchel. Then

we crowded around and blanketed him until he had

gotten out of the bank. Then we went out and

scattered. I saw Bangs, with the satchel, hop on a

street car.

“I walked up Wisconsin street and was later joined

by Oates. When we got in front of the postoffice

some one hollered. I turned around. It was Bangs.

We joined him beside the building. He opened the

satchel, and I saw it was filled with paper and

silver. He kept the paper money, tied in packages,

and loaded all the silver on me. Of course I did

not count it, for we were right on the sidewalk.

“That noon I caught an interurban car for Racine at

Clinton street. Watts was on the car. He came and

sat with me.

“‘We come off pretty clean,’ he said. ‘There can’t

be no “rap” to this.’ I told him it was a fool

trick to carry so much silver as I had in my bundle.

“The whole bunch was on the car. When the car

stopped at a corner in Racine we all got off and

scattered.

“In a minute I decided that I was being trailed. I

caught up to Oates and told him so. He told me to

go in a saloon and find out. I did, and the fellow

trailing me came in too. I went out of the saloon,

saw Watts and told him I was trailed.

“‘Ding that and duck,’ he said, pointing to my

bundle.

“‘Cover up and give me a chance,’ I said.

“He did, and I ducked down a side street, but that

fellow was still trailing me. After walking about

a quarter mile I stepped into a cigar store, for

I’d made up my mind to duck that fellow. I got the

proprietor to take me out in the back yard. Then

I climbed over two fences and hid in a shed until

dusk.

“Detective Sullivan nailed me about 9 o’clock that

night.”

On cross-examination, Wilson freely told his

long criminal record, which includes several

convictions. He gave his age as 53 years. He said

that Joseph Wilson is his real name, but that he

has used three aliases.

Asked what his business is, Wilson said:

“I’m a professional thief.”

District Attorney A. C. Backus announced that he

would file information charging Watts with a second

offense, for which the penalty may be twenty-five

years in prison.

* * * * *

CRIMINAL COURT

_Detroit News_

Some 20 years ago a ragged little newsboy stood

shivering on a busy corner in the heart of St.

Louis. His last paper was yet to be sold and his

free hand jingled a pocketful of loose coins. A

hurrying pedestrian snatched the final copy and

thrust a nickel in the hand of the boy. He did not

wait for change. Five minutes later the ragged and

cold and hungry boy stood with his nose buried in a

volume of “First Steps for Chemists” in the musty

atmosphere of a second-hand book store.

Wednesday morning the same boy, now grown to

manhood, stood before the federal court in Detroit

and heard a stern judge sentence him to 10 years in

the federal prison at Leavenworth and affix a fine

of $5,000 on three counts charging counterfeiting.

It was the cause and the effect.

The boy was Harry Wilson, alias Peter Smith, said

to be one of the cleverest counterfeiters in the

United States.

“I loved chemistry from the time I was a boy,” said

Wilson from his cell. “That was really my downfall.

I was left alone in the world when I was seven

and I sold papers for years. I do not know why

chemistry had such a fascination, but when I was

still in knee breeches and earning a few pennies a

day I saved until I could buy second-hand books on

the science. I studied at every possible moment,

and although my English is not the best in the

world, and I may misspell many words, I am familiar

with the majority of chemical formulas and I can

spell any chemical symbol, drug, instrument or

process, Latin, Greek or German.

“I longed for a laboratory of my own. I wanted

enough money to enable me to give up my life to

chemical research. To achieve this I wanted a trade

and engraving seemed to open the doors to a good

salary, as well as allow me to come in contact with

chemicals. I got a position after I had taught

myself the rudiments of the trade and discovered I

had a talent for drawing. But the salary I received

did not seem to be enough to allow me to obtain the

realization of the dreams for many years.

“One day I picked up a magazine and there was a

story by Detective Burns on counterfeiting. I read

it and then read several following stories. The

idea came to me slowly, bit by bit, that here was a

way whereby I could obtain enough to buy a private

laboratory. If I could make bills good enough I

thought they would continue to circulate and no

one would lose. I tried it and I have failed.

I am sorry, of course. I am sorry I went wrong

from a standard of morals and more sorry from the

standpoint of what I might possibly have done for

the benefit of the world in chemical research.

“Those unfortunate persons who were convicted

because they associated with me must know how

badly I feel over their arrest. I do not know what

they did before they met me, but I feel personally

responsible for this bit of trouble and I wish I

could bear all their sentences. They would never

have known the horrors of imprisonment but for me.

In a way they were tools that I used and I do not

believe any of them knew just how serious a thing

they were getting into.

“I shall be as good a prisoner as I know how,

and should I be released before my sentence is

completed or should I have to wait all the time,

when I get out I am going into chemistry with a

determination to give to the world more than I

robbed it of.”

* * * * *

MURDER TRIAL

_New York Sun_

Jack Rose’s jester and the playboy of the Rosenthal

murder, Sam Schepps, testified for six hours and a

quarter yesterday in the trial of Lieut. Becker,

and exhibited the qualities that made him the joy

of the gamblers in their lighter hours.

Murder trials are not supposed to be humorous

affairs and Justices bend severe glances upon

flippant witnesses, but Schepps somehow dissipated

the gravity of the proceedings and lightened

the black tale of crime. Even the austere Judge

permitted his eyes to twinkle and some of the

jurors laughed outright.

Schepps was so pleased with himself, so proud of

his skill in coping with John F. McIntyre, his

inquisitor, so naive in his appeals to Justice

Goff, so pugnacious and alert that his listeners

were in smiles most of the time. He took it for

granted that the court appreciated him at his own

valuation, and Justice Goff seemed to regard him

as an extraordinary specimen of another world, one

that must not be banged about by counsel for fear

of the total loss of a curiosity worth studying.

But the amusing characteristics of the State’s

principal corroborative witness by no means

lessened the effect of the testimony he gave

against Lieut. Becker. Resisting every device of

Mr. McIntyre to trap him into admitting he was

an accomplice with Rose, Webber and Vallon, and

insisting that he was kept in the dark and used

only as an errand boy by Rose and Webber, Schepps

swore that the night after the murder he talked

with Becker in Becker’s house and that Becker sent

this message to Rose:

“Don’t mind anything. I’ll fix it all right. They

have to prove who killed Rosenthal before they can

convict any one.”

And Schepps added that Becker, in the darkened

dining room of the apartment, wouldn’t let him

smoke and said:

“Don’t light that match. Somebody is across the

street and if they see a light they will suspect

something. They have been trailing me all day.”

Schepps was an exasperating witness to Mr.

McIntyre. He had the dimmest of memories for times

and dates, but he had an extraordinary faculty for

recalling previous statements, and he frequently

corrected the lawyer. Mr. McIntyre resorted to the

traditional methods of hectoring and storming and

fist shaking, but Schepps hectored and stormed and

gestured back at him. Once he called Mr. McIntyre

a liar for saying he had paid the gunmen, and

while Mr. McIntyre was fuming before the jury and

shouting that Schepps was “a thing,” “a creature,”

the witness was suavely and deferentially

apologizing to the court for “language that a

gentleman ought not to use.”

Lieut. Becker’s chief counsel concentrated his

efforts to make Schepps say something that would

indicate that he knew Rosenthal was to be murdered

and that he was one of the conspirators. It was an

attack of the utmost importance to the defence. A

good deal of Becker’s money had been spent in an

excursion to Hot Springs, made for the purpose of

showing that Schepps had incriminated himself while

there and had exculpated Becker.

Lawyer Hart, who was with Rose the night Schepps

was with Becker, cross-examined Schepps about his

conversations with Hot Springs people and failed

absolutely to establish contradiction. McIntyre

had tried his hand at this work previously, and

had raged when Schepps volunteered the statement

that one of the principal Hot Springs witnesses for

the defence had been a pickpocket in New York for

twenty years.

Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Hart gave up the

cross-examination late in the evening, apparently

running out of ammunition. Mr. McIntyre insisted

plaintively that he was wearied, totally exhausted,

unable to continue, which drew from Justice Goff,

who has a very dry humor, the comment:

“Tut, tut, Mr. McIntyre. You talk of being

exhausted. I am upward of 70 years old.”

Schepps was the only witness yesterday. It had been

the purpose of the prosecution to call Mrs. Herman

Rosenthal, but there was no time left for the long

examination that would be necessary and Justice

Goff rather reluctantly consented to adjournment.

The widow of the murdered gambler will be the first

witness to-day.

When Schepps appeared from the witness room at

10:30 A. M. all eyes were turned in his direction.

From the first he has been one of the most

interesting characters of this case. His childlike

vanity, his delight at posing as an oracle

among the rudely informed men and women of the

underworld, his reputation for impudence and wit,

his adventures dodging detectives in the Catskills

and his sojourn among admiring citizens in Hot

Springs had given him a kind of reputation second

only to that of Rose.

He was nervous at first. His sharp eyes squinted

behind his nose glasses and his glances darted

sidewise. He twisted his fingers together and tried

to cross his legs, a proceeding frowned upon by the

court officer who stands at the witness chair.

He wore a blue suit, a black four-in-hand tie and

black low shoes, and he carefully drew up his

sharply pressed trousers so that his white silk

socks would be exposed.

As the day went on he lost much of his nervousness

and controlled his tendency to flippancy, but he

became more and more pugnacious and more and more

determined that counsel for the defence should not

get the better of him.

Assistant District Attorney Frank Moss conducted

the direct examination. The testimony was:

Q. Where do you live? A. Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Q. What is your business? A. Portrait enlarger.

Q. Do you know Jack Rose? A. Yes; I have known him

for fifteen or eighteen years.

Q. Did you ever meet the defendant Becker? If so,

where? A. At the Lafayette baths.

Q. Ever again? A. Yes, at the Sam Paul raid.

Q. Did you ever carry to him a message from Jack

Rose? A. Yes.

Q. What was it? A. That Rose would meet him at the

Union Square Hotel.

Q. Were you at Dora Gilbert’s house on July 15? A.

Yes.

Q. What were you doing there? A. I was asked to go

there by Rose to get an affidavit for Becker.

Then he said that, after leaving Dora Gilbert’s, he

drove with his friends to Sharkey’s, where the gray

car was called by telephone.

Q. Who drove it? A. William Shapiro.

Q. Who got into that car? A. Vallon, Rose and

myself.

Q. What did you do then? A. We went up to Seventh

avenue and 145th street.

Q. What did you do next? A. I stepped out and

pressed the bell of Baker and Harris’s apartment.

Dago Frank put his head out of the window and we

called him out. He got into the machine and we went

to Forty-second street and Sixth avenue.

Q. Who did you find there? A. Sam Paul, Leftie

Louie, Whitey Lewis and Gyp the Blood. Webber

excused himself and said he would be back shortly.

Q. Did he return? A. Yes; he said Rosenthal was at

the Metropole.

Q. What was done then? A. They left the room.

Q. Who left? A. Gyp, Lefty Louie, Whitey Lewis and

Dago Frank.

Q. What did you do? A. I stayed in the room.

Q. How long? A. About fifteen minutes.

Q. In what direction did you then go? A. I went

into the Times Square drug store and purchased a

soda. A short time after I got there I heard four

shots.

Q. What did you do? A. I ran in the direction of

the shots.

Q. Did you see Lieut. Becker that night? A. Yes,

sir.

Q. Where? A. He was riding in an auto with a

chauffeur at Sixth avenue and Forty-sixth street at

1:30 o’clock A. M.

Q. When you ran to the scene of the murder, on what

side of the street were you? A. On the south side.

Q. Did you meet any one that you knew? A. I met

Harry Vallon at the Elks Club. A great crowd had

gathered and the body was lying in the street.

Q. What did you and Harry Vallon do then? A. We

went to Fourteenth street, to the house where he

lived, and stayed there until 6 o’clock the next

morning, when we went to a house at 145th street

and Seventh avenue.

Q. What was it that awoke you? A. The entrance of

Jack Rose.

Q. After Rose spoke to you and you went to 145th

street and Seventh avenue, did you see any one? A.

Yes, we saw Lefty Louie, Whitey Lewis, Dago Frank

and Gyp.

Q. Did you say anything to them? A. They wanted to

know when I would bring them the money. I made an

appointment to meet them at Fiftieth street and

Eighth avenue.

Q. Where did you see them? A. At Fiftieth street

and Eighth avenue.

Q. Prior to that time had you seen Webber? A. Yes,

sir.

Q. Did you receive any money from him? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you see anything passed by Webber to any one

else? A. I saw Webber pass money to Jack Rose.

Q. Was that money presented to the gunmen at

Fiftieth street and Eighth avenue? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who had it? A. Jack Rose.

Q. What did he do? A. He passed it to Lefty Louie.

Q. Did you go away then? A. Yes.

Q. Did Lefty Louie? A. Yes, and took the money with

him.

Q. What did you and Rose do? A. We went to the home

of Harry Pollok on Riverside Drive.

Q. How long did you stay there? A. I stayed for

dinner.

Q. Then where did you go? A. To the Lafayette

Baths.

Q. The next morning, what did you do? A. I went to

Pollok’s and remained about four hours. I then went

downtown and later returned to Pollok’s. I stayed

until about 10:30.

Q. Where did you go next? A. I went to Lieut.

Becker’s apartment.

Q. Did you see Becker? A. Yes.

Q. Where was that? A. At the Belleclaire apartments.

Q. How did you happen to go there? A. Jack Rose

sent me.

Q. Repeat the conversation you had with Becker. A.

I told Becker that Jack Rose was sick and worried,

and that he sent me to him to see what he was going

to do. Becker said Rose was not to worry. He said:

“Don’t mind anything. I’ll fix it all right. They

have to prove who killed Rosenthal before they can

convict any one.”

Q. What then? A. Then I left. As I was about to

leave I pulled out a cigarette and started to light

it. Becker said, “Don’t light that match; somebody

is across the street and if they see a light they

will suspect something. They have been trailing me

all day.”

Q. Was the apartment lighted or dark? A. It was

dark.

Q. Did Becker say anything else? A. Yes. He asked

me if the gunmen had been paid and I told him that

they had. Then I left.

Q. Then what did you do? A. I went back to Pollok’s.

Q. Did any one arrive while you were at Pollok’s?

A. No; somebody was there before I got there.

Q. Who was that? A. Mr. Hart.

Q. Who do you mean? A. Attorney John Hart, who is

sitting there.

The witness nodded toward John W. Hart, who has

been Becker’s lawyer since before the murder of

Rosenthal.

Mr. Moss had no further questions to put to the

witness and the direct examination ended at 11:02

A. M., having occupied only twenty-seven minutes.

[_The report of the cross-examination and other

details of the day’s proceedings in the trial

followed under separate heads._]

* * * * *

GRAND LARCENY CASE

_Duluth Herald_

Commercializing his remarkable faculty for

imitating a paralytic has proven to be the downfall

of Charles F. Koch, 45, the black sheep of a

respectable German family residing at Rosedale,

Iowa. And because his game of faking injuries and

collecting large sums from railroad companies and

other corporations has been detected and exposed,

Koch must look forward to serving a term of years

in the Minnesota state penitentiary.

It took a jury just nine minutes in Judge Fesler’s

division of the district court yesterday to find

Koch guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the

second degree under an indictment which charged

him with having defrauded the Duluth & Iron Range

Railroad company out of $1,000 on a fake personal

injury. The jury retired at 3:36 o’clock and

returned with a finding of guilty at 3:45 o’clock.

The same blank, fixed expression which has

characterized Koch since his trial began did not

change one iota when the verdict of guilty was

read in his presence. He maintained the same

expressionless attitude of indifference as to what

was going on about him and seemed to be unconcerned

as to whether he would be acquitted or not. The

crime of which he stands convicted is punishable by

imprisonment in the state penitentiary from one to

ten years.

On Oct. 14, 1914, Koch was a passenger on No. 61,

of the Duluth & Iron Range, a mixed train leaving

Duluth at 11:30 p. m. On arriving at Two Harbors

at 12:45 a. m., he left the coach and as he did

so, according to his claim, his raincoat, which

he carried on his arm, caught on an angle cock or

brake staff and he was thrown to the depot platform

and suffered an injury to his back. As a result,

he claimed, his lower limbs, bowels and bladder

were paralyzed. Examination by surgeons seemed to

indicate that he was permanently disabled, and on

Dec. 7, the company settled with him for $1,000 for

his alleged injuries. Koch, who had been moving

with great difficulty on crutches, immediately

left the city and at once discarded his crutches.

The railroad authorities secured a warrant for his

arrest and after detectives had chased him through

several cities of the Middle West, he was arrested

at Tonopah, Nev. He was brought to Duluth under an

extradition process and stood trial on the charge.

During the course of his trial much of his past

history, and a more or less unbroken story of his

operations, were brought to the light of day.

Koch was born forty-five years ago in Germany

and emigrated to this country when a boy of 15,

settling at Rosedale, Iowa. He married when a

young man, but, after his wife had lived with him

ten years, she secured a divorce from him on the

grounds that he had been convicted of a crime and

committed to the Iowa state penitentiary. This was

in 1903. She remarried. Koch’s parents are old and

respected residents of Rosedale.

In 1903 Koch joined the army, enlisting in the

state of Washington. Two months later, however,

he was discharged on account of “chronic anaemia

and debility.” In 1906 he claimed that he had been

injured while working at Missoula for the Northern

Pacific, brought suit for $50,000 and recovered

$5,000 in the lower court. The case dragged on

six years in the Montana courts and judgment was

finally reversed in January, 1912. A portion of

the time Koch spent on a poor farm, supposedly a

down-and-out cripple, forced into the almshouse by

the law’s delay. He went by the name of C. F. Post.

In July, 1911, at Portland, Or., posing as C. F.

Pantle, he secured from the Portland Light & Power

company a sum of money on a fake injury. On Feb.

16, 1912, at Breckenridge, Minn., under the alias

of C. F. Jones, he secured $4,500 from the Great

Northern Railway company for injuries claimed to

have been sustained in falling from a passenger

coach step. On Aug. 12 of the same year, as

Clarence F. Main, he again tried to work this game,

but unfortunately ran up against the same claim

agent at Great Falls, Mont., who recognized him as

an impostor and had him arrested. He served four

months in the Montana penitentiary.

On Feb. 28, 1914, at Hampton, Iowa, he claimed that

he was injured while alighting from a train, and on

May 9, 1914, collected $600 from the Minneapolis

and St. Paul Railway company. On July 23, 1914,

while crossing a railroad crossing at Grand Rapids,

Mich., he was injured, he claimed, and he later

extracted $1,600 from the Grand Rapids & Indiana

Railroad company. His latest offense was the affair

of the Duluth & Iron Range Railroad company.

Koch will be brought before Judge Fesler later

for sentence. Those who are familiar with Koch’s

history declare that whiskey brought about his

ruin and that as soon as he made a good haul while

operating his game he would spend it all for liquor.

* * * * *

SUPREME COURT DECISION

_Brooklyn Eagle_

That an employer is not responsible for the acts

of his servant that cause damage to another when

those acts are not committed in furtherance of

the master’s business, was the decision of the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First

Division, when it reversed a case which the lower

court had decided against a Manhattan department

store. The reversal in favor of the department

store was given by the court on an appeal taken by

the attorney, Abraham Oberstein, of 299 Broadway,

Manhattan.

This case is of considerable importance to

employers, for the reason that their employes

often get into altercations with employes of other

concerns, damages sometimes ensue, and then the

question arises whether the employer is responsible

for the acts of his servant. As the justices of

the Appellate Division view the question, the

issue is not whether an inflicter of damages was

in the employ of a certain firm, but whether he

was promoting the firm’s interest in inflicting

the damages. If he was, then the master is

responsible, providing it was within the scope of

the employer’s duties, and if it was not, then the

master is not responsible, no matter how grievous

or serious the injury inflicted may be.

Adolph Miller, through his guardian, instituted

suit for assault against Attorney Oberstein’s

client. Miller was a driver in the employ of

another concern, and was about to deliver goods

at the store when one of the latter’s drivers

asked for the berth Miller was entitled to. Miller

refused. The other driver, he alleges, assaulted

him. Then he directed suit against the department

store concern, under the employers’ liability act.

The lower court decided for Miller, but Lawyer

Oberstein appealed and the Appellate Division

reversed the decision, saying that Miller’s suit

should have been dismissed.

The opinion, written by Presiding Justice

Gildersleeve and concurred in by Justice McLean,

says:

“The test of liability in such cases depends upon

the question whether the injury was committed by

the authority of the master, expressly conferred,

or fairly inferable from the nature of the

employment and the duties incident thereto. The

mere statement of this rule answers the question

in favor of the defendant in this case. The act of

the driver was a wilful and malicious act. It was

not done in furtherance of his master’s business

and was in no way connected with or incident to

the performance of any of the duties intrusted

to him as a driver, or which could be considered

as promoting the defendant’s interests. The rule

as stated in Gervin vs. N. Y. Central R. R. Co.,

166 N. Y. 289, is as follows: ‘If a servant goes

outside of his employment and, without regard to

his service, acting maliciously or in order to

effect some purpose of his own, wantonly commits a

trespass or causes damage to another, the master

is not responsible.’ The plaintiff failed to prove

any liability on the part of the defendant and the

defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint should

have been granted.”

* * * * *

SUPREME COURT DECISION

_Duluth Herald_

Eighteen months have elapsed since little Florence

Lemoine, a pretty, dark-eyed dancer of 18 years,

fell from a sidewalk on West Fourth street and

sustained an injury to her back and spine which

has left her a helpless and lifelong paralytic.

Unconscious of her true condition and hopeful of

the future, the once popular little vaudeville

performer lies on her cot at her father’s ranch

near Moscow, Idaho, planning theater engagements

she will never fill and dreaming of new gowns and

dances.

Yesterday the Minnesota supreme court handed down

a decision which affirms the judgment of the

district court of this city where, a few months

ago, a $5,000 verdict was obtained against the city

of Duluth in her favor. A jury last April awarded

her damages in that amount, but the city asked for

judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Judge Kesler

denied the motion and an appeal was taken by the

city to the supreme court, the municipality denying

its liability. The higher tribunal held that the

city was liable.

On Aug. 17, 1913, Florence stepped off a sidewalk

on the lower side of West Fourth street between

Lake and First avenues west. The accident occurred

during the evening while Mrs. Jane Lemoine

was escorting her two daughters, Florence and

15-year-old Grace, to the Happy Hour theater, where

they were filling an engagement. The sidewalk at

this point is elevated several inches above the

abutting property and at the time of the accident

was unprotected by a rail.

Florence slipped and fell on her back. Her injuries

at first were believed to be of a slight nature.

Later surgeons pronounced her suffering from spinal

trouble and paralysis of the lower limbs. She was

taken to her room at the Frederick hotel, where

the Lemoines were stopping, and there remained

until after the trial of the suit against the city

last April. The Lemoines left for Moscow, Idaho,

about six months ago. Denny & Denny, attorneys for

Frederick Lemoine, the girl’s father, who brought

suit on behalf of his injured daughter, recently

received word that the girl’s condition was not

much improved. She is still in bed. Since her

accident Florence has been of a cheerful frame of

mind, probably because her true condition has been

carefully withheld from her.

At the time of the accident, the two girls were

appearing in a singing and dancing act at the local

theater. Both are talented in their line and their

appearance in Duluth was during their second season

on the stage.

The Lemoines, up to five years ago, lived in

Baltimore. The two girls appeared in a number of

amateur theatrical performances in that city and

there received their training for professional

work. In 1910 their father, who was then suffering

from a nervous breakdown, moved West, taking his

family with him.

After the Lemoines had settled in the West, the

children became much in demand at church socials

and amateur theatricals on account of their talent

along that line. Later, the girls were offered a

vaudeville engagement with a song and dance act.

At first the mother refused to allow her daughters

to go on the stage, but after a flattering salary

had been offered, she finally consented. She

accompanied them on their tour as chaperone. The

season was about half over when Florence met with

her accident. The father remained on the ranch in

Idaho because of his poor health.

During the trial of the case last April, Florence

was brought into the courtroom on two occasions,

both times on her cot. She nervously twitched at

her bedclothes and at her jewelry while she told

the story of the affair as she remembered it. She

told the jury that she was spending most of her

time now drawing sketches and that until she got

well enough to get back to the stage she expected

to devote her time to art.

The two girls were earning from $75 to $140 a week

with their act, according to testimony which was

adduced at the trial.

* * * * *

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION

_San Francisco Chronicle_

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided

in the case of Mrs. Ethel Coope Mackenzie of

San Francisco that the federal expatriation law

of 1907 is constitutionally applicable to women

that continue to live in this country after

marrying foreigners as well as to those that marry

foreigners and live abroad.

The ruling settles finally a test case that has

become internationally famous in suffrage circles.

In effect, it is much more sweeping than the bare

recorded fact would indicate, including in its wide

range a host of women, in and out of states where

they have the vote, who are married to men not

citizens of the United States.

It means, applied locally, simply this: A woman

born in California, herself a citizen of the United

States with the right to vote, automatically

relinquishes her citizenship and that right the

moment she becomes the wife of a foreigner, whether

the foreigner is a resident or not.

Mrs. Mackenzie, who brought the test case, is the

wife of Gordon Mackenzie, known on the concert

platform as Mackenzie Gordon, the Scotch tenor. Her

husband, who is a nephew of the late Sir Morell

Mackenzie, a famous English surgeon, has been a

resident of San Francisco for the last twelve

years. He has lived in this country for more than

twenty years. She was herself born in California,

the daughter of J. F. Coope of Santa Cruz, a well

known California pioneer. But the fact that her

husband, born a British subject, has never taken

out citizenship papers in this country, makes Mrs.

Mackenzie, by the ruling of the supreme court, an

alien in the eyes of the law of the United States.

A curious feature of the unusual case is that Mrs.

Mackenzie was one of the most ardent of the workers

for suffrage during the campaign which resulted in

the women being given the vote in California.

The ruling affects also, in sweeping fashion, a

large number of other women socially prominent in

San Francisco. It includes Baroness Van Eck, who

was Miss Agnes Tillman and who is still a resident

of this state; Baroness Von Brincken, formerly Miss

Milo Abercombie, also living here; Countess Von

Falkenstein, who was Miss Azalea P. Keyes; Mrs.

John Hubert Ward, who was Miss Jean Reid, and a

great number of others.

Mrs. Mackenzie, who, since her marriage to the

famous tenor in August, 1909, has been living at

2832 Jackson Street, was among the first to appear

at the polls after the state had enfranchised its

feminine population. She was refused the privilege

of voting. The California courts, in which the case

was instituted, decided against her. Now the ruling

of the highest tribunal in the country upholds the

lower courts.

“It was something of a shock,” she said, “to learn

that after two years of hard work to bring suffrage

to California I could not enjoy the right I had

helped to give other women. Investigation showed,

of course, that I could gain my citizenship and my

right to vote, and also retain my husband, by his

application for naturalization papers, but I did

not wish to accept citizenship on those terms, and

so I brought a test case.

“My husband kindly delayed his citizenship until my

case might be presented in the courts. Now that it

is decided, he will become a citizen. This means

that I shall be received back into the fold, but

only because I am his wife.”

Concerning the effect of her test case, Mrs.

Mackenzie stated that she had just heard that a

Mackenzie Club had been organized in Oregon, for

the purpose of “looking into the matter.”

* * * * *

OPINION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

_Wisconsin State Journal_

Excess fare cannot be charged of passengers on the

railroads of Wisconsin when tickets are purchased

on the trains, unless provision is made to refund

the amount of overcharge.

This is the effect of an opinion rendered by

Attorney General F. L. Gilbert today. Prior to the

passage of the two-cent fare law the Northwestern

and St. Paul roads charged 10 cents in addition to

the regular fare when the fare was paid on trains.

This practice was temporarily discontinued when the

two-cent fare law was passed, because of the heavy

penalty provided for violations. An attempt has

been made to find out if the railroad commission

would not permit this additional fee being charged.

An opinion was asked of the attorney general. He

said:

“It seems to me that the plain spirit, intent and

purpose of the law in question was to establish a

maximum passenger rate beyond which common carriers

could not, in any event, go and retain the excess

as their absolute property.

“I am therefore of the opinion that such excess

fare cannot be legally collected from a passenger

unless provision is made for refund, or an act of

the legislature is passed allowing the collection

and retention of said excess as a penalty for

failure to purchase a ticket at a point where

facilities are provided.”

About two weeks ago, Lloyd W. Bowers, general

counsel for the Northwestern and Burton Hanson,

general solicitor for the St. Paul, brought this

matter before the commission. During the course

of a conference, the railroads claimed that the

old law allowing an excess fare to be charged had

not been abrogated. The attorney general held

differently.

* * * * *

INSANITY CASE

_Chicago Herald_

Baptiste Bardoli is on his way.

Over in Italy, on a big estate at Lenno, near the

shores of Lake Como, Baptiste’s aged father is

waiting to see him--that is, he was waiting to see

him when Baptiste last heard, about three months

ago.

Baptiste was on his way to Italy last June when he

left his home in Oakland, Cal., provided with some

$200 in cash, long green tickets for the train and

small red tickets for the boat--clear to Italy.

Baptiste also took with him two large bottles of

Zinfandel. The bottles were wrapped in twisted

straw, through which the red wine could be seen

sparkling inside the green glass.

The traveler arrived in Chicago without the bottles

but with the contents. Policemen met Baptiste at

the railroad station. They stopped him from biting

the iron fence of the train shed. They took him to

the Harrison street police station.

A man wearing a white coat came in and looked at

Baptiste. The man took a yellow sheet of paper and

wrote as follows:

“June 30, 1914.--I have examined Baptiste Bardoli

and believe him to be insane and recommend his

commitment to an institution. He is on his way from

Oakland, Cal., to Italy and arrived in Chicago on

the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company.

Respectfully,

ALFRED LEROY, M. D.,

Assistant City Physician.”

Baptiste was taken to the detention home. On

July 2 a jury composed of one physician heard

testimony concerning Baptiste’s actions and

returned a verdict to the effect that Baptiste was

insane--that he had “alcoholic hallucinosis”--that

he manifested suicidal and homicidal tendencies and

had about $96 on his person.

County Judge John E. Owens appointed Walter F.

Sommers, an attorney, conservator for the money,

and turned Baptiste over to the Chicago State

Hospital for the Insane at Dunning.

Baptiste “came to” on July 4 and called for his

trousers. He was denied. He protested his sanity.

He admitted his temporary inebriety, but swore that

he had no more bottles of green glass wrapped in

straw. It was no use.

Baptiste wrote letters to the Italian consul. He

implored the doctors and pictured for them the

father who was waiting to see him on the shores

of Lake Como. About a month ago he convinced the

Dunning authorities of his sanity, and they began

to arrange for his release.

Investigators at the office of the Italian consul

declared that they tried to get Conservator

Sommers to turn over some money to Baptiste, so

that he could be released. They say Attorney

Sommers replied that under the Illinois law he

had been appointed for a year, and as far as the

court records showed, Baptiste was still insane.

Moreover, it was vacation time, and there was no

session of the Probate Court.

Yesterday Judge Owens entered an order restoring

Baptiste to his civilian rights. Probate Judge

Gregg ordered the restoration of the funds held by

the conservator. The funds were restored. He was

freed from the asylum.

In Illinois the records, however, will show until

a year has passed that Baptiste is insane and that

he can only conduct business legally through his

conservator, who can’t be removed for a year.

But Baptiste is happy--he’s on his way to Italy.

* * * * *

PROPOSED LAW SUIT

_New York Sun_

For why should the Kaminoka Strumolova Sick and

Benevolent Association pay out money for burying a

man who is not yet dead? For why that hearse, $8;

that headstone, $35; those two funeral coaches for

$11 when Leon Welfish, the dear dead one, is alive

already and in his own town of Kaminoka, Galicia?

Not for often will the Kaminoka Strumolova Sick

and Benevolent Association make such a fool of

itself and those money spendings for the hearse,

the headstone, the funeral coaches and all the rest

making of Two Hu-u-ndred dollars!--to the court

here by a lawyer the Kaminoka Strumolova is going

for recovering. To the court by Lawyer William

Schneider the Kaminoka Strumolova is going and

make for getting back all that money because Leon

Welfish did not have the use of it, being not at

all dead and buried.

Aye-yah; it is all right enough for the hospital

people in the place at Central Islip to say that

there was mistaking in sending Leon Welfish to be

buried by the Kaminoka Strumolova when it was not

Leon at all who had died, but some one else. It’s

all right to say these things, but that does not

pay back the moneys for such a comfortable funeral

that some one else enjoyed. Oh no. The State of

New York by the courts will have to pay back those

moneys for those mistakes. It is to the Court of

Claims in Washington that the lawyer is going

to make the State to pay up these losses by the

Kaminoka Strumolova.

Listen.

Came to this country from Kaminoka, which is in

Galicia, which is of Austria, Leon Welfish, a young

man who did not have great strength but who was

honest and who would never try to cheat anybody.

Came Leon Welfish by New York and he worked as

tailor until one night when he didn’t work, but

fell down on the sidewalk by Lewis street and they

takes him to Bellevue. They looks at him for three

days--observations, they calls it--and then they

sends him to the State hospital for poor insane

ones at Central Islip. Leon goes and everybody is

sorry that he is one of the poor insane ones.

But then, before Leon Welfish is by the hospital

very long, comes the immigrationers from Ellis

Island and they say Leon Welfish is unfit for being

in this country and never should have come by New

York. Back he goes to Kaminoka, Galicia; so say

these immigrationers.

Everybody believes that Leon Welfish must go back

to Kaminoka, and his friends by Rivington street

are mourning that such a good boy goes home. Then

one day--it was the 5th day of August, two years

ago--comes to one of Leon Welfish’s friends by

Rivington street this message from the hospital:

“Leon Welfish is dead. Pleurisy makes it. Shall we

bury him or do his friends make the buryings?”

Of course it is to be that the Kaminoka Strumolova,

which is the society belonging to Leon Welfish,

shall make the buryings. Leon was a member standing

good and every member has for his money a good

burial or good doctors when in sickness. So says

the Kaminoka Strumolova, “We make the buryings.”

They makes. It costs all the $8 for hearse, $35

for headstones and the rest of those $200 which

belongs to Leon Welfish for being a dead member of

the Kaminoka Strumolova. Nobody sees Leon Welfish

before the buryings, for the hospital people sends

it so no one sees. All of the society makes of

itselves assessments for paying the funeral and

three members of committee wear white gloves and

rides in those for $11 hacks to Mount Zion Cemetery.

Leon Welfish’s papa and mamma, which are by

Kaminoka yet, gets a letter from the Kaminoka

Strumolova which says Leon is dead and has a good

buryings for $200--a very good buryings--and very

sorry to have to say these sad tidings. Then Leon

Welfish’s papa and mamma make mournings by their

dead son, and all of his friends by Kaminoka make

mournings.

Comes to Kaminoka then one very dark and rainy

night Leon Welfish, who was sent home by the

immigrationers. Comes Leon and knocks at the door

of his papa and mamma’s house.

“Hello, my papa; hello, my mamma!” says Leon when

they opens the door, and Leon’s papa calls for

police and Leon’s mamma has a fit on the floor

right in front of him.

After that Leon Welfish and Leon’s papa and mamma

make a great rage because he was dead and is not

really dead. They make writings to the Kaminoka

Strumolova to know for why was that mistake made.

Strumolova makes investigations and now it goes to

court by a lawyer.

* * * * *

SUIT FOR SEPARATION

_New York Telegram_

Alleging that for the sake of her three children

she had endured verbal and physical abuse of

violent character for seventeen years, Mrs. Clara

Hansen, of No. 10 Western Parkway, to-day filed

suit for separation in the Supreme Court against

her husband, Harry L. Hansen, worth a million,

and half owner in the Schmidt and Hansen Brewing

Company of Newark. Mr. Hansen makes his home at No.

190 East Ninety-ninth street.

Accompanying the affidavits of Mrs. Hansen is a

deposition from her sixteen-year-old son, Oscar,

in which he corroborates many of the stories of

beatings and other abuses alleged by his mother,

and makes the statement that his father’s treatment

of himself was such that he was glad when his

mother established a second home and took the

children with her. In addition to Oscar, the

Hansens have a daughter, Nellie, thirteen, and

another son, Henry, twelve years old.

Mrs. Hansen was represented in the preliminary

court proceedings by Mrs. Harriette M.

Johnston-Wood, of the law firm of Wood & Wood,

No. 2 Rector street, a well known leader of the

suffragist movement.

In the papers filed Mrs. Hansen states that she was

married to Harry L. Hansen in this city in 1897

and that they went from New York to Washington to

begin their honeymoon trip. Three days after the

wedding, she alleges, while they were still in

Washington, her husband became violently angry and,

after choking her, threw her against the furniture

in their room.

Later, at the Grand Hotel, at St. Augustine, Fla.,

he refused to talk to her, she asserts, and they

returned to this city without speaking to each

other. Their first home, she says, was established

in a house owned by Mr. Hansen, at No. 99 East

Eightieth street, and there, she sets forth, he

beat her frequently and repeatedly swore at her,

and said, “I hate your peaceful face; I’m tired of

it.”

Before Oscar was born, in 1898, she further

alleges, her husband accused her of being on

friendly terms with the tradesmen who came to the

house. After the boy was born he told her that,

since he had an heir, he had no further use for her

and, opening the front door, said, “This way out.”

In 1900, she says, while she was in Berlin with her

husband, she was compelled to go to a sanitarium,

and later, when they were in the Alps, he left her

and went to England, where she finally located him.

To escape his abuse two years later, she went to

Philadelphia, and in 1909 she went to Europe with

her daughter, returning later at her husband’s

earnest requests. The final separation, she states,

took place in 1911, when she established a separate

home for herself and her children.

In the deposition made by the son Oscar, he states

that on several occasions he saw his father beat

and abuse his mother. The boy also states that his

father had violent fits of temper on an average

of once a month and that on one occasion, when he

became displeased with the boy, he drew a knife and

destroyed the wireless apparatus which the child

had spent an entire winter in building.

Mrs. Hansen asks for $200 a week temporary alimony

and $25,000 counsel fees. She states that the

brewery in which her husband is interested turns

out 750,000 barrels of beer annually and that he

has other sources of income.

* * * * *

DIVORCE CASE

_Detroit News_

The story of the married life of Dr. Arthur and

Mildred S. Smith, from 1900 to 1913 reads the same

as that of any struggling young physician in a

large city. But--

In 1913 the physician found fortune smiling on him

and he turned to look at his wife and his gold. She

had faded during those years when $1 was made to

last longer than $10 would now.

“I am just in his way now,” said Mrs. Smith to

Judge Van Zile, while testifying in her suit for

divorce. The doctor filed his bill several months

ago and she filed a cross-bill.

A younger girl, with golden hair, red cheeks and

lips has come between the doctor and his wife,

according to Mrs. Smith.

“I filled in all right when someone was needed to

slave and dig the dirt out of the office floors

and dust the furniture,” continued the woman. “He

didn’t have time to look at me then to see whether

I looked good to him or not.

“We worked mechanically, shoulder to shoulder. I

played my part and he played his. The business and

my husband’s bank account would lead anyone to

think that it was a success.”

Mrs. Smith, a little woman, her eyes filled

with tears, seemed to reflect a moment and then

continued:

“Perhaps it is a success. It seems that success

must be measured in dollars and cents no matter who

gets the gold. He undoubtedly is happy, but--I--I

am a wreck.”

Mrs. Smith said that when her baby was born her

husband told her not to stay in the hospital too

long as she was needed in the office. She says that

she left the hospital in three weeks and the child

died at the end of five weeks.

“It was always so,” she continued. “He always

wanted me in the office and I was willing to stay.

It was only a few years ago that he went abroad,

and I remained at home, as we both agreed that

it would cost too much for us both. Then he took

several other equally expensive trips, but he never

asked me to go.”

Mrs. Smith said she and her husband had always been

active in the Summerfield Methodist church, and

that her husband even carried his dislike for her

to the church, urging her not to go to any of the

meetings, either social or religious.

“I was active in home missionary work,” said Mrs.

Smith, “and he told me that it didn’t look well for

me always to be mixing in with the church affairs.

I told him I couldn’t conscientiously drop my

church work and wouldn’t.”

Mrs. Smith declared her husband had told her he

couldn’t afford to live with her any longer as she

wasn’t so attractive as another girl he knew and

her company tired him instead of affording him rest

and comfort.

“His father also told me that I might as well

get out right away as Walter had to have some one

younger and more attractive,” she said. “The old

father said: ‘You don’t fit into Walter’s station

in life and you might as well get out without a

fuss, as you will have to move some time.’”

Mrs. Smith testified that her husband’s practice

is worth between $400 and $600 a week, and that he

owns three automobiles.

“I just rode in one of them, however,” she added.

“The office girl rides in them most of the time.”

Dr. Smith stated in his bill that his wife had an

ungovernable temper and that she called up his

patients and advised them not to consult him. The

doctor further stated that these and other things

ruined his health and his business.

Mrs. Smith was given the decree.

* * * * *

RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDINGS

_Chicago Tribune_

Inflated reports of sales by managers of branch

houses, extending over a period of three years,

and resulting in a misleading annual statement,

it was said yesterday, were responsible for the

receivership proceedings for Robert Z. Link & Co.

The Chicago banks which were the principal

creditors of the corporation discovered the

character of these statements a few days ago in

an audit of the books, and at once took steps to

protect creditors.

The other explanation advanced for the crisis in

the company’s affairs came from Secretary William

H. Arthur.

“In the panic last fall,” he declared, “poor

people, who are the firm’s principal customers,

could not afford to buy even the cheapest fish.

They became vegetarians. If we could have tided

over our financial difficulties until after Lent

we would have weathered the storm. Trade was just

beginning to pick up.”

Developments of the day were as follows:

Receiver William T. Harrison, learning that fish,

oysters, and other sea foods were lying in the

cars, took measures to obtain the fullest powers in

conducting a business based upon transactions in

perishable products.

Four Chicago banks that hold nearly $2,500,000 of

the firm’s paper, some of it accepted two months

ago, held a conference and discussed reorganization

of the company.

Minority creditors prepared to organize.

Efforts were made to find out what the company

did with the proceeds of $1,000,000 worth of

preferred stock issued last October. Officials say

it was used to take up short term notes and to

buy warehouses and plants to prevent competition.

Creditors believe exorbitant sums were paid for the

plants.

Ancillary receivers were appointed for branch

plants of the company in various parts of the

country.

Receiver Harrison issues a statement practically

exonerating Link brothers for blame for the

financial straits of the Company.

An official of one of the four Chicago banks which

hold nearly $2,500,000 of the firm’s paper said

that the receiver was appointed after the banks had

learned that some persons connected with Robert

Z. Link & Co. had issued misleading statements

concerning its volume of business. The Link

brothers are not believed to have known anything

about these false statements.

The company, it appears, has a number of ambitious

managers of its branch houses in various parts

of the country. Each manager gets a percentage

on his total sales. Some of them, to obtain the

commission, it is asserted, juggled their reports

in such a manner that their total sales appeared

to be much larger than they really were, and the

annual report was in consequence misleading. The

company had no system of checking up these reported

sales, and it was not until the bankers put an

auditing firm upon the books, after they suspected

something following the issuance of the last annual

statement, that the discrepancies were discovered.

The fact that the last annual statement does not

account for new money, the proceeds of the last

stock issue, also is being investigated.

Secretary Arthur had a different explanation to

make.

“The panic of last fall, and vegetarianism to

which the poor were reduced when thrown out of

employment,” he declared, “are responsible for most

of our troubles.

“It is a well known fact that the company supplied

two-thirds of the oysters, fish, and all sea food

eaten in this country. The bulk of this trade is

among poor people. The company’s chief business has

been in fish that retails at 8, 10, and 15 cents a

pound, especially in large cities. We depended most

upon our business in fresh water fish--the largest

in the world in herring, lake perch and such

cheaper varieties. This trade came from working

people.

“When the working people were thrown out of

employment and stopped buying fish, our trade fell

off tremendously. It has just begun to pick up, and

if the bankers had not taken alarm and had given

us a little more time, we should have come out all

right.”

Mr. Arthur said that the $1,000,000 acquired in the

last issue of preferred stock had mostly gone to

pay short term notes.

Receiver Harrison in the afternoon went to Lake

Geneva to hold a conference with Judge Kohlsaat,

who had been originally selected as the judge

before whom the receivership proceedings were to be

held.

“I wish to secure the fullest authority for

conducting the business, which is based so largely

upon perishable products, so that there will be

no loss,” said Mr. Harrison. “I already have

that power, but I want to have it specified more

clearly.”

Representatives from several railroads called on

Mr. Harrison before his departure to ask what

should be done with quantities of fish that were

standing in the cars on sidetracks. The company

has $600,000 in available cash to carry on its

business. It is estimated that $1,000,000 will be

needed.

Mr. Harrison made a statement in which he said:

“From the examination of the books of Robert

Z. Link & Co. that has been possible since my

appointment as receiver I should say that the Link

family owns about 60 per cent of the preferred, and

about 50 per cent of the common stock. When the

$1,000,000 of preferred stock was issued within the

year, it would appear that the Link family paid

their assessment on this stock and took their full

pro rata, and I cannot find that any transfer of

any of their shares has been made.”

* * * * *

ASSIGNMENT

_New York Times_

Henry W. Williams, who carried on a banking and

brokerage business at 33 Wall Street, assigned

yesterday for the benefit of his creditors, to Mark

T. Cox of the firm of Robert Winthrop & Co. Mr.

Williams was the publisher of Williams’ Investors’

Manual, and is a director in several other concerns.

No figures were given out yesterday as to the

extent of his liabilities, but it was said by a

representative of important banking interests that

no complications involving other Wall Street houses

need be expected as a result of the failure. First

estimates put the loss at between $5,000,000 and

$10,000,000, but as the part which H. W. Williams

& Co. has played recently in the money market has

been steadily diminishing, it is believed that

the liabilities will amount to from $1,000,000 to

$2,000,000. Hawkins & Delafield are the attorneys

for some of the principal creditors of the firm.

Lewis L. Delafield of this firm conferred yesterday

afternoon with John L. Cadwalader of Strong &

Cadwalader, the attorneys for the assignee. They

gave out this statement after the conference:

Henry W. Williams, transacting business in

the State of New York under the name of H. W.

Williams & Co., has made a general assignment for

the benefit of creditors to Mark T. Cox of Robert

Winthrop & Co. There are no preferences beyond

such as the statute gives to employes.

A superficial examination justifies the belief

that if the creditors, who are few in number,

will co-operate in enabling the assignee to

effect a favorable liquidation of the assets, a

large sum will be realized for their benefit.

Written assurances of important financial

assistance to such creditors as will co-operate

to that end have been given.

Neither Mr. Cox, the assignee, nor Messrs. Robert

Winthrop & Co. are interested as creditors or

otherwise in the assigned estate.

None of the lawyers yesterday would make an

estimate of the extent of the failure. Some

surprise was expressed at the wording of the deed

of assignment filed in the County Clerk’s office.

It read: “H. W. Williams, trading as H. W. Williams

& Co.” as though the assignor had no partners in

the firm. The latest corporation directories give

the firm’s personnel as H. W. Williams, Frederick

A. Farrar, W. N. Phoenix, Franklyn W. Hunt, Charles

F. Cushman, and Henry V. Williams. Of these Messrs.

Farrar, Hunt, and Cushman live near Boston, where

the firm had a branch office.

It was said at the office of Hawkins & Delafield

that Henry W. Williams some time ago filed the

necessary deed with the County Clerk authorizing

him to use the firm name after his partners had

resigned their interests. No information could be

obtained as to when the dissolution of partnership

took place.

It is understood that Mr. Williams’ resources have

been dwindling for some time. His firm engaged in

several unprofitable consolidations, and in the

slump in stocks of March, 1907, it was reported

that the concern was hard hit. The October panic

found it again in bad shape to meet a financial

storm.

Mr. Williams began business in 1865 as H. V. &

H. W. Williams, and became widely known as the

publisher of Williams’ Investors’ Manual. In 1880

he entered the banking business as a partner in the

house of Anthony, Williams & Oliphant. A year later

this concern was succeeded by Williams, Oliphant &

Co. It was, however, as a member of the house of

Williams & Greenough that Mr. Williams attained

his greatest prominence in Wall Street. He was

particularly active in leather and ice, and is said

to have made about $5,000,000 by his operations in

these lines.

In 1899 the firm was dissolved, and Mr. Williams

continued in business as H. W. Williams & Co.

Since then he has been interested in a number of

consolidations which have turned out to be heavy

drains upon him. Among these was the Colonial Sugar

Company, which has since been absorbed by the Cuban

American Sugar Company.

Mr. Williams formed the Colonial concern by merging

a number of Cuban and Louisiana sugar properties

in which he was interested. The venture was

unprofitable, and it was said last night by an

officer of the company that Mr. Williams’ firm had

dropped between $300,000 and $400,000 in it.

Another of his interests was the Newton &

Northwestern Railroad of Iowa, which has since been

taken over by the Fort Dodge, Des Moines & Southern

Railroad. Suit was brought against him recently by

Howard Willetts on account of the investment which

he had made in the road on the recommendation of

Henry Williams & Co. Mr. Willetts is suing for

$243,000, the price of 200 of the bonds of the

company, on the ground that the line is not earning

enough to pay its fixed charges. The case is still

pending.

Other concerns in which Mr. Williams has had large

interests are the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway

Company and the United States Casualty Company, of

which he was a Director, and the Postal Telegraph

Cable Company of Texas, of which he is President,

now a part of the system of the American Telegraph

and Telephone Company.

For some years H. W. Williams & Co. has maintained

an office in Boston. It has dealt exclusively in

bonds, bidding for local, as well as Massachusetts

State, and city issues. The last issue in which the

Boston branch figured was that of the United States

Envelop Company of Worcester, Mass., which issued

$2,000,000 worth a couple of months ago. The firm

has also invested heavily in American Telephone

Company and Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic

Railroad bonds. Boston bankers do not consider that

the failure will have any important effect on other

houses.

Outside of financial circles Mr. Williams occupied

an important position in society and was an art

lover. His house at Tuxedo Park has been known

as one of the finest examples of modern country

residences. His town house, 1 Lexington Avenue,

facing Gramercy Park and exactly opposite to the

residence of the late Stanford White, one of his

warm friends, has been renowned for its rich and

artistic decorations.

Mr. Williams was a liberal supporter of music, and

helped many students to follow their profession. He

is, however, best known as a book collector. For

years he spent large sums on rare editions and fine

bindings. He brought together a library with hardly

an equal in America. Among his special treasures

were a first edition of Thomas à Kempis’s “Imitatio

Christi,” Higden’s “Polychronicon,” and some rare

Americana. His collection was estimated as worth

between $200,000 and $300,000.

A few months ago it was announced that this library

was to be sold at auction. It was the first

intimation to the world at large that Mr. Williams

was in financial difficulties. The sale began on

Nov. 12, and the first day’s offerings brought in

$19,000. Some of the leading book collectors of the

country, such as J. Pierpont Morgan and Senator

Henry C. Lodge, sent representatives, and by the

time the first two sections had been disposed of

$75,000 was realized. It is understood that the

three other sections are still more valuable.

Five years ago Miss Edith Williams was married to

Capt. James K. Modison of the Warwick Regiment of

the British Army. It was one of the most brilliant

social functions of the year, the best man being

Sir E. Stewart Richardson, and the ushers Pierre

Lorillard, R. Monroe Ferguson, Arthur Derby,

Frederick C. Havemeyer, Jr., J. Insile Blair,

Jr., J. M. Waterbury, Jr., Henry V. Poor, and

Roger Poor. The bridesmaids were the Misses Violet

Cruger, Janet Fish, Muriel Robbins, and Helen

Cutting.

* * * * *

NOTE--_The way in which the human interest can be

brought out in what might ordinarily be considered

routine news, is shown by the second of the

following two stories._

PATENT AWARD

(1)

_New York Times_

The Board of Examiners of the Patent Office decided

that the man who made the hydroaeroplane possible

was not Glenn H. Curtiss, but Albert S. Janin, a

poor cabinet maker of Staten Island.

In 1910 Mr. Curtiss began testing a canoe device

to carry the planes on the water till the momentum

necessary to lift them was obtained, but it did not

work.

In the controversy that followed the use of the

present device, which consists mainly of outrigging

to keep the planes on an even keel, it came out

that Mr. Janin had really produced the device in

1909, about a year before Mr. Curtiss had failed to

raise his machines at Hammondsport.

Thomas A. Hill, a lawyer, of 233 Broadway, took up

Janin’s claims and put them before the examiners of

Interference of the Patent Office. Mr. Hill alleged

that on July 3, 1910, Curtiss tried four times in

vain to raise his plane from Lake Keuka; also that

Curtiss admitted the failure. It was shown that

drawings of the successful device now in use were

made by Janin long before this date, and that he

tried to build a machine to test it in operation,

but couldn’t get the money.

Mr. Curtiss contended that the device was his, and

that it had failed at Lake Keuka because the motors

were not strong enough to do their share of the

work. In deciding against Mr. Janin the Examiners

of Interference said:

While he (Curtiss) was thus engaged Janin was

sleeping on his rights, from which slumber he did

not awake until after the achievements of Curtiss

had been widely published.

Then the case was taken before the Board of

Examiners, who found for Mr. Janin. Their opinion

reads in part:

He (Janin) is a poor man, evidently struggling

for a sufficient income to meet his current

living expenses. From what his witnesses testify,

it is apparent that he was continuously striving

to raise funds to develop his ideas, which were

regarded by many as illusionary.

It also came out that Janin, in the years he was

working on his water flyer, was the butt of many,

who looked upon him as unbalanced by one idea.

Concerning the statements of Curtiss that his

motors were not powerful enough, the Examiners said:

An excuse of this kind for failure to make

flights could probably be advanced in good faith

by hundreds of inventors of aeroplanes, who have

been seeking patents for the last forty or fifty

years.

Mr. Hill said yesterday that Janin’s success

probably would make him wealthy; also that an

order for 200 hydroaeroplanes is awaiting any

manufacturer who can furnish security that they can

be delivered. He said the order was from one of the

belligerents in Europe, but did not know which.

“The Curtiss factory,” he said, “can turn out about

ten planes a week at a cost of about $7,000 each.

But no matter who turns them out they will have to

pay a royalty to Mr. Janin.”

(2)

_New York Evening World_

Albert S. Janin, cabinet maker, the other night

took off his apron in the shop in which he has

worked eight hours a day for the last fourteen

years at Rosebank, Staten Island, walked up to the

foreman and resigned his job.

He didn’t quit in a huff--a fact that was plainly

attested by the manner in which the foreman wrung

his hand and his fellow workmen crowded around him,

their faces beaming.

“Congratulations, Al,” said the foreman simply.

From somewhere in the crowd spoke one of Janin’s

intimates:

“The ‘Bug’ has made good. Whaddaya know about

that?”

“Well,” rejoined Janin, good-naturedly, “it no

longer will be Janin, the cabinet maker, or

Janin, the Bug, the dreamer and the impostor.

I guess the handle to my name has been pretty

firmly established as ‘Janin, inventor of the

hydro-aeroplane.’”

And that night the modest little 5-room Janin flat

was the scene of a celebration the like of which

has never been seen at Rosebank. Most enthusiastic

of the guests were men who, for the last ten years,

have scoffed at the strange looking winged craft

in the Janin back yard, which, the poor carpenter

persisted, would some day be recognized by the

patent office as the first flying boat.

Rosebank went on the map to stay at 2 o’clock

in the afternoon, when word was received from

Washington that the board of examiners-in-chief of

the patent office had decided unanimously that the

man who made the hydro-aeroplane possible was not

Glenn H. Curtiss, but Albert S. Janin, the poor

cabinet maker of Staten Island. For four years the

powerful Curtiss interests had fought the claims of

the obscure and almost penniless carpenter, through

the patent office and to its highest court--the

board of examiners-in-chief.

He would not have won out probably had not Thomas

A. Hill, a patent lawyer of New York, taken

the case, out of a sense of justice, without

compensation. As a former president of the

Aeronautical Society of America, and at present a

director, Mr. Hill went into the litigation to see

fair play.

Just how it feels to a struggling workman, whose $5

a day is barely enough to provide the necessities

of life for a wife and seven children, to find

himself suddenly famous with a fortune within his

grasp, Janin tried to explain.

“We put it over, didn’t we, mother?” Janin beamed,

affectionately patting his wife. “If it hadn’t been

that she stuck to me--believed in me, when all the

rest were poking fun and scoffing--I never would

have made it.”

“And if it hadn’t been,” Mrs. Janin interrupted,

“that after your hard day’s work for almost

every night in the last ten or fifteen years, you

burned the oil at your work bench until long after

midnight, you never would have made it.”

“The best part of this invention is that, unlike

a whole lot of others, it’s going to bring us

money--gobs of it,” Janin broke in. “For years we

have felt the pinch of poverty, but thanks to Mr.

Hill and his work in Washington, I guess that day

is past. You know the decision of the patent office

gives me a royalty on every hydro-aeroplane turned

out in this country dating from the day a few weeks

hence on which my patent is printed and issued

by the government. Mr. Hill tells me that the

royalty can be fixed arbitrarily by the inventor.

The failure of any of these companies building

hydro-aeroplanes to come to terms, of course, would

be followed by an infringement suit, but we don’t

expect any such difficulty.

“What will I do with the money? The first thing

will be to get a home of our own with plenty of

ground around it for the kids to play in. No more

of these flats for us. But we are going to stay

right here in Rosebank, where my wife and I were

born and brought up. You know we were sweethearts,

even at old public school No. 13, around the

corner. Most of the kids are now going to that same

school. The oldest girl, Antoinette, who is now 14,

can realize her ambition to go to normal school and

take up teaching, if she wants to--but she don’t

have to now.”

* * * * *

AN ADOPTED CHILD

_Kansas City Star_

The Patrick Sullivans had a bad three hours last

night.

You see, it was only a month ago that theirs was

a childless family. Mary had grown up and was

teaching and there were no babies around the house.

Then they found a 1-month-old baby boy, abandoned

in St. Aloysius’s Church, and adopted him. The

cheery household it has been since then!

But yesterday a young woman arrived at the

Sullivan home, 961 Walnut Street, and said that she

was the baby’s mother, and that the baby’s father

had only abandoned him temporarily because they

were then in desperate straits, but that everything

had come out all right financially and now wouldn’t

the Sullivans give her back her boy?

The Sullivans wouldn’t. Not last night.

That’s when their bad three hours began. If their

hearts were wrung so at abandoning a baby not their

own, what must be the mother’s feelings? That won

the day.

Papa Sullivan went to Judge Hinton this morning.

He, had been to him last week to adopt the baby

legally. Now he wanted to know if that legal

process would stand in the way of his returning the

baby to its mother. Judge Hinton said it would not

prevent such action, and he believed that it would

be best to give the child to its mother. But he

didn’t look at Papa Sullivan when he said it. Men

don’t like to see each other wet-eyed.

“She’ll come back,” said Papa Sullivan, “and she

can get him.”

Judge Hinton this afternoon made an order at the

request of Mr. Sullivan declaring the adoption of

the baby by the Sullivans void. The request was

made on the ground that the mother had appeared and

had shown herself capable of properly caring for

the child. The mother did not appear in court. No

further action will be necessary. The mother need

only go to the Sullivan home and get her baby.

* * * * *

NOTE--_The provision in the will given in the New

York court story making bequests to Chicago nurses,

formed the basis of the local story in the Chicago

paper; both stories follow._

WILL ADMITTED TO PROBATE

(1)

_New York Sun_

The will of Walter H. Hammond, the wealthy

butterine manufacturer, who was shot dead in the

Pennsylvania station in Jersey City ten days

ago by Peter Grew, who had a fancied grievance

against him, was admitted to probate in Jersey

City yesterday. After making a number of specific

bequests, including amounts of $500, $250 and

$100 to thirty-seven old employees, the residue

of the estate goes to the next of kin, share and

share alike. Col. Robert A. Hammond is one of the

brothers.

Col. Willard C. Ward, who drew the will on October

1 last and filed it yesterday, said that he didn’t

care to discuss the value of the estate, as he

believed that the bequests indicated about what

the value is. He wouldn’t give an opinion as to

the value of the butterine business or how much of

the estate will be left for the four brothers, two

sisters, two nieces and a nephew after the bequests

have been settled. The estate is believed to be

worth at least $800,000, and probably $1,000,000,

as Mr. Hammond is said to have owned much property

in addition to his butterine business.

Mr. Hammond leaves his entire holdings in the firm

of Hammond & Person, of which he was practically

the only stockholder, to three legatees. They are

Miss Alice C. Hagan, daughter of a Jersey City

policeman, who had been his private secretary for

many years and was said to have been engaged to

him; Dr. Oscar Bauer, his physician and one of

the executors of the estate, and Henry C. Berger,

superintendent of his butterine plant.

One of the first bequests provides for the payment

of $25,000 to Anna Louise Cooley of New York city

as soon as possible. Of this amount $500 is to be

paid at once and the balance at the rate of $100

a month. Sarah B. Johnson and Mabel E. Wilkins of

Jersey City, employees of the firm of Hammond &

Person for many years, receive $1,500 each. Nellie

P. Hamilton, a stenographer in the office of Col.

Ward, who assisted in drawing the will, gets $250.

Gertrude M. Burns, a daughter of Henry Burns of 314

Devine avenue, Jersey City, where Mr. Hammond lived

for seventeen years, receives $500. John J. Jones,

manager of Mr. Hammond’s butterine company, gets

the shares in the American Butter, Cheese and Egg

Company that were owned by Mr. Hammond. Concerning

one of the bequests the will says:

During several days’ illness in Chicago I was

a patient in the Presbyterian Hospital, where

I was faithfully nursed by the trained nurses.

I desired to recognize the care I received at

their hands. I therefore give and bequeath to the

following members of the Illinois Training School

for Nurses: Nellie G. Burke, $500; Minnie C.

Phillips, $500; Jennie Van Horn, $1,500.

This illness occurred about six years ago, when

Mr. Hammond had typhoid fever. His physician, Dr.

Bauer, was with him at the time, and was also ill.

In making the bequests of from $500 to $100 to

thirty-seven employees, who include men and women

working both in the office and in the butterine

plant, and truck drivers as well, the will says

that they are remembered for their faithful

services to the corporation of Hammond & Person.

The will allows the executors five years in which

to make payment of all the legacies, and the

remainder of the property, real, personal and

mixed, is bequeathed “to the next of kin and their

survivors.” The relatives named are Robert A.

Hammond of New York, and Samuel A., Frederick D.

and Franklin A. Hammond of Pittsburg, brothers;

Josephine Block of Greensburg, Pa., and Anna Emma

Dell of Los Angeles, Cal., sisters; Paul Martin,

nephew, and Gladys Brown and Madeline Martin,

nieces, all of Pittsburg and children of Mr.

Hammond’s deceased sister, Sadie Martin.

The total cash bequests amount to $41,710, of which

$10,460 goes to the thirty-seven employees named

together.

Col. Robert A. Hammond, who was in Jersey City most

of the afternoon yesterday, said when he returned

to his office at 16 Broadway that he was acquainted

with the provisions of the will and had been at

Col. Ward’s office during the afternoon. He said he

was to see the will at 9 o’clock this morning, and

was not aware that it had been admitted to probate.

“No one has any cause for complaint over the

will,” said Col. Hammond. “It was just what might

have been expected from the fairest, smartest boy

that ever walked the face of God’s green earth. No

more generous chap ever lived than that boy, and if

he had not remembered his employees as he has done

it would have been most unlike him. His relatives

do not begrudge the money he has left to those he

chose to reward.

“There has never been the slightest break in the

cordial relationship between Walter and myself or

between him and any other member of the family. All

this talk that has come up since my brother’s death

is pure foolishness. I am the oldest and the head

of the family, and the relationship between Walter

and me has been almost that of father and son. I

gave him his first start in life when he was a boy.

I have never asked anything from him or from any

one else in my life and I do not ask it now.

“Walter was the pleasantest, sunniest boy you ever

knew. He did not sit at the right hand of Mr.

Parkhurst, but nothing ever came up to smirch his

record during his lifetime, and nothing will come

up now that he is dead.

“We are all sorry that our best brother was killed

and our thoughts are not on the provisions of his

will, but on seeing that the man who shot him down

without giving him a chance for his life is made

to suffer the full penalty of his act. My entire

time from now on will be devoted to that purpose.

There isn’t the slightest doubt that I will get my

brother’s murderer. I haven’t been wasting any time

since Walter’s death.

“I know that the man who murdered my brother has

been sleeping well every night and eating three

square meals a day. I don’t propose to permit

him to escape with an insanity plea. I have been

going over the testimony of seventeen witnesses

with the prosecutor and helping to get it into

shape. My experience in that line makes me of some

assistance, and I intend to see the prosecutor

every day if necessary, in order that full justice

may be done to my brother’s murder.”

(2)

_Chicago Evening Post_

Three Chicago nurses came into their reward to-day

for faithful services and devotion six years ago to

Walter H. Hammond, a wealthy butterine manufacturer

of Jersey City, who was shot dead on Nov. 17

in that city by Peter Grew, who had a fancied

grievance against him.

Under the terms of his will, which was filed

yesterday in Jersey City, $500 is bequeathed to

Miss Nellie G. Burke, 981 Carroll avenue, a like

sum to Miss Minnie C. Phillips, 14 Green Tree

street, and $1,500 to Miss Jennie Van Horn of

Chicago, who is now with a patient in Japan.

While in the city on a business trip six years ago,

Mr. Hammond was taken ill with typhoid fever at the

Annex. His physicians, Dr. J. B. Herrick and Dr.

Frank Billings, had difficulty in finding nurses

who suited the patient. At length Miss Burke was

sent for and placed in charge of the case, and she

selected for her assistants Miss Phillips and Miss

Van Horn.

“I remember Mr. Hammond very well and the

circumstances attending his illness,” said Miss

Burke to-day. “He was seriously ill and for a long

time it was a question as to his recovery. We made

every effort to save him and felt a keen personal

delight when we knew we had won. He had always, up

to the time of his death, remembered all of us,

sending us presents and flowers at the holidays and

in many ways showing his deep gratitude.

“We were notified by his secretary immediately

after his death, but until to-day we had no idea

that he had remembered us in his will. I had charge

of his case two months and then had to take another

patient. Miss Van Horn was with him five months

during his convalescence.”

In the little apartment at 14 Green Tree street

there was a sound of laughing and dancing feet.

Answering the ring of a visitor Miss Phillips

opened the door with such a smiling countenance as

to obliterate any memory of downcast skies.

“I have just heard of Mr. Hammond’s great

kindness,” she said. “Just think of $500; why it’s

a nest egg for a fortune! He has always done so

many nice things for us girls ever since we cared

for him, but to think of his remembering us in his

will! I was with him several months and we grew to

be great friends after the crisis of his illness

was past.

“He often came to Chicago, and frequently would

call us up on arriving and arrange for us all to

go to the theater, or to dinner. He was by far the

most grateful patient any of us has ever had.”

* * * * *

SUIT TO BREAK WILL

_New York Herald_

An effort to obtain approximately one-half of the

bequest of about $2,000,000, left to Mrs. Carrie

Chapman Catt for the promotion of the cause of

woman suffrage, by the late Baroness de Bazus,

who was Mrs. Frank Leslie, was begun in the

Supreme Court yesterday by two step-grandchildren

of the Baroness. They ask $400,000 each and

allege that $200,000 is due to each of two other

step-grandchildren.

The plaintiffs in the two actions, which are

brought through James H. Westcott, of No. 40 Wall

street, are Mrs. Lonetta Leslie Hollander and Mrs.

Florence Leslie Weissbrod. Both are grandchildren

of Frank Leslie by his first wife, Mrs. Sarah Ann

Welham Leslie. They allege that by an agreement

made between the Baroness and Frank Leslie December

1, 1879, she promised, in return for receiving his

entire estate, to distribute by her will two-thirds

of it among the children of his first wife or their

heirs. This agreement, they allege, she entirely

disregarded in the document which left the large

residuary estate to Mrs. Catt.

William Nelson Cromwell and Louis H. Cramer,

executors of the estate of the Baroness, are the

defendants in both actions.

Frank Leslie was born in 1821 and in 1854

established the publishing business which at one

time issued thirteen periodicals. In 1841 he

married Miss Sarah Ann Welham. There were three

children by the marriage, Frank Leslie, 2d; Alfred

A. Leslie and Scipio L. Leslie. Mrs. Hollander

is the only child of Scipio L. Leslie, who was

married in June, 1875, and died in February, 1879.

Mrs. Weissbrod is the only child of the late Frank

Leslie, 2d, who was married January 5, 1874. Alfred

A. Leslie, who was married in August, 1868, and

died in August, 1905, had two children, Frank

Leslie, 3d, and Arthur Leslie.

Following the death of his first wife, Frank Leslie

married the Baroness May 1, 1875. She was then Mrs.

Miriam Florence Peacock Squires. Her first husband

was David Peacock, her second Ephraim G. Squires.

There were no children by any of her marriages.

Before her marriage the Baroness had been employed

in the publishing business of Frank Leslie. She was

born in 1828 and entered his employ in 1860. Her

maiden name was Miriam Florence Follin.

Frank Leslie became financially involved about

September 8, 1877, according to the two complaints

now on file. It is alleged that he assigned the

greater part of his property March 20, 1879, to

Isaac W. England for the benefit of his creditors

under an agreement whereby he was to receive the

property back again in three years if the business

had succeeded in clearing all indebtedness. It is

said that the business did not clear the debts but

that Mr. Leslie died before the property could be

returned.

Mr. Leslie also agreed with his wife, it is said,

to leave his entire estate to her on the condition

that she would use the income and dispose of the

principal in her will as follows:--One-third in

any way she desired; one-third of the remaining

two-thirds to each of the three children of Frank

Leslie by his first wife or to their issue.

The complaints allege that the Baroness received

everything which she possessed from Frank Leslie,

who died leaving about $1,000,000. This was

increased by her to at least $1,800,000, it is

said. The plaintiffs do not ask that the agreement,

which is not produced in connection with the

complaint, be fulfilled. They seek instead

$400,000 each as damages and allege that $200,000

is due also to Frank Leslie, 3d and Arthur Leslie.

* * * * *

WILL

_Springfield Republican_

The bequest of a bit of the wool of Mary’s lamb to

the Somerville historical society in the will of

Mrs P. H. Derby, which was entered in the probate

court in this city yesterday, brings to light the

interesting information that the nursery jingle,

“Mary had a little lamb, its fleece was white as

snow,” had a basis in fact. The piece of wool in

question was given to Mrs Derby in 1880 by Mrs Mary

E. Tyler, the original of the little lamb jingle.

It is a piece of yarn tied in a bow and fastened

on a piece of paper with pale blue ribbon. Under

it is written the words, “wool from Mary’s lamb.”

It seems that when the Old South church of Boston

became involved financially one of the ways hit

upon to raise money was suggested by Mrs Tyler. She

took a pair of old wool stockings that her mother

had knit for her from the wool of her pet lamb,

and that she had never worn, but kept in memory of

the departed lamb. These were cut up into lengths

and made into bows, like the one that was in the

possession of Mrs Derby, and sold for 25 cents

each. The result was that $200 was realized, and

thus the little lamb helped to save the Old South

church.

The story of Mary and her lamb is authenticated and

the incidents bear a close relation to the events

of the poem, or rather, jingle. Mary E. Sawyer was

born in Sterling, March 22, 1806, and the house

in which she was born is still standing. She had

two sisters and four brothers, none of whom ever

had themselves immortalized in rhyme as Mary did.

Mary’s father was a farmer and kept sheep. One

cold morning in March, 1814, just about 100 years

ago and one year over, twin lambs were born in

the Sawyer sheepfold one of which was to be known

in nursery rhyme for time immemorial. Like all

geniuses, she--for it was a girl--displayed the

vagaries of it before she was many hours old. So

much so in fact that her mother would have nothing

of her. Little Mary, age eight, took pity on the

young thing and asked her father if she might have

it, not thinking of the greatness that would come

of this charitable deed. She fed and tended it, and

the two became very fond of one another.

It was but natural that the lamb should in time

come to have a thirst for knowledge, and, as the

first stanza of the jingle has it, “It followed

her to school one day,” “Which,” we are told, “was

against the rule,” and, as might be expected, “it

made the children laugh and play, to see a lamb at

school.” It seems that the teacher laughed too, and

everything was lovely for a time. But discipline

had to be maintained, and:--

So then the teacher turned it out,

But still it lingered near,

And waited patiently about

Till Mary did appear.

All of which is strictly true to fact. It appears

that when Mary arrived at the school the teacher

had not come yet and so the mischievous Mary hid

the pet in her desk, which was a box-like affair.

When school began and the children were called out

for their classes, the lamb trotted out to have a

hand in the proceedings. And this, alas, caused it

to be put without the pale.

Now it happened, so strange are the immutable

workings of fate, that a young man of 17, a

freshman at Harvard, by the name of John Roulstone,

Jr., was visiting the teacher at the school that

day. The incident inspired him, and a short time

after he wrote and sent to Mary the jingle that is

so well known. The ideal way to have the thing work

out would have been the marriage of Mary and the

budding genius. But no, he died a few years later,

never having seen Mary again, so far as there is

any record.

The strain of being a celebrity was too much for

the lamb and after bearing up bravely under it

for two years it gave up the struggle, got in the

way of a bull on Thanksgiving day, 1816, and was

gored. It died an hour later, with its head on

Mary’s lap.

In 1835 Mary was married to Columbus Tyler,

superintendent of the McClean hospital for the

insane at Somerville. She became a matron at the

institution, a position she held for 35 years, and

several years after her husband died. She died

in Somerville, December 12, 1889, and was buried

in the Mt Auburn cemetery, near Boston, the same

cemetery in which the poet, Longfellow, is buried.

The glowing example of what happened to Mary ought

to inspire little children to be kind to dumb

beasts that they too may some time taste the fruits

of immortality.

Besides the lamb’s wool bequest, Mrs Derby left

the following legacies to various charitable

institutions: Springfield branch of the woman’s

board of missions, $300; Norton memorial fund

of the same organization, $200; Congregational

women’s home mission society of Massachusetts,

$300; trustees of the national council of the

Congregational churches of the United States,

$3000, to be applied to ministerial relief;

Massachusetts society for the prevention of cruelty

to animals, $200. Certain books from Mrs Derby’s

library are bequeathed to the Springfield city

library association and the remainder of the estate

is to be divided equally between her two nephews,

Dr Edward C. Booth of Somerville and Harry D. Booth

of Albany, Ill. Charles A. Gleason is named as

executor without bond.

* * * * *

NOTE--_How the same piece of news may be treated in

different ways is illustrated in the following two

stories._

VALUE OF AN ESTATE

(1)

_Chicago Tribune_

Doubtless Michael Kennedy’s schooling never

progressed to the point where he reaped the

manifold intellectual bounties of McGuffy’s second

reader. That venerable text book explains school

ma’ams. Their purpose is to teach the young idea to

shoot, it says.

Consequently there were those who believed Michael

misguided when he opened up his shooting gallery

in a basement on North Clark street near West

Erie street. There Mike--for the consideration

of 5 cents for five shots--taught the young idea

marksmanship after a fashion of his own.

“Mike, the ne’er-do-well,” they called him for

years. But a smile was Mike’s only answer. He

went right on loading rifles for whoever came and

painting out the bullet marks on the white targets

in the gallery.

On May 23, 1913, Mike died. Public Administrator

James F. Bishop took charge of the estate, hoping

he would get enough out of it to bury the target

tender. Mr. Bishop was surprised when he found

that Mike, the “ne’er-do-well,” had a snug bank

account--some $400.

Another surprise came yesterday when Administrator

Bishop announced the result of his seventeen

months’ investigation into Mike’s affairs. It was

learned that the “ne’er-do-well” left a nephew in

Blackburne, Lancashire, England, named as his sole

heir. In a safety deposit vault Mike had $42,000

worth of bonds--the products of teaching the young

idea to shoot.

(2)

_Chicago Herald_

“Mike” was a shiftless guy. Any of the bunch would

tell you that. Of course he always had money. But

then, too, he was always giving it away. He’d lend

you anything he had if he knew you, and many’s the

“bo” who got the price of a bed from him.

Mike at one time was known as Michael Kennedy, but

that was not during the time he kept the shooting

gallery in North Clark street. He was a rough

fellow, and not very affable with strangers. But

he’d go a long way for a pal.

He had his place of business in a basement room.

He slept there, and entertained his friends there

when not busy loading rifles for his patrons. And

everybody said that he could have a good home if

he were not so shiftless.

Well, “Mike” died a year ago last May, and it was

found he had $400 in the bank. The county buried

him and charged $106.75 to his estate. The fellows

he had befriended went to the funeral and said “We

told you so.” But they agreed that Mike was a good

fellow.

Public Administrator James F. Bishop was appointed

to take care of the shooting gallery owner’s

estate. He started an investigation.

He discovered that Kennedy had a nephew in

Blackburne, Lancashire, England, and that

the shiftless, open-hearted, free-handed

“ne’er-do-well” had just a little over $42,000

worth of gilt-edged stocks and bonds in a safety

deposit vault in the Masonic Temple.

The amount was turned over to the nephew, James

Kennedy, yesterday.