Civil, political, professional and ecclesiastical history, and commercial and industrial record of the County of Kings and the City of Brooklyn, N. Y., Part 156

Author: Stiles, Henry Reed, 1832-1909.
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: New York : Munsell
Number of Pages: 1360

USA > New York > Kings County > Brooklyn > Civil, political, professional and ecclesiastical history, and commercial and industrial record of the County of Kings and the City of Brooklyn, N. Y. > Part 156

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

She was indicted for murder in the first degree, and, as we have already said, brought to trial for her life. Few cases have ever elicited more interest, not only in Brooklyn, but everywhere. It summoned to the forum the most distin- guished members of the Brooklyn Bar. Mr. Winchester Britton, then District Attorney for Kings County, conducted the case for the people. Hon. Samuel D. Morris, I. B. Cat- lin, Thomas E. Pearsall and Patrick Keady appeared for the defense. The learning, skill and eloquenee which the trial called forth, has certainly never been excelled at the Brooklyn Bar. Three defenses werc interposed by the counsel of Mrs. Hyde: 1st, that there was not sufficient evidence that she com- mitted the deed; 2nd, justification, in that Watson seized her person with an intent to make an indecent assault, and in an indecent manner, that, to free herself from his grasp and escape from his power, she discharged her pistol at him, regard- less of consequences; 3rd, temporary or partial insanity-upon this defense much time and learning was spent.

The ease for the defense was opened to the jury by General Catlin. Those who heard that remarkable address will never forget its impressive eloquence, its inasterly array of facts, the learning which marked it, and the perfect manner in which the jury were put in possession of the whole history of the case. " A cause well opened," Ogden Hoffman used to say, "is more than half tried," and General Catlin's opening in this case emi- nently proved the truth of Mr. Hoffman's remarks.

At the close of the evidence, Judge Morris summed up for the defense. If this effort was the only one that this distinguished lawyer had ever made, it would have fully established his repu- · tation as an accomplished legal speaker, a finished and well- learned lawyer. Judge Morris' argument adopted the theory for the commission of the crime we have already given, that Watson, having first ruined her, having her, by force of cireum- stances, largely in his power, compelled her against her inclina- tions to continue the relations begun in her first departure from virtue ; that, notwithstanding his promise not to molest her after her marriage, he compelled her to continue her illicit relations with him, under threats of revealing all to her husband and friends. This terrible state of things shattered her intellect, producing one of the stages of insanity; that she herself in- formed her husband, and under his advice defied Watson, and when he found himself foiled in that direction, he attempted to use force, and she killed him in the attempt, and that the killing was justifiable. This was the outline of Mr. Morris' argument; but it was most admirably conjoined and elaborated, forming on the whole a very perfect structure.

Mr. Britton closed the case in a masterly argument in behalf of the people. We have referred to his theory of the case: that the killing was premeditated-done in cold blood-with a design of revenging herself for reports that she believed Watson had circulated against her, and for accusations made to her by him of criminal intimacy with other men, of which he threatened exposure.

Mr. Britton insisted that the evidence in the case, except her unsupported testimony, inconsistent in itself, pointed almost in- dubitably to this view of the case-to malice aforethought, to intentional, premeditated murder ; that the illicit relations be- tween Fanny Hyde and Watson had existed with hier free assent for a long time; that he was a man old enough to be her father; that she was becoming wearied of the relation, and was receiving the addresses of other men, which rendered Watson jealous, causing him to bitterly upbraid and denounce her, and to make threats of exposure. According to her own testimony, at the very time of the homicide, he accused her of having just been with another man. She admitted this to several persons. When asked why she shot Watson, she replied, because he had abused and insulted her, called her names, and accused her of being down stairs with a man, and threatened to discharge her, and then she shot him. That the act was premeditated is shown by

1262

HISTORY OF KINGS COUNTY.

the fact that she had frequent quarrels with Watson; that some days previous she had induced her brother to procure a pistol for her; that when he gave her the pistol there is almost positive evidence-at least, the strongest kind of inferential evidence --- that she informed the young man what she intended to do with the pistol, from the fact that immediately after the killing of Watson, while Fanny was still standing by his body, the young man came hurriedly into the room and at once accosted her, say- ing: "Fanny, I told you not to do this." This showed plainly that she had made the young man acquainted with her design to take the life of Watson.

Again, the manner in which she left the room, just previous to thic time she knew he was going to his lunch, shows she had placed herself in waiting for him when he should descend the stairs. The fatal wound was inconsistent with a close personal struggle; there was no stain of powder on the neck at the place where the ball entered, as there would have been had the pistol been discharged, as she alleged, while she was struggling with him. Again, the course of the ball shows conclusively that the pistol must have been discharged when she stood below him, at the foot of the stairs which he was descending; the ball entered the neck just below and back of the ear, taking a course upward and backward, so that if it had force enough it would have come out at the top of the head. The fact that the ball entered below the ear, and the angle it traced, showed that that side of his head was turned towards his assailant. Evidently he caught sight of her as he was descending the stairs, with the fatal weapon in her hand, and, turning to avoid her, he received the bullet as he did. Her story of the assault at the head of the stairs is wholly inconsistent -- first, because a man in his senses would never un- dertake such an act in a place so public, where every moment the door was liable to be opened by some one; secondly, it will be remembered that, before leaving the room, he put on his over- coat, which would embarrass him in any unlawful attempt, and it is hardly possible to suppose that a man would attempt to drag a woman against her will to any place for an unlawful pur- pose; a single cry from her would have compelled him at any moment to release her, and there would have been no use for the pistol. She does not allege that she made any cry or any alarm. Finally, Mr. Britton contended that there was not the least tan- gible evidence of her insanity, and that her premeditated guilt was painfully and terribly apparent.

After a remarkably able, lucid and impartial charge by Judge Tappen, in which the law touching the case was learnedly re- viewed, the jury retired for deliberation, and after a long con- sultation, during which they came into court for further instruc- tions, they finally, after being out all night, came into court and announced that it was impossible for them to agrec, whereupon they were discharged. It was understood that from the time they retired to the close of their deliberation, ten were for ac- quittal and two for manslaughter in the third degree. Fanny Hyde was remanded to jail, and after remaining there some time, a nolle prosequi to the indictment was entered, and she was dis- charged.

THE PEOPLE vs. RUBENSTEIN.

This was a case that produced a profound sensation through- ont the nation, and, in fact, in Europe, for its great atrocity, the singularity of the circumstances attending it, and the ability with which the prosecution and defense were conducted.

The trial commenced on Monday, January 31st, 1876, at, Brooklyn; Hon. Calvin E. Pratt, of the Supreme Court, presid- ing; Hon. Henry A. Moore, County Judge of Kings County, Hon. Henry Wolfert, Hon. Andrew MeKibben, Justices of the Sessions, and associate justices composing the Court of Oyer and Terminer.

Winchester Britton, District Attorney, and Henry Snell,

Assistant District Attorney, appeared for the people. Hon. W. A. Beach and John O. Mott appeared for the defendant. The trial lasted several days.

On the morning of the 14th of December, 1875, the body of a woman was found on the farm of Dedrich Wessells, in the town of New Lots, Kings County; it was lying behind a corn stack in the lower end of a field. This field was bounded on the side by the common highway or plank-road.

The stack was situated in that part of the field farthest from the road, near a fence. The body of the woman was lying on its back, covered with a light snow, which had fallen the night before and was frozen to the ground; the throat had been cut with such violence that the head was nearly severed from the body. She lay in a pool of blood, which was frozen about her. This discovery produced great excitement. The constabulary of the city, and of the city of New York, immediately entered on the work of investigating this dreadful tragedy. It was soon ascertained that the murdered woman was Miss Sarah Alexander, who resided in New York City. Further investigation fastened suspicion upon Pasach N. Rubenstein, who had been somewhat intimate with the lady. The autopsy revealed, among other things, the fact that the young woman was at least five months towards maternity. Circumstances soon developed which tended to connect Rubenstein with the murder, and he was promptly arrested and committed to prison to await the actien of the coroner's inquest. Among the circumstances that fastened suspicion upon Rubenstein was the fact that, seme days before the discovery of the body, a man by the name of Kramer, a resident of Williamsburglı, met Rubenstein in com- pany with a young woman in the road nearly opposite the place when her body was found. Some remarks passed between them, and Kramer passed on. After walking a few rods, he was startled by the cries of some one in distress, and distinguished the words, "Help! help!" He turned and listened, but as the cry was not repeated, he passed on. Kramer, afterwards, went to the field and saw the murdered girl, and at once recognized her as the girl he had seen with Rubenstein. The body was further recognized as that of Miss Alexander by her brother, who also testified to some intimacy between his sister and Rubenstein. Several witnesses were called who identified the man and the body of the young girl as those seen by them in a car from the ferry-house to New Lots, some days before the discovery of the murder.

Immediately after Rubenstein's arrest, he was taken te the headquarters of the police department of Brooklyn, where his boots were examined; upon the upper surface of one of them a thin scale was discovered; the boots were therc taken, with the shoes of the murdered girl, to the scene of the murder. There was, at the time of removing his boots, two kinds of mud adhering to them on different parts of the boots; one piece of the mud compared exactly with the mud found in the city of New York; the other compared exactly with the soil where the body was found, which was so soft that the tracks of persons walking there were plainly indented in it. On placing the boots in these indentations, or tracks, they were found to fit exactly, not only in regard to the peculiar nails in the sole of the boot, but in a certain patch on the boot. The scale found on the shank of the boot, on minute examination, proved to he a portion of corn husk, and adhering to the husk was discovered a minute piece of the fringe of the shawl worn by the girl. The corn husk and this bit of the shawl were encrusted in what a chenil- cal analysis decided was dry blood. The examination of the shawl showed that while it lay on the mind some heavy substance caine upon it and pressed it into a sort of hardened fold; this, it was contended, was done by one of the prisoner's feet in stepping upon the shawl as it lay on the ground among the corn husks, and in this way the scale we have described came to be upon the boot. A knife was found near the body an unfinished knife -evi

1263

BENCH AND BAR OF BROOKLYN.

dently a new one. Two witnesses testified to having seen this knife in the possession of the prisoner not long before the dis- covery of the murder. The foregoing, with a few other circum- stances, were relied on by the District Attorney as abundant evidence for the conviction of Rubenstein. The defense, how- ever, powerful and masterly, made by a master spirit, contended that the prosecution had failed to show any motive for the per- petration of such an awful crime; that they had failed to prove that Rubenstein was in any degree intimate with the girl, while the defense proved that she was in the habit of receiving the visits of a man by the name of Levy; that the evidence of the man Kramer was too inconsistent for belief, who relates that he heard the cry of "fire! fire !" and no cry of "murder !" that it was singular there should be a cry of fire at such a time. As to the scale on the boot, it was altogether too indefinite-too doubtful a circumstance to attach any importance to; and as to the fitting of the boot in the track, the influence of the weather, the falling and melting snow, must have changed the dimensions of the track so that the witnesses must have drawn on their imagination for the fact of the fitting of the boots to the tracks. It is proved that the prisoner was seen in company with the de- ceased on the cars; that this was so long before the enactment of the tragedy that no importance could be attached to it. Aside from this, a great number of witnesses testified that Rubenstein was at a party in New York at the precise time he was said to be seen in New Lots. There were also other strong circumstances which the defense seized upon as proof of Rubenstein's inno- cence. After an exhaustive and powerful address to the jury by Mr. Beach, followed by an equally eloquent, logical and impres- sive address by Mr. Britton, Mr. Justice Pratt proceeded to charge the jury. Of this charge it may well be said that it was one of the most learned, close and well-reasoned judicial productions ever delivered from the bench at Oyer and Terminer. The practicing lawyer, the student and the lay reader will find in it great interest, much instruction, and a clear analysis of the law touching circumstantial evidence. After the charge the jury re- tired, and after an absence of one hour returned into court with a verdict of "guilty of murder in the first degree." Sentence of death was then pronounced by Hon. Henry A. Moore, Associate Judge. The prisoner was sentenced to be hanged on the 24th of March, 1876. The case was removed to the General Term of the Supreme Court on a writ of error, on which a stay of execution had been granted; but on the 9th day of May, 1876, the citizens of Brooklyn were startled by the report that Rubenstein had died in his cell in Raymond Street Jail, about nine o'clock on the morning of that day. The report proved true; he died of in- cipient pulmonary tuberculosis, hastened by his self-deprivation of nourishment and general nervous prostration.

Thus ended one of the most interesting trials of the present age-a trial in which the importance and effect of circumstantial evidence is most strongly and impressively exhibited. For this reason, and others, it is most important in this history.

HOPE vs. ENGLISH.

A CASE which forms an important incident in the history of Kings County, touching the law of libel, was that of George T. Hope against Stephen English, which was tried at Brooklyn, March 6th, 1878, before Hon. Calvin E. Pratt, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court. Messrs. Van Cott and Winslow appeared for the plaintiff, Moses and Britton for the defendant. The case was most singular and important. The plaintiff was Mr. George Hope, then and for many years President of the Continental In- surance Company, one of the leading companies in the United States. Mr. Hope had devoted his life to the business of fire insurance, with eminent success. The defendant, Stephen

English, was the editor of The Insurance Times, a paper published once a month in New York, devoted to the insurance interest not only in this country, but in both hemispheres, as its editor, with much alleged vanity, claimed. Some time in September, 1870, the editor of The Times published an article in it, of his own motion, highly eulogistic of Mr. Hope, in which he says : "One of the most prominent fire underwriters in the United States is George T. Hope. We have few so thoroughly trained to the business." He then proceeds to give a history of Mr. Hope's career and success in his business. "Mr. Hope's mind," he continued, " is peculiarly adapted by the breadth of its range and views, and its capacity to observe and master at the same time the minutest details, to preside over the affairs of great and useful corporations. Nothing is too large for him to grasp, nothing too small to escape his observation. Although his suc- cess makes slight envy, none can cavil at the means by which it has been attained, for nonc can excel him in liberality, can- dor, truthfulness and honor; * * he is not what is com - monly called an eloquent speaker, but there is a logical direct- ness in his statements and an carnestness in his manner whichi convinces every hearer of his perfect sincerity and the intelligent comprehension of the subject of his remarks."

As was well said by Mr. Winslow, in opening the case to tlie jury, " that a man, who is an honest man, could write such an article and publish it in his paper, and in a few months turn around and libel the object of his culogy as he has, in the most atrocious manner, and in a great variety of forms and methods ; but the plaintiff, Mr. Hope, became satisfied that the defendant was not such a conductor of an insurance paper as was entitled to respect and encouragement ; accordingly he notified him that he did not want his paper, and that he did not propose to adver- tise in it any more. Then the gates of defamation and vitupera- ation were opened, and a torrent of abuse was poured upon the plaintiff by the defendant without the slightest discretion as to consequences or apparent regard for the laws of the land. In his paper he described Mr. Hope as 'a dreadful incubus on the Continental Fire Insurance Company.' Very soon after he wrote another article for his paper holding Mr. Hope up to ridicule and contempt, censuring his manner, and endeavoring to under- mine the respect and confidence of the community, and of his own company, by this sort of contempt." He finally charged Mr. Hope with writing the fulsome culogy on himself, por- tions of which we have quoted. Finally, through a series of articles, English libeled Mr. Hope in a most merciless manner, and for these libels the action referred to was brought.

Mr. Winslow conducted the case for the plaintiff, Mr. Van Cott not being present at the trial. His opening to the jury is an effective and admirable presentation of the plaintiff's casc. Some of its language was scathing, cansing the defendant to writhe under the lash of his invectives.

The plaintiff rested his case after proving the libel and the motives for it, and then the court adjourned for the day. The next morning the counsel for the defendant proposed to arrest the continuance of the trial by the defendant making certain concessions and admissions, by appealing to the generosity and magnanimity of Mr. Hope. They were assured that nothing but a full and complete retraction of all that had been said against Mr. Hope in the defendant's paper, and an admission of the falsity of the same, would be listened to, and it was doubtful if even that could be listened to by Mr. Hope. But at last, on consultation, a document was prepared and signed by Eng- lish containing one of the most extraordinary recantations of the libels and self-accusations that ever appcared in a court of justice. There were five distinct admissions or paragraphs of retraction and withdrawal, some of which he admitted were un- true, and in all of them with lris retraction he said " he sincerely regretted their publication." He agreed to pay all costs and cx- penses incurred by Mr. Hope in connection with such publica-

1264

HISTORY OF KINGS COUNTY.

tions under trial, and he instructed his attorney, Mr. Moses, to read this extraordinary paper, signed by himself, to the jury, and promised in the same paper to publish it entire in the next number of his paper, The Insurance Times. Upon the foregoing statement and retraction, and the immediate payment of all costs and expenditures of Mr. Hope, and a due compliance of said paper, the cause was discontinued. And thus ended one of the most important and interesting cases under the law of libel ever tried in any court.

HENRY W. SAGE as. CITY OF BROOKLYN.

PERHAPS there is no case on record that more essentially affects the property holders not only of Brooklyn, but in the County of Kings and in the State. It decides the important question touching the rights of the city of Brooklyn to take real estate from property-owners for streets, and how and when compensation therefor shall be made. The action was brought against the city of Brooklyn by Mr. Sage in the Brooklyn City Court, to recover awards made to him for lands taken to widen and extend the Sackett street boulevards, near Prospect Park, in the city of Brooklyn. The land was taken for publie use under the Statute of 1868 and the Act of 1870, relating to the boule- vards. It appeared that Mr. Sage, the plaintiff, had already paid a large assessment imposed upon his adjoining land for the supposed benefit of improvements. But when he applied for payment of his awards for his land buried under the bonievards, the city refused to pay him, on the ground that the assessment for the payment of the awards not having been col- leeted, there were no funds in the treasury that could be law- fully used for such payments.

The plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Winslow-then of the firm of Van Cott & Winslow insisted that the city had taken the property of the plaintiff and thus became his debtor, and had been such for the term of ten years. Mr. Winslow based the action on the ground of such indebtedness, and that the State made it the duty of the city to pay at the time of taking; and whether this was so or not, to allow the city to take lands for such purposes, without payment, would be in legal effect a violation of the Constitution, which provides that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation.

As has been seen, Mr. Winslow held this opinion against that of a large majority of the members of the Bar.

The plaintiff's demand was most ably contested by the city, through very eminent counsel, who appeared and defended. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which judgment was duly entered. An appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, where, after arguments by the respective counsel, of extraordinary ability and learning, the plaintiff's judgment was in all things affirmed. The plaintiff recovered a large sum of money to indemnify him for his property taken from him by the city.

There will be no more taking lands for public use without just and immediate compensation.

To meet the emergency cansed by this decision, the Legis- lature of 1883, with the advice and approval of the Mayor of Brooklyn, passed an act authorizing the issue of bonds by the city to the amount of abont $300,000, with which to pay out- standing awards for which the city had become linble under circumstances the same in principle as that of Sage rs. The City of Brooklyn.

THE CASE OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORTER.

Soos after the election of Judge Selah B. Strong as a judge of the Supreme Court of the State, in 1852, he presided at a term of the Kings County Oyer and Terminer. During the term n very important case caine on for trial. A well-known news paper reporter had been indicted for the murder of his infant

child. The babe was in its cradle while the father was at break- fast; its cries annoyed him, and, seizing a earving-knife, he sprang to the cradle and nearly severed the child's head from its body. He was arrested, committed to prison, and, as we have said, indicted and brought to trial. For some reason, he had failed to retain counsel, and proposed to conduet his own defense, but was manifestly incompetent. It happened that William C. Prime was sitting in the Bar, and, touched by the prisoner's helpless position, proposed, in case some other mcm- ber of the Bar would assist him, to undertake the prisoner's defense. A distinguished lawyer of the St. Louis Bar, who was in Brooklyn on business, promptly offered his services. A couple of days was given them for the defense, and on the trial the plea of the prisoner's insanity was interposed.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

Civil, political, professional and ecclesiastical history, and commercial and industrial record of the County of Kings and the City of Brooklyn, N. Y., Part 156

Author: Stiles, Henry Reed, 1832-1909. Publication date: 1884 Publisher: New York : Munsell Number of Pages: 1360

Author: Stiles, Henry Reed, 1832-1909.
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: New York : Munsell
Number of Pages: 1360