Chapter V · CRIMINAL AND CIVIL COURTS (continued 2)

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:—

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.