Danger! A True History of a Great City's Wiles and Temptations Part 6

Mr. Howe: Why did you not have him arrested for so doing?

Mrs. Bethune: Because he cried, and I forgave him. (Sensation.)

Mr. Howe: Yes, you forgave your "BROTHER" (roars of laughter). Now, madam! will you swear that you did not give Hemmings your watch to pledge on the 17th of November last, nearly one month after he pledged the ear-rings?

Mrs. Bethune: I did not; I will swear that I never gave him anything to pledge after he p.a.w.ned the ear-rings; I did not give him the ear-rings; I paid Kate Fisher the money with which to open the theatre, and not to Hemmings; I did not pay her in the Chanler House, in Hemmings' presence; I paid her on the street, the reason Hemmings went to Saratoga with me, was to take care of Mr. Bethune's horses (immoderate laughter); I will swear that I had not seen Hemmings since he took the ear-rings until I had him arrested; I did not arrest him right away, because I was sick; the ear-rings were not mine, they belonged to Mr. Lynch; I borrowed them from Mrs. Lynch.

Mr. Howe: What was your name when you became acquainted with Hemmings?

Mrs. Bethune: Eliza Garrett.

This closed the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Howe, for the defense, called Dr. J. Kennedy, who testified as follows:

I am a physician, and reside in East Tenth street in this city; I have seen the prisoner before. In October last, I saw him in a house in East Fourth street.

Mr. Howe: What were you doing at that house?

Dr. Kennedy: I was attending a lady there, professionally.

Mr. Howe: Would you know that lady again?

Dr. Kennedy: I should.

Mr. Howe (to Mrs. Bethune): Madam, will you oblige me by standing up and raising your veil?

The lady complied with Mr. Howe's request, and amidst breathless silence Mr. Howe, addressing Dr. Kennedy, said, "Doctor, is that the lady?"

Dr. Kennedy: It is. (Flutter in the court-room.)

Mr. Howe: How many times did you visit her?

Dr. Kennedy: Eight or ten times.

Mr. Howe: Was Hemmings in the room with her?

Dr. Kennedy: He was. (Sensation.)

Mr. Howe then applied for attachments against two witnesses who had been subpoenaed to prove that Mrs. Bethune had been at the Whitney House and the Was.h.i.+ngton Hotel with Hemmings, but Judge Russel declined to grant any time, and peremptorily ordered Mr. Howe to proceed with his defense to the jury.

Mr. Howe then arose and addressed the court. He said:

Gentlemen of the Jury: I approach the consideration of this case with some degree of embarra.s.sment, which is necessarily forced upon me, from the fact, that whilst discharging, as I shall endeavor to do, to the best of my ability, my duties as an advocate to the young man accused of this larceny, I regret that I am called upon to animadvert in terms of censure and reproach, upon one who leaves a name which is dear and hallowed to us all--the originator of our being--a name that we all revere and respect when we view it in the beauteous and lovely purity which is thrown around it. But I think, gentlemen, it is not unfair when that name is divested of its purity, and becomes shrouded with that which is base and vile--when the guard which we naturally and intuitively throw around it is dispelled, and, instead of the beauteous statue of monumental alabaster, we see a black, ftid, loathsome thing before us, from which we shrink with indignation and horror, knowing it is that which drags our young men down to degradation, disgrace and death--I say, in entering upon this prisoner's defense, such is the distinction between pure and hallowed and virtuous women (against whom none dare point) and her who forgets herself--forgets the holy ties due to her s.e.x, and her own self-respect: and who a.s.sumes the place of wife to a man without that sanction which G.o.d has inst.i.tuted and commanded, and who, entrapping others, comes to court to-day--not the pure being to demand your respect--but one whom we can but contemplate with loathing and disgust, and who has proved herself utterly unworthy of belief.

Gentlemen, I simply wish to direct your attention to the proven facts. I have thus ventured to allude to the distinction I have endeavored to draw, not for the purpose of warping your minds, or in any degree throwing an unfair prejudice around this case; but, in view of the solemnity of the oaths you have taken, to do justice between the People of the State of New York and the prisoner at the bar, and to see upon what testimony you are asked to consign an innocent, but foolish young man, for a long term of years to the state prison.

I find in the book before me, gentlemen, to my surprise--and when it will be handed to you I think you will agree with me and share my astonishment--that on the first day of October last Mr. Lynch has sworn that _his_ diamond ear-rings were stolen. I find that from the first day of October until the 8th day of December--a long lapse of nearly two months--no steps are taken by those who are alleged to have sustained the loss, and nothing is done until the latter date. I will show you why this demand is made upon the Executive--a novel proceeding altogether, without any indictment being preferred in this office--and a journey is made to Pittsburgh, not by the officers alone, but as we have it on the sworn testimony of the woman in this case, that she, without her protector, without the man Bethune (who is with her now as her husband, and who professed to be so then), proceeded alone to Pittsburgh, and is subsequently followed by Mr. Bethune. That is the first era, the first of October. We next find Mrs. Bethune detailing to you that these ear-rings were taken (how she does not know), but only what she was told by a little girl whom we have not seen. So her story runs. It is pretty for the present; but I hope to destroy the poetry of it very shortly.

That this man stole, not on the first of October, but on the 19th of October, and subsequently corrected to-day, by the lady of treacherous memory, to the date of the 20th. At all events, it is perfectly clear, now, according to her last amended allegation, that on the 20th of October she claims a larceny to have been committed. But a Mr. Lynch is supposed to be the owner of the earrings, and not Mrs. Bethune! It transpires that she had merely borrowed them for a while, as she tells you; and then on the 20th of October she learns the loss. Why, gentlemen, did not Mrs. Bethune tell you, that nearly a month after that and in November, she had met this man on the street with Miss Kate Fisher? That they had business transactions, that she knew him--the theatrical manager--that he was to open a theatre--that money was supplied by her for that express purpose? Did not she know within one month after this transaction the same state of facts which she deposes to-day? Why not have had the prisoner arrested on the street then?

No, gentlemen, I will give you my theory of this case; I will render to you what this man has told me, and if it be not a common-sense view of it, no logic--no metaphysics--then discard every word uttered and condemn this man. The p.a.w.nbroker throws additional light upon this transaction, and, gentlemen, if you will refer to the date in his book of the 17th of November (a month after his alleged larceny), you will find an important fact which I beseech you to hold, pointedly, in your own estimation. You will remember that she contradicts herself, and stated that she had had no transactions with Hemmings after the alleged larceny. One of the gentlemen on the jury put the very pertinent question (seeing the force of this), whether she had transactions with the prisoner after this alleged stealing. You will remember for yourselves, gentlemen, and I point to it without fear of contradiction, that at first she stated the ear-rings were taken on the 19th of October, but, seeing, with a woman's keen perception, the fatal error she had made in stating that admission, seeing that you, as common-sense men, would have at once said: "Why not have had him arrested then?" she quickly drew back, like a snail when the cras.h.i.+ng foot is coming upon it, and drew the horns within the sh.e.l.l which covered it; and, yesterday, corrected the date. She changed the date and put it back from November to October. I congratulate her upon the change! For all the trickery and malice which were embodied in it, only enured to the prisoner's benefit. It was here sworn, to-day, that on the 17th of November last, her watch and chain (her watch and chain, gentlemen) not Mr. Lynch's, but Eliza Bethune's, was pledged in New York at Mr.

Barnard's, the identical p.a.w.nbroker with whom the earrings were pledged.

By whom? By Mrs. Bethune? Oh no! gentlemen! but by Hemmings, the man here. If he accomplished this ubiquitous feat, like the ghost in Hamlet, to be in two places at one time, he is one of the most wonderful performers of the modern day. (Laughter.) He could not be in Barnard's p.a.w.n-shop in New York pledging Mrs. Bethune's watch on the 17th of November, a month after the larceny, and be, as she would have you believe, with Kate Fisher performing in Pittsburgh. Why, look at that contradiction! I invoke that book (pointing to the p.a.w.nbroker's record), as in other temples I appeal to the Holy one, for my protection. In your hands I place it. Upon your altar do I offer it up; and I believe that you will grant my prayers, that this will be taken as the strongest evidence of the prisoner's innocence. Records cannot lie here. The testimony is that this man had subsequent transactions with Mrs.

Bethune, supporting, beyond a doubt, my theory that she gave him the ear-rings to pledge. Now let us see. She tells you (and there are other circ.u.mstances of greater peculiarity still around this case)--she tells you that she became acquainted with this man some twelve years since; and although I was prohibited (perhaps properly) by the court from putting other questions, I think I am not saying too much, when I urge that I did elicit from that lady sufficient to justify any one of you in forming an opinion as to the immoral terms of intimacy subsisting between Hemmings and that lady who was upon the witness stand. I can only say that I think there is not one of you composing that jury who would be pleased to have a wife of yours detailing circ.u.mstances in any way similar. I think that not only jealousy, but indignation of the strongest character, would be aroused in each of you, and you would unhesitatingly brand her as an adulteress.

Now, gentlemen, we find they have known each other for twelve years, and what besides? Why, she takes him into her house; she gives him an apartment there. Nay, she does more, according to her confession. She saw that he was poor and had no clothes (to use her own expression.) I do not think, gentlemen, that she exactly meant that, when she said it, in its literal signification (laughter), but she certainly said that he had no clothes, and that she clothed him and she "took him in" (loud laughter). She went to A. T. Stewart's (kind-hearted charitable woman!) and saw Mr. Griswold. She interceded with Griswold and got Hemmings a situation in A. T. Stewart's. What relation was Hemmings to her, at this time, to induce her to take this kind and charitable interest in him? I, gentlemen, am not so charitable as she professed to be; neither do I think you will be, gentlemen. I apprehend that the motive which actuated the taking in, the clothing and the obtaining a situation at Stewart's, was another motive altogether (immoderate laughter). What it was, I will leave you to conjecture. Look a little further. Hemmings is no relation to her, and yet we find her taking him to Saratoga! In what capacity?

Why, she tells you, to attend Bethune's horses at Saratoga (laughter).

Yes, gentlemen, and this hostler, this stable boy, in the same breath, is introduced by this lady as what--a lover! oh, no, she dare not do that--but as a relation--a blood relation! She makes him, for that occasion, her brother at Saratoga! Well, so far, there is no impropriety, you will say; but coupled with several other facts--coupled with the act that that book (the p.a.w.nbrokers book) teems with the name of Bethune, as pledging jewelry pledged by Hemmings, and belonging to the lady, you must see the intimacy which unquestionably existed. She admitted to you that time and again he had pledged what? Why, he had pledged her studs, her brooches and G.o.d knows what all! What did she?

Why not have him arrested then? Oh! well, she says, "he cried--my brother cried." (Loud laughter.) "I did not like to hurt my brother."

She forgave him, and I will tell you why.

You know the quotation that "h.e.l.l hath no fury like a woman scorned."

Mr. Hemmings, who is a fine, healthy, fas.h.i.+onable, well-rounded and vigorous, and, some women might say, good-looking young man, had migrated from the city of New York to spend some time in Pittsburgh, and he was in dangerous proximity to a very enticing and attractive actress, Miss Kate Fisher. (Loud laughter).

Gentlemen, in the play of Oth.e.l.lo, which many of you have doubtless seen and read, you will find the episode of the handkerchief, which you will remember belonged to Desdemona; being the gift of her husband, the Moor.

You remember Iago (in that case it was a man, however,) instigated his wife to purloin the handkerchief, and to deposit it in the chamber of Ca.s.sio, if I am correct; and Ca.s.sio, unfortunately, not seeing the little trap that was prepared for him, wound that spotted piece of cambric around his knee to stop the blood flowing from the wound he had received in a drunken brawl. Upon Oth.e.l.lo seeing that, he states, that not being jealous, he "was perplexed in the extreme," and the sequel was the murder about which we have so often heard. I say, gentlemen, if ever there was the play of Oth.e.l.lo reduced to private life and reacted, it is here. These ear-rings are the handkerchief, and Mrs. Bethune is the Iago. (Laughter.) This young man tells me, that in accordance with ancient usage and time-honored customs existing between this gentleman and lady, she had given him, as she narrated here, money to enable Kate Fisher to open a theatre at Pittsburgh, and that Hemmings was to be the manager. She had given them, from time to time, money obtained from Barnard's p.a.w.n office, through the instrumentality of the unfortunate Hemmings.

That is the history; that is all before you, and it cannot be gainsayed.

Then why the arrest this time more than at the others? It explains itself. You have it in testimony that these ear-rings were the property of Mr. Lynch, and that Mrs. Lynch had loaned them to Mrs. Bethune.

Hemmings alleges, and I believe with truth, that Mrs. Bethune, whilst riding in a coach with him, and after a "love encounter" (laughter) gave to him these jewels to hypothecate in the place to which he had been a frequent visitor for Mrs. Bethune. He goes to this p.a.w.nbroker's not in his own name, but, as the p.a.w.nbroker tells you (and I point to that fact as one of the strong points in the defense), that he panned them with him, telling him at the time that they belonged to Mrs. Bethune. Would a thief who stole your property or mine go to a place where he was known, that is if he stole them with the intention of keeping them? There was no larceny here, no dishonest motive about the transaction. Would he go to the p.a.w.nbroker to whom he was known and say, "Here is some property; it is not mine, it is Mrs. Bethune's?" On the contrary, you know, gentlemen--you must know--that there are a thousand other p.a.w.nbroker's establishments in New York City; and if this had been a felonious taking of these ear-rings, Hemmings could have gone to Simpson's across the way from this court house, or to another place at the Battery, or east, west, north or south, upon any corner in New York to a strange p.a.w.nbroker, who did not know him, had there been any felony about the transaction. Another point is, that a felon who steals invariably covers up his crime. The Prosecution brought out this fact, and I appeal to it as their own destruction, why in the name of Heaven did this man, if he intended to appropriate these ear-rings to his own use, carry about him the evidence of his guilt? Why, they told you when they got to Pittsburgh, after the altercation, that he produced the p.a.w.n-ticket! Did that look like stealing?

But to revert to the owners.h.i.+p. Mr. Lynch, in a moment of kindness, loaned these ear-rings to his wife. Mrs. Lynch again loaned them to Mrs.

Bethune; and, as Hemmings says, whilst riding in a coach, she (Mrs.

Bethune) gave him those ear-rings to pledge. He did so pledge them. Mind you, gentlemen, there has been no dispute about that since the commencement; he has never denied the pledging. Having pledged them, as he represents, a request was made to Mrs. Bethune for the return of the ear-rings. She could not produce them, and for the best possible reason; and not until nearly two months after the occurrence is the complaint made before the police magistrate. She wished to hide from Mr. Bethune (the gentleman who sustained the relation of husband to her) what had become of the ear-rings; and, necessarily, she had no resort but to turn round and say: "It is not very pleasant to tell my husband (or the man who stands in that capacity) that I have given those ear-rings to a lover! I cannot, without offending you, tell you the true cause of this affair, but I must, in order to save myself, say, O, this George stole them, and he is in Pittsburgh with Kate Fisher." This is _two months_ after the occurrence! And then, on the first of December, a requisition is gotten out, and the more marvelous part of it is, that she goes on alone in the first instance while Mr. Bethune followed subsequently. Now see what occurred in Pittsburgh. She told you she did not know whether he was arrested or not. She "believed" there was a form gone through of getting out some papers. She "believes" she was taken before the mayor; and what became of the case she did not know. But Mr. Bethune, who could not s.h.i.+eld himself in this way, very promptly answered that he was arrested at the suit of this man; and Hemmings could not make idle charges there. He was a theatrical manager in Pittsburgh, a public man!

and, as they told you, boasted that he was intimate with the members of the press and police force, who were dead-heads at his theatre, and who witnessed the performance gratuitously; so that you perceive he was very well known. Do you believe, will any sane man of common sense credit the statement, that a man who was as well known in Pittsburgh as G. L. Fox is in this city, could afford to arrest a citizen and have the matter made public unless he had reasons to do so?

I say, gentlemen, that the entire case, from the commencement to the end, abounds in doubts suggestive of this man's innocence, especially the fact which cannot be denied, that this lady, _she is not like Caesar's wife_, above suspicion, s.h.i.+elds herself, as no honest woman would, behind that protection which the judge afforded.

Good G.o.d, gentlemen, in a court of justice, where jurors are empanelled to decide upon the future prospects and the life of this young man, would your wife or mine refuse to answer such a question? Is it a _shame_ for us to acknowledge that the holy bonds of matrimony have united us with a being--the mother of our offspring? Would you deny that you were the husband of a lady, placed upon the witness stand to support a charge against a thief for having stolen your watch? Why, I think, gentlemen, that honor, affection, duty and every obligation known to society, demands, in imperious tones, that instead of denying the wife of your bosom, you stand forward as her champion and say, "Thank G.o.d, she is my wife and I am proud of it!" That is what you or I would have answered. But the gauzy curtain that was covered over this foul tableau, has been lifted up, and you see it in all it hideous deformity. As I have before stated, you have seen, gentlemen, the flimsy evidence upon which is attempted to predicate a conviction for grand larceny. I am confident that in spite of all the attempts that have been made by a shameless wanton and her pretended husband, to crush this man, despite the meretricious trickery and villainous conspiracy which instigated, concocted and carried out this _persecution_, relying as I do, on your sense of justice, your strict integrity, and the independence of an American jury, that you will not permit our temples erected to justice, to be prost.i.tuted to the accomplishment of the designs of the polluted and the infamous and that innocence will triumph, and your verdict be "Not guilty."

At the conclusion of Mr. Howe's address, Mr. Hutchings summed up for the people. Judge Russel proceeded to charge the jury. After recapitulating very carefully the whole of the testimony, told them that if they were satisfied that the prisoner Hemmings had taken these ear-rings from Mrs.

Bethune, and had pledged them without her consent, then they should convict; but if they had any well-founded doubt arising from the testimony itself, and not engendered by the eloquent speech of the prisoner's counsel, then they should give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt and acquit him.

The jury then retired, and after a quarter of an hour's absence returned into court and rendered a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

Hemmings was accordingly discharged, and he quitted the court amidst the congratulations of his friends.

Mrs. Bethune also brought a charge of theft against Kate Fisher, which was heard at Ess.e.x Market Police Court. The New York _Herald_ reported the proceedings next day as follows:

Ess.e.x Market court-room was this afternoon densely crowded with theatrical personages of all grades, apparently deeply interested in the progress of the case which concerns the position and honor of an actress so well known as Kate Fisher. The seats of the court would not contain more than half the number of the persons present, the remainder being compelled to stand around against the walls and in the nooks of the doors, etc. Among those present were W. B. Freligh, manager of the Bowery Theatre; John Jones, the treasurer; Clark, the stage manager; Deane, leader of the orchestra, and others. The court-room was at last found to be too small, and the whole party adjourned to examine the room on the second floor of the building, which was also found to be rather small, but yet more convenient for the purposes of an examination.

Justice Shandley then took his seat on the bench, and the parties concerned appeared in court. Mrs. Bethune was rather flas.h.i.+ly dressed, and evidently intended to make a show. Kate Fisher was quietly dressed in black, and was very modest in her demeanor; attracting no attention, except from those who were acquainted with her. Mr. Bethune accompanied the complainant, and Messrs. Howe and Hummel, appeared for Miss Kate Fisher.

Having taken their respective seats, the case of Eliza Bethune, of Centreville, Long Island, against Kate Fisher, for the larceny of a gold watch and chain, valued at $200, was then called on.

Mrs. Bethune, the first witness, was then examined by her counsel. She stated that her name was Eliza Bethune, and that she resided at Centreville, L. I. She knew Kate Fisher, and knew her on the 16th of last November. She was then living in East Fourth street. On that day she missed her watch, and her daughter told her that Miss Fisher had taken it. Acting on this information, she sent for Kate Fisher on the afternoon of that day. Mrs. Bethune then asked her where her watch was.

Kate Fisher was very much intoxicated at the time, but understood all that was said to her. She answered that she had taken it, and had given it to Hemmings. The watch and chain was worth $200. Mrs. Bethune subsequently learned that the watch had been pledged. Some time after, she, Mrs. Bethune, caused the arrest of Kate Fisher at Pittsburgh, but the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Mr. Howe then asked if the counsel had closed his case, but received an answer in the negative, as there were more witnesses to be examined. Mr.

Howe stated that he was sorry that the case was not closed, as before he desired to commence a cross-examination he would take all the evidence to be exhausted. His case was a revival of one which had already been settled at the General Sessions, and bore on its very face the evidence of a malicious prosecution to injure the character and spotless reputation of a lady whose profession brought her constantly before the public, and whose good name became thereby part of her business capital.

He regretted it, therefore, that the counsel for the complainant would not exhaust his case, as it made it necessary to adopt a course of procedure in his cross-examination that he should have preferred not to have done.

The counsel for Mrs. Bethune persisting that the cross-examination of each witness should go on in regular order as each witness appeared on the stand, Mr. Howe then proceeded by asking the witness her name.