Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report

[TradeName]

Another tidbit about the Dr. Howard story:

The Salt Lake Herald, May 07, 1895, Page 3, Column 4

HEARD ON THE SIDE

Several days ago an announcement was
made in the telegraphic dispatches to the
effect that Jack the Ripper had been discovered
in the person of an eminent London
physician who because of his many
murders was now confined in an insane
asylum a hopeless maniac. The day following,
Star-Sayings of St Louis denounced
the story as a fake stating that
substantially the identical narrative had
been offered it by a New York syndicate.
It was offered evening papers exclusively
and Star-Sayings refused it. The thrilling
tale with clairvoyant trimmings was
dished up in Salt Lake last Saturday
"The ancestry of Major Nounan" is now
in order.

---end

Not sure if the "identical narrative" mentioned above is the one attributed to Forbes Winslow, but here's a link to another appearance of that story:

Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), December 15, 1894, Page 21, Column 3

JACK THE RIPPER

Now an Inmate of an Insane Asylum in London

The Work of a Monomaniac

The Story of His Crimes and His Apprehension

His Identity Known

From the Philadelphia Press

[Mayerling]

Horace Avory, who in 1895 defended Robert James Lees in police court on a charge of offering concerts without a certificate, was also involved in the 1876 Vance/Snee trial:

Annual Register (London: Rivington's, 1877), Pages 53-54

JUNE [1876].

1. "Conspiring To Murder."—-An extraordinary charge which has been tried at the Old Bailey, before Mr. Justice Mellor, was brought to a conclusion this day. The prisoners, William Kimpton [sic] Vance, aged twenty-four, medical student, and Ellen Snee, aged twenty-nine, a married woman, were jointly charged with conspiring together to murder Ellen Snee, and also with conspiring to murder some person unknown. Mrs. Snee, who is the wife of a commercial traveller now absent on business, with whom she appears to have lived on affectionate terms, some time since inserted in the Daily Telegraph an advertisement addressed to medical men, or persons conversant with chemistry, stating that a person engaged in "an interesting experiment" was willing to pay for assistance. The prisoner Vance answered the advertisement, and Mrs. Snee then replied that she was desirious of committing suicide, because her death would be of advantage to some other person. A number of letters passed between the prisoners, and an arrangement appeared to have been entered into by which Vance undertook to supply some deadly poison to Mrs. Snee, he advising her at the same time to give it out amongst her friends that she was in the habit of taking chloral to induce sleep, so that when death ensued it might appear that the poisoning was accidental. The letters passed under initials, Mrs. Snee writing as if she were "William Quarll," and were addressed to different post-offices. The affair was discovered through one of the letters not being sent for: it was opened by the Post-office authorities, who upon discovering its contents handed it over to the police. Both prisoners were easily traced and taken into custody. The defence was, that there was no real intention on the part of Mrs. Snee to commit suicide, and that Vance never really intended to assist in causing the death of any person, but intended to get the money that was offered. Mr. Justice Mellor decided that the count charging the prisoners with conspiring to cause the death of one of them could not be supported; but on the other charge they were convicted, the jury recommending them both to mercy, Vance on the ground of the high character he had received, and Snee on account of her illness and the frequent absence of her husband. Vance was accordingly sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment, and Mrs. Snee to six months

--end

From the Old Bailey Online:

WILLIAM KINGSTON VANCE, ELLEN SNEE, Breaking Peace > wounding, 29th May 1876.

Reference Number: t18760529-408
Offence: Breaking Peace > wounding
Verdict: Guilty > with recommendation; Guilty > with recommendation
Punishment: Imprisonment > no_subcategory; Imprisonment > no_subcategory


408. WILLIAM KINGSTON VANCE (24), and ELLEN SNEE (29), were indicted for unlawfully conspiring to kill and murder the said Ellen Snee. Second Count—To murder a person unknown. Other Counts vary. ing the form of charging the conspiracy.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, The Solicitor-General, with Messrs. Poland and BOWEN conducted the Prosecution; MESSRS. COLLINS and McCALL appeared for Vance; and MR. FRANCIS, with MR. HORACE AVORY for Snee.


[...]


VANCE— GUILTY — Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.

SNEE— GUILTY — Six Months' Imprisonment.

The Jury recommended both prisoners to mercy, Vance on account of his good character, and Snee on account of her frequent illness and the absence of her husband.

Hi TradeName,


Just two small notes if you hadn't noted already. Horace Avory became (with Travers Humphreys) the two best known criminal justices in England in the 1920s -1940s. Avory was extremely knowledgeable on England's criminal law, but was also not known (as Justice Darling was) for bandying about little jokes or funny epigrams in court. He was fair, but if he was in full agreement of a finding of guilty he showed little mercy to the defendant.
In one case in 1922, that of Thomas Allaway for the murder of a woman he lured to Bournemouth with a false advertisement, Avory (when giving sentence of death), said, "You were responsible for the victim's death. Now you will die." A photograph of Allaway receiving that direct, final, and bleak statement (and looking shocked) actually exists. Avory (sometimes referred to as "Old parchment skin" - he was a small, slight man with a trim moustache who never smiled in court photos) may have been used as the model of a similarly unsmiling judge in long wig and gown in an old Tanqueray gin advertisement: "You have never tried Tanqueray?" "Pity."

I noted that one of the prosecutors in Vance/Snee is referred to as "Mr. Poland". That is "Sir Henry Poland" who was a crown prosecutor (usually the lead prosecutor) in many historical criminal cases from the 1870s to the 1910s.

Jeff

[Jenni Shelden]

I feel encouraged, Dave.

Here's an item from 1883 about a Mr. R. J. Lees (and his wife) working with a temperance group in Peckham. I'm not 100% sure if this is our Lees.

The Blue Ribbon Official Gazette and Gospel Temperance Herald, January 18, 1883, Page 16

Blue Ribbon Gospel Army

[...]

Peckham.—The campaign was opened at the lecturehall, Belgrave-terrace, Peckham Park-road, on New Year's Eve, by Mr. R. J. Lees, who was assisted during the week by Mr. W. R. Bradlaugh, Mr. Samma, Mrs. Lees, and others. The streets are processioned nightly, and the inhabitants are being made to feel tho advent of the Army in the district, and the meetings are nightly increasing in interest and attendance. In two nights nearly 50 pledges were taken and over 60 Blue Ribbons were put on. It has been difficult to start the ball, but, now it is rolling, Peckham will not be behind many of our other stations.

yes that is him
Jenni

[TradeName]

Jenni: Thanks for confirming that.

Jeff: Thanks for the info on Avory. I notice that he was also involved in prosecuting the Oscar Wilde case.

Oscar Wilde: His Life and Confessions, Volume 1 (New York: 1916), Page 269
by Frank Harris

The trial took place at the Old Bailey, three days later, April 27th, 1895, before Mr. Justice Charles. Mr. C. F. Gill and A. Gill with Mr. Horace Avory appeared for the Public Prosecutor. Mr. Wilde was again defended by Sir Edward Clarke, Mr. Charles Mathews and Mr. Travers Humphreys, while Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor were counsel for the other prisoner.

Page 305

The trial opened before Mr. Justice Wills on the 21st of May, 1895. The Treasury had sent Sir Frank Lockwood, Q.C., M.P., to lead Mr. C. F. Gill, Mr. Horace Avory, and Mr. Sutton. Oscar was represented by the same counsel as on the previous occasion.

[TradeName]

I previously posted about Arnold Read here. Following are two more accounts of the case in the police-court:

The Era (London, England), Saturday, January 24, 1891, Page 8, Col 3

ASSAULTING AN ACTRESS

At the Lambeth Police court on Wednesday, 14th
inst., Alfred Reid [sic], a surgeon carrying on business
at 68, Portland-street, Walworth, was charged with
violently assaulting his wife, an actress. Mr. W. H.
Armstrong appeared to prosecute, and said the parties had
been married about five years, and there was one
child, a girl of four. The prisoner for a long times past
had given way to excessive drinking, and the wife, who
was an understudy at one of the London theatres, had
contributed very considerably to the support of the
household. The prisoner, who carried on a dispensary
business at Walworth, committed the assault
complained of on the previous Saturday night while he was
under the influence of drink. He (Mr Armstrong),
should ask his worship after hearing the evidence to
grant a judicial separation.

Mrs Eleanor Reid was called, and said she was the
wife of the prisoner. Upon her return home on
Saturday night she found the prisoner the worse for
drink, and in a very bad temper. After supper, he threw
a plate and some other articles at her head, but she did
not take much notice of his treatment, and did her best
to pacify him. The prisoner then said his hands were
ithcing to get at her throat, and he thought he would
do for her once for all. He, thereupon, sprang upon her
and clutched her by the throat. So tightly did he
grasp her throat, that she felt she was dying. He then
kissed her and released his hold, saying "that he would
not do it this time." They then went to bed, and, when
the prisoner was fast asleep, she got up and dressed and
went to her mother's house. The prisoner had done
the same sort of thing on a previous occasion, and had
given her a black eye.

Dr. F. W. Farr said he had examined the prosecutrix.
There were a number of bruises about her face and
neck, and at the side of the windpipe there was a large
contusion, whilst on the right side of the windpipe
there were several severe bruises. There was also a
large diffusion of blood in the left eye. In his opinion
the prosecutrix had been treated with very considerable
violence.

The prisoner, in answer to the charge, said he was
utterly ashamed of himself, and could not think how
he had given way to drink in such a manner. He had
scarcely any recollection of what took place.

Mr Hopkins said it was apparent that a most cruel
and aggravated assault had been committed by the
prisoner, and it was possible that if the parties
continued to live together, the prisoner would in the end
be standing at that bar, or at some other, on the charge
of murder. It appeared to him (the magistrate) that
he was not very far from it now. A fine would not
meet an assault of this character, and he felt he would
not be doing his duty if he did not send the accused to
prison for two calendar months, with hard labour. He
also decreed a judicial separation, the wife to have the
custody of the child, and the prisoner to contribute ten
shillings a week towards her maintenance.

--end

Daily News (London, England), Thursday, January 15, 1891, Page 7, Column 3

WIFE ASSAULTS AND HEAVY SENTENCES

A SURGEON SENT TO PRISON

Arnold Read, described as a surgeon in practice
in Portland-street, Walworth, was brought up at
the Lambeth Police-court yesterday on a warrant upon
a charge of assaulting his wife.--Mr. W. H. Armstrong
appeared to prosecute.--The complainant deposed that
she was the wife of the defendant, and had been married
to him five years. She was now staying with her
mother in Boyson-road, Camberwell. On Saturday
night last she returned home from a theatre where she
had an engagement. The prisoner she found, as was
frequently the case, was very much the worse for
liquor. Seeing that, she tried to humour him, and got
the supper ready. Everthing [sic] went well until the supper
things were being cleared away, when he
suddenly took up a cup and a plate, and
threw them at her. They retired to rest.
Suddenly he said "My hands are twitching to get at
your throat. I will do for you to night." He sprang
upon her and seized her by the throat. She struggled
and tried to get his hands away from her throat, but
he repeated that he meant to do for her. As she
attempted to get out of bed he seized her by the hair and
dragged her back. She was powerless to call for help,
and felt as if she was being strangled. He then pushed
her out of the bed. He got up and lighted a lamp, and
she then found her face much swollen. He returned
to bed and fell of to sleep, and she then hastily dressed,
made her way out of the house, and went to her
mother's, where she had since been staying. She had
since felt the effects of the violence of the prisoner. He
had before assaulted her, and she had summoned him
to this court but had not appeared against him, as
he promised to act better in future.--Dr. Fredk. Wm.
Farr, surgeon of 167 Kennington-road, stated that he
saw the prosecutrix on Monday and examined her. He found
a great many bruises about her face and neck, as
well as other injuries. She was in a very nervous state
from shock to the system, owing no doubt to the violence
of the assault.--The mother and brother of the
complainant gave evidence with regard to previous
assaults.--The prisoner in defense said he deeply
regretted what had happened, and declared that he had
no control over himself at the time.--Mr. Hopkins said
he was sorry to see a man in the position of the prisoner
there upon such a charge. He was satisfied, however,
that it was certainly a case for a judicial separation, as
it was a clear case of an aggravated assault, which might
have ended in the prisoner being in the dock upon a
much more serious charge. He should not be doing his
duty if he met such a charge without severe punishment.
He therefore sentenced the prisoner to two
months' hard labour. He further directed a judicial
separation, the prisoner to pay his wife 10s. per week
towards her maintenance and that of her child.

[...]

--end

[TradeName]

Philip Mahoney, Another Doctor Who Behaved Badly

The Illustrated Police News (London, England), Saturday, August 17, 1889, Page 3, Column 1

A SAD STORY

A tall, powerful, good-looking gentleman, named
Philip Mahoney, aged forty, described as a doctor of
medicine, of no home, has been charged before Mr.
Hannay, at the Marylebone Police-court, on a warrant,
for unlawfully using threats towards Catherine,
his wife, whereby she apprehended danger to her
life. Mr. Freke Palmer, solicitor, was for the prosecution,
and in opening the case said the prisoner
was a doctor, and had been arrested in a workhouse
for threatening his wife, who was the daughter
of a doctor of divinity, who preached the Latin
sermon at the installation of Price Albert. Owing
to the cruelty of the prisoner she had had to
leave him. She, however, foolishly went back to
live with him, only to experience similar treatment,
and she had to again leave him, and was now earning
her own living. The prisoner had used serious
threats towards his wife, and had given expression to
vile accusations, and the desire of the prosecution was
to put a stop to it. The prosecutrix said she was
housekeeper in the service of Mr. Tappenden, a
private tutor residing at 25, St. Stephen's-square,
Bayswater. She had been married to the prisoner
about three years. In March, 1887, she executed a
deed of separation on account of the prisoner's
cruelty. On November 5th the same year, against
the advice of her friends, excerpt her sister-in-law, she
went back to live with her husband, and they
remained together until the following year, when he
threw up his practice and left her penniless. When
she heard her husband was in the workhouse she
went as housekeeper to Mr. Tappenden. In July last
the prisoner came to the house twice the worse for
drink. On the second occasion she had seen him walking
up and down in front of the house with a lady
dressed like a hospital nurse. When he knocked he
was admitted, and in the presence of Mr. Tappenden
and a lady boarder he accused her (prosecutrix) of
having been unfaithful to him, and mentioned the
name of Mr. Tappenden and his page-boy. Prosecutrix
had taken an engagement on the stage just
previously, and the prisoner said that if he caught
her on the stage he would drag her off and do for
her, by which she understood that he would kill her.
She told him no six horses would drag her out of the
house, and he said one man would, and afterwards
kill her. After that scene Mr. Tappenden said he
could not stand these scenes, paid her her wages, and
said she must leave. The prisoner said he had been
married before, and was divorced on the ground of
cruelty and misconduct. This (prosecutrix) was his
second wife. Mr. Hanny ordered the prisoner to
be bound over in £20 and to find one surety in £10
to keep the peace for three months, or in default
twenty-one days' imprisonment.

--end

Reynolds's Newspaper (London, England), Sunday, December 15, 1889, Page 8, Column 3

THE POLICE COURTS

[...]

MARYLEBONE

FIGHT AT A WEST-END MANSION.--THE DOCTOR
AND THE TUTOR.--Philip Mahoney, 43, a doctor of
medicine, was Charged with assaulting Frederick
Thomas Tappenden, a private tutor, of 25, St.
Stephen's-square, Westbourne Park. Mr. Freke
Palmer, who appeared to prosecute, said the prisoner,
owing to his conduct, lost his practise, and in consequence
of his abominable behaviour his wife had to
leave him, and she had been engaged by the wife of the
prosecutor in the position of housekeeper at St.
Stephen's-square. The prisoner had been before the
court in August for assaulting his wife, and since that
occasion he had been several times to Mr. Tappenden's
establishment, and had created disturbances. The
Prosecutor said about half-past one in the
morning the prisoner came to his house, and,
hearing the prisoner's voice, he went into the
hall, and told the prisoner he could not come
in. The doctor immediately advanced into the hall,
and prosecutor barred his way, and told the page-boy
to go for the police. The prisoner retreated to the
street door, but kept one foot so that the door could
not be closed. Prosecutor told the prisoner to go away,
and when the latter refused he told him he should give
him into custody. Then the prisoner hit him on the
shoulder, and he (prosecutor) retired a short distance
into the hall. The prisoner followed him up, and
struck him a number of blows. In reply to the charge
the prisoner, who had a black eye, said he had been
assaulted by the prosecutor, who had broken his hat in, and
had, besides the damage to his eye, made his nose and
mouth bleed. Mr. De Rutzen ordered the prisoner to
be bound over in the sum of £20 for three months, and
to find two sureties in £10 each, or in default go to
gaol for six weeks.

--end

[TradeName]

Forbes Winslow lends his presence to a demonstration of mesmerism given by the illusionist Professor Charles Morritt, who later sold some of his illusions to Houdini.

Alexandra and Yea Standard, Gobur, Thornton and Acheron Express, April 26, 1895, Page 3

HYPNOTISM.

At half-past seven on Friday night, March 1st, Henry Nelan, 32 years of age, a native of Limerick, placed himself in the hands of Professor Morritt and a casket of glass, and in just one minute and three-quarters was placed in a hypnotic sleep. Mr. Morritt then informed his audience, which included the redoubtable Dr. Forbes Winslow, that the man would remain in his trance state for eight days, when he would wake him in his normal state of health. The experiment is the more interesting from the fact that the subject originally chosen failed to come up to the scratch at the last moment, and Mr. Morrit had to scour the metropolis for the man who is now undergoing the test. Prior to the sleep, Dr. Winslow announced the pulse register as 78 and somewhat weak. In the cataleptic state the pulse rose to 96, and was very firm. The usual tests with lights etc., were made, and the subject was declared to be quite unconcious [sic]. The application of a needle to the hands produced not the slightest movement of the muscles. Medical and Press men will keep watch day and night as gurantee [sic] to the public that the exhibition is a genuine one an [sic] Dr. Forbes Winslow has expressed his intention.to drop in at all unexpected hours. The feat is an unprecedented one, and Mr. Morritt is confident of a successful result.

--end

Evening News (Sydney, NSW), March 30, 1895, Page 2S

SIX DAYS' SLEEP.

Remarkable Experiment.

The latest novelty at the Aquarium (says a London paper of February 17) has been the placing of a man in a trance for six days. The man came out of the trance between half-past 10 and 11 o'clock last night, and asked about his dinner. He was placed under the hypnotic influence, or, rather, an artificial sleep, at 2 o'clock on Monday week. His body-— Saturday's exhibition induces one to write of the man in this manner-—was placed in a heavy glass frame, a sort of glass coffin. In this the man laid for a week, in one of the rooms of the aquarium, the hypnotiser, Professor Morritt, twice a day moistening hie lips with liquid food, and three times during the week turning him over from one side on to the other. This was what Mr. Morritt was understood to explain to the audience who assembled in the aquarium on Saturday night. During the week numbers of medical men visited the place and made various experiments with a view to test the genuineness of Morrit's experiment. Morritt is a showman, and a clever one, and when—-after something like a funeral procession had brought the glass coffin into the theatre and tilted it in an inclined position across the orchestra-—Mr. Ritchie 'orated' to the crowded audience, and explained what had been done to the man in the glass case, there was a feeling among the people that the 'subject' had merely been doing the fasting trick for a week with showman's paraphernalia surrounding him. However, time arrived for taking off the rug which covered the glass coffin, and Morritt disclosed the face of the man therein, and proceeded to revivify his man. The bringing back was a physical effort, but lasted only a few moments. Morrit turned the man on to his back, and while lifting the eyelids with his thumbs, passed a finger of each hand, with considerable- pressure across the temples of the man. The effect was to gradually cause the man to awaken. The awakening was exactly the same as seen when a person has been mesmerised for a short space of time. Morritt shouted at the man, who rose in the glass coffin and struggled violently. When he quite regained consciousness he perspired profusely. Eventually he was calmer. Then he sat up and looked at the audience in wonderment. Questions were thrown at him from all parts of the audience. What he had to say for himself was that 'an hour ago I had my dinner, and now I can do with & drink.' A draught was brought to him, after taking which he conversed freely. He refused io believe that he had been in a trance fox six days. 'I had my dinner two hours ago,' he persisted in saying. What day was it? he was asked, 'Monday,' he maintained, but, said. he, 'the look of the place shows me it's not daylight.' The man seemed none the worse for the curious experience. A coat was brought to him: and he dressed himself; in. the coffin, and rose and walked. The apparent result of the experiment was to show that a man may be mesmerised and remain under the mesmeric influence for a more or less indefinite period.

--end

Who's Who in the Theatre (London: Sir Issac Pitman & Sons, 1916), Page 58
compliled and edited by John Parker

MORRITT, Charles, illusionist; b. Saxton, Yorks., 13 ]une, 1860; s. of William Morritt and his wife Maria; e. Higher Grade School, Leeds; was a music-hall proprietor, previous to making his first appearance in a thought transmission entertainment, at the Prince's Hall, Piccadilly, 5 Aug., 1886; has since appeared at the old Aquarium, Egyptian Hall, St. ]ames's Hall, Crystal Palace, St. George's Hall, Polytechnic, Empire, London Pavilion, Oxford, Tivoli, and all the leading halls in London and the provinces, playing all the principal tours and circuits; has also toured in the United States and Australia; during 1915, appeared at the Polytechnic. Recreations: Billiards, cricket, driving, and sketching. Club: Magicians. Address: Polytechnic, Regent Street, W.

--end

Relatively recent articles about Morritt:

Halifax Courier

Daily Mail

[TradeName]

Some background on Herbert Percy Freund, former medical student and religious fanatic, and his family. There's a mention of Freund in the Rumblelow book.

The Medical times and Gazette, March 31, 1883, Page 374

St. Thomas.—It is said that the Herbert P. E. Freund charged with being disorderly in front of St. Paul's Cathedral, and sent to prison for a month, was formerly a student at your Hospital, and a son of the late Dr. Freund, physician to, and founder of, the German Hospital. The unfortunate man had escaped, as the Alderman said, from a lunatic asylum.

The Medical times and Gazette, November 10, 1883, Page 564

T. W. G., St. Thomas' Hospital.—The unfortunate gentleman, Herbert Percy Freund, who has been so frequently charged at the Mansion House with "brawling" in St. Paul's Cathedral, and at last consigned by the Lord Mayor to the City Lunatic Asylum, is a son of the late Dr. Freund, the founder of, and for many years Physician to, the German Hospital.

The Lancet, February 20, 1886, Page 368

A LUNATIC IMPRISONED AGAIN.

Why do the City Fathers persist in imprisoning Herbert Percy Freund, seeing that he is certainly "a person of unsound mind"? Is it that they deem it less costly to keep him one-third of his time in gaol than to maintain him altogether in an asylum? The question of humanity ought to have some little weight as against the question of economy. Besides which, it may one day happen that this lunatic will no longer be contented with declaiming against St. Paul's Cathedral as "that house of idols over there." He may turn iconoclast on his own account; or, instead of predicting the downfall of the City, he may do something towards the fulfilment of his prophecies. The policy of the City magistrates is neither sound nor safe, and it is certainly anything but benevolent.

February 27, 1886, Page 430

THE CASE OF H. P. FREUND.
To the Editor of The Lancet.

Sir,—The case of Herbert Percy Freund has on several occasions been alluded to in The Lancet, and once more is specially mentioned in an annotation in your issue of the 20th inst. It may not be generally known that this unfortunate man, who has been repeatedly brought before the London magistrates for religious monomania, and has been by them sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, owes his breakdown to overstrain whilst working for the Bachelorship in Medicine of the London University. At the City of London School, where he was a schoolfellow of mine, he was remarkable for his jovial good humour and geniality. Whilst holding a good position in the sixth form he won the St. Thomas's Hospital Scholarship, which covered the cost of the fees of his medical curriculum on the condition of his successfully passing his examination when due. He was consequently most anxious not to fail from the fear that he might thus lose his scholarship. The fact that in spite of his anxiety he passed the First M.B. Lond. in 1874 within a year and three-quarters of the date of the commencement of his medical study was sufficient proof of his ability, more especially as he secured Honours in the Preliminary Scientific Examination at the end of his first year. The strain, however, told, and shortly after the First M.B. Examination he became eccentric and depressed, took to ascetic habits and a solitary life, aud was unable to continue study, becoming later on a confirmed religious monomaniac. May I ask whether something could not be done for him, at least, by old members of the City School (I believe he belonged to the "John Carpenter Club") or of St. Thomas's Hospital, if only in the way of placing him in an asylum, so as to prevent the scandal of his frequent appearance in the police courts. I for one would be very glad to help or to hear of others similarly disposed. I am, Sir, yours faithfully,

W. P. Mears, M.D.

University of Durham College of Medicine, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Feb. 20th, 1886.

--end

His brother?

History of the American Pianoforte: Its Technical Development and the Trade (New York: Spillane, 1890), Pages 355-359
by Daniel Spillane

Mr. John C. Freund, at present one of the editors of the American Musician, is another remarkable figure in this sphere of recent pianoforte and musical history. His connection with this department of journalism dates back to 1875, when he founded the Music Trade Review, referred to elsewhere, the first weekly with a distinctive title published in this country devoted to the music trades. Mr. Freund's early tendencies were literary and musical to a large degree. Constant association with the pianoforte as a student, besides a knowledge of mechanics and natural philosophy acquired in his college days, made the literature of the instrument and its manufacture a labor of love, while these acquirements have been eminent qualifications in his professional career as a music trade editor, apart from the standard reputation he enjoys as a critic and feuilletonist.

Mr. Freund's principal fault is said to have hitherto been a magnanimous spirit of lavishness, which all his journalistic ventures have indicated in their general getup and contents. This is a pardonable thing, and at times commendable. The worst sufferer, however, by over-generosity or philanthropy of that unproductive nature is the philanthropist usually. John C. Freund, whose distinguished face graces these pages, was born in London in 1848 of German parents. His father, a most eminent physician, and an authority of note in scientific and medical lines, was an Austrian, who settled in London, where he built up a large practice among the titled classes and aristocracy. He was professionally a philanthropist, for through his personal efforts he raised money to establish the great German Hospital in London, which Germans in London remember as a great deed. At the Crimean War he was one of the principal medical officers in the service of the allied armies. Throughout his life he enjoyed the friendship of many of the most eminent people in Europe. Mr. J. C. Freund's mother, a distinguished lady, whose recent death in 1887 will be remembered, came to London very young, being adopted by her uncle, a noted scholar and linguist in the service of the Foreign Office. This gentleman, Mr. Freund's granduncle, is said to have spoken and written fifteen languages with perfect ease. He was deputed to accompany Lord Macartney's first embassy to China as interpreter, so as to facilitate intercourse with the natives. Mrs. Amelia Lewis Freund, Mr. Freund's mother, inherited much of the linguistic genius of her uncle, and was known as a lady of extraordinary accomplishments—which included science—and great strength of character. In music she equally excelled.

Mr. Freund was a favored mortal in the sense that he was born, unlike so many others of the race, under the most favorable conditions, and with the figurative silver spoon in his mouth, for his father enjoyed a splendid income from his practice. It is no surprise hence to know that he received an unexceptionable education. He is a graduate of Oxford and London universities. In his college days and after he was known as an athlete. He studied painting under good masters, and became a lawyer. The step from law to journalism is very brief, as many of the leading London newspaper men are notably lawyers; so it is we find Mr. Freund enjoying an early reputation as editor of the Oxford University magazine, the Dark Blue, in 1870, 1871, and 1873. Tom Hughes, of "Tom Brown's Schoolboy Days" fame; Gilbert, the librettist and satirist; Charles Reade, and Rossetti were among the contributors during this period. As a dramatist Mr. Freund is well known. Mr. Henry Labouchere, of Truth, brought out "The Undergraduate," Mr. Freund's first play, in 1871, at the Queens Theatre, London, which the press received very warmly.

In 1872 he arrived in New York, and contributed subsequently to several leading journals and magazines. He bought out the Arcadian in 1873, and engaged a brilliant staff of specialists, such as Mr. Stephen Fiske, A. C. Wheeler, Montague Marks, and others. The paper had a great circulation, but in 1875 Mr. Freund sold it to Mr. George Butler, a nephew of General Butler. Mr. Freund became known in 1875 as a music trade editor. In this year he started the Music Trade Review, devoted to the art, its literature, and the trades. Mr. Louis Engel, at present of Yates' London World, a celebrated musical critic, was engaged on this journal for some time. In 1878 this became the Musical Times; then it developed into the Musical and Dramatic Times. In 1880 Mr. Freund, in consequence of overwork, withdrew, but in 1881 he had recovered, and was in the field again with Music, which presently became Music and Drama. In 1884 Freund's Weekly appeared, which subsequently became Music and Drama. Being by instinct a dramatist, and possessing a fine elocutionary, backed up by vocal training, Mr. Freund was induced to go on the stage. He opened McVicker's Theatre in Chicago with a new play, " True Nobility," in which he made his debut in a star part in 1885. Meanwhile, he was on the stage for two years, playing leading parts with Mayo and Madame Janish. As a lecturer, Mr. Freund also shone. In 1886 we find that his lecture " Before and Behind the Footlights," delivered in Boston, secured no less than sixteen columns of press notices in that city alone. After this temporary absence from journalism Mr. Freund returned to the field in 1887, when he became an editor of the American Musician, which position he has held up to the present time with significant results.

Apart from the foregoing, Mr. Freund has enjoyed a distinguished connection with music trade history, and has a large circle of friends.

--end

Men and Women of America: a Biographical Dictionary of Contemporaries (New York: L. R. Hamersly, 1910), Pages 659-660

FREUND, John C:

Musical editor and publisher, dramatist and writer on Social Economics; born London, England, Nov. 22, 1848, where his father, Dr. Jonas Charles Hermann Freund, was the leading foreign physician for many years; Deputy Inspector of Hospitals during the Crimean War, Surgeon in the British Army, founder and first directing physician of the German Hospital, Dalston, London, and author of a number of leading medical works. His mother, Amelia Louisa (Rudiger) Freund, was the niece and companion of Christian Huettner, a noted linguist, who, as secretary and interpreter, accompanied Lord Macartney's first English Embassy to China. Under the nom-de-plume, Amelia Lewis, she gained an international reputation as a writer on Social Economics. Mr. Freund went to Oxford University with the Times (London) and Carpenter Scholarships, won in open competition. Remained at the University three years, but before finishing the full course came to the United States. While at Oxford, and before he was twenty-two, started and edited the Dark Blue Magazine, to which the Rossettis, Swinbourue and William Morris, the poets, Professors Blackie, Dowden and Sylvester, Rev. J. G. Wood, the naturalist, Thomas Hughes and other distinguished writers contributed. He produced his first play. The Under-Graduate, at the Queen's Theatre, London, in 1870, in which Miss Hodson, now the wife of Henri Labouchere, the Radical leader, editor of Truth (London) played the leading role. Mr. Freund came to the United States in 1871 and became connected with trade journalism in New York City, first on staff of the Wine and Spirit Gazette, and then as proprietor of the Hat, Cap and Fur Trade Review, which he started. He later purchased and conducted the Arcadian, a critical weekly. One of the pioneers in musical, and dramatic and music trade journalism in the United States. Was the first to start a musical and music trade paper in the English language, in New York, in 1873. Later developed from it the Musical and Dramatic Times, which was sold. Then, after a year in Colorado and New Mexico, he returned to New York and established a weekly called Music, which later became Music and Drama, which was developed into a daily and was very successful for a time. In 188o he produced his second play, True Nobility, at McVicker's Theatre, Chicago, in which, with Viola Allen and Robert B. Mantell, he played the leading character part. Was after that in Frank Mayo's company, and later played leading character parts with Mme. Janish and Henry Miller. Mr. Freund returned to journalism in 1887 as editor of the American Musician, until 1890. He then established the Music Trades and he edited the Dolgeville Herald, from 1801 to 1893. Since then, editor of the Music Trades, and president and director of the Music Trades Co. Also editor of Musical America, which he established in 1898, and president and director of the Musical America Co., and editor of the annual. The Piano and Organ Purchaser's Guide. He is a member of the National Civic Federation, the National Geographic Society, the West End Association. St. John's Guild, and other societies. His favorite recreations art those of out door life. He has traveled and visited many countries. He is a member of the Pleiades Club of New York City. Mr. Freund married, in 1887. Florence Smith (now deceased) by whom he had one daughter, Florence Louise, born in 1889. He again married, in 1890, Anna C. Hughes, and of that union there are two daughters: Annette, born in 1896, and Marjorie, born in 1904. Residence: 760 West End Avenue, New York City. Address: 135 Fifth Avenue, New York City.

--end

Herbert disrupts a synagogue with a penny trumpet:

Timaru Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 4097, 25 November 1887, Page 4

BRAWLING IN A SYNAGOGUE

[TradeName]

Brief mention of JtR in a Word War II-era article about French killer, Dr. Marcel Petiot.

The Telegraph-Herald (Dubuque, Iowa), March 16, 1944, Page 11

Deny Policies of Bluebeard
Slayings Unconnected with War, Officials Say

London(U.P.)

[...]

The Scotland Yard spokesman
said the only comparable British
case was that of "Jack the Ripper,"
who operated in London's East end
at the close of the last century but
never was apprehended. The Ripper
also was a doctor who specialized
in murdering women when
periodic madness overcame him,
but he never was credited with
more than six victims.

[Toofew]

Where are we gong?

Trade, I've been away from JtR studies for at least seven years. I want to congratulate you on the enormous amount of research you've done. That being said, what is the purpose of your research? Forgive me for forgetting much of the minutia of JtR but seriously, in this case I'm totally confused on what the subject is or where you're headed with the research. Perhaps a prrimer for we less knowledgeable?

Respectfully yours,

Billy

[Toofew]

My apologies, it appears I haven't been away as long as I thought!

Billy

[TradeName]

If we're talking about the Dr. Howard story, then the question I have is: Does the San Francisco Call version derive from the Forbes Winslow interview or is it an independent account of the same alleged events? I 'm inclined to believe that the Call version is derivative, but I can't prove that. The other question is whether there is any truth to the story. I don't think it's implausible that some doctor's wife might have suspected him of being JtR, but I don't have any proof that this happened. The attribution of the story to Forbes Winslow does not exactly inspire confidence. Of course, even if it is true that a woman suspected her husband, it doesn't mean that the guy was actually JtR.

[Toofew]

If we're talking about the Dr. Howard story, then the question I have is: Does the San Francisco Call version derive from the Forbes Winslow interview or is it an independent account of the same alleged events? I 'm inclined to believe that the Call version is derivative, but I can't prove that. The other question is whether there is any truth to the story. I don't think it's implausible that some doctor's wife might have suspected him of being JtR, but I don't have any proof that this happened. The attribution of the story to Forbes Winslow does not exactly inspire confidence. Of course, even if it is true that a woman suspected her husband, it doesn't mean that the guy was actually JtR.

OK, I think I follow. I agree with you that it looks like the SF Call version is derivative. But, hope always springs high that we will find a separately sourced story for our research interest. Since wives have always suspected the worst of their husbands, I see no grounds for disagreement. Winslow, well, he is a different kettle of fish isn't he. Can you point me to something that describes his changing the dates on the purported communication from JtR?

Best of wishes,

Billy

P.S. I live in the Kansas City area so I'll try to find and take a snapshot of the doctor's grave for you.

[TradeName]

Billy,

I think the information about Winslow changing the date comes from Jack The Ripper: Letters From Hell by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner. I notice that there's an 1889 newspaper article on this site about Winslow's letter:

Port Philip Herald (Australia), 26 November 1889, link

THE LATEST "JACK THE RIPPER" LETTER

ANOTHER MURDER EXPECTED

--

My working hypothesis is that Dr. Howard may have seen the Winslow interview in the news and then told the story in San Francisco, perhaps hinting that he had personal knowledge.

Thanks for the offer to photograph Dr. Phillips' grave.

[TradeName]

William A. Hammond on JtR

William A. Hammond was an American doctor of "diseases of the mind." Here's a biographical sketch:

Appletons' Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events 1900 (New York: D. Appleton, 1901), Pages 477-478

Hammond, William Alexander, surgeon, born in Annapolis, Md., Aug. 28, 1828; died in Washington, D. C, Jan. 5, 1900. He was graduated at the medical department of the University of New York in 1848, after which he attended a course of clinics in the Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. July 3, 1849. he entered the army of the United States as assistant surgeon general with the rank of lieutenant, which rank was raised to captain, June 29, 1854. He did duty at various forts and military posts, and acted as medical director of the Sioux expedition and as surgeon to the troops engaged in laying out a road through the Rocky mountains. Oct. 31, 1860, he resigned from the army to become Professor of Anatomy and Physiology in the University of Maryland. At the beginning of the civil war he resigned his chair and re-entered the army. He was appointed assistant surgeon May 28, 1861, and promoted April 25, 1862, to surgeon general with the rank of brigadier general. He instituted many reforms, but became involved in a controversy, was tried by court-martial, and was dismissed from the service Aug. 18, 1864. In 1868 he was appointed Professor of Diseases of the Mind and the Nervous System in the College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City; subsequently he filled similar chairs in Bellevue Hospital Medical College and in the University of the City of New York. In 1882 he was one of the founders of the New York Post-Graduate Medical School, in which he held the professorship of Diseases of the Mind for years. In the meantime the President and the Secretary of War had been authorized to review the proceedings of the court-martial that had removed him from the army, and on Aug. 27. 1879, he was, after fifteen years of suspension, restored to his former place on the rolls of the army as surgeon general and brigadier general on the retired list. In February, 1888, he abandoned his practice in New York and removed to Washington. He wrote many books on nervous complaints and other medical topics, as well as some novels. His published works are Physiological Memoirs (Philadelphia, 1863); Treatise on Hygiene (1863); lectures on Venereal Diseases (1864); A Chapter on Sleep (1865); Insanitv in its Medico-Legal Relations (New York, 1866); Robert Severne: His Friends and his Enemies (Philadelphia. I860); Medico-Legal Study of the Case of Daniel McFarland (New York,' 1867); Sleep and its Derangements (Philadelphia, 1869); Physics and Physiology of Spiritualism (New York, 1S70); Clinical Lectures on Diseases of the Nervous System (1871); Treatise on Diseases of the Nervous System (1871); Insanity in its Relation to Crime (1873); Spiritualism and Allied Causes and Conditions of Nervous Derangement (1870); Cerebral Hyperemia (1878) ; Fasting Girls (1879); Neurological Contributions of Studies and Case Records (1870); On Certain Conditions of Nervous Derangement: Somnambulism, Hypnotism, Hysteria, Hysteroid Affections (1881); Dr. Grattan (1884); Lai (1884); A Strong-minded Woman (1885); Mr. Oldmixon (1885); On the Susquehanna (1887); Sexual Impotence in the Male (18S(i); Sexual Impotence in Male and Female (Detroit, 1887); Spinal Irritation (1888); The Son of Perdition (Chicago, 1898); and with Clara Lanza, Tales of Eccentric Life (New York, 1886).

--end

Hammond was Surgeon General of the U.S. Army during the Civil War at the time Dr. Benjamin Howard was an Army surgeon. Later they served together on a committee in New York City.

Medical Record, Volume 8, July 15, 1873, Page 352

Life-saving Society Of New York.—A society of this character has recently been inaugurated in New York city, to promote the rescue of persons in peril from drowning, from fire, and from other accidents. The medical officers are as follows: Vice-President. Dr. E. R. Peaslee; Corresponding Secretary. Dr. Benjamin Howard; Executive Committee, Drs. Frank H. Hamilton and Alfred C. Post; Board of Directors, Drs. B. Howard, A. C. Post, T. G. Thomas, E. R. Peaslee, Marion Sims, C. R. Agnew, Wm. A. Hammond, A. Flint, Jr., F. H. Hamilton, and Fordyce Barker. Prof. Theo. W. Dwight, President.

--end

The North American Review, Volume 147, December, 1888, Page 626-637

Madness and Murder
by William A. Hammond

Pages 633-637

[...]

A few months ago a murder of a peculiarly atrocious character was committed in the district known as Whitechapel, London. The victim was a woman of the lowest class of that particularly low section of the metropolis. Not content with simply killing the woman, the murderer had mutilated the corpse and had inflicted wounds altogether unnecessary for the accomplishment of his object. Three or four months afterwards another woman of the same class was found dead with over thirty stab wounds in her body, and in quick succession other similar crimes were committed, until now the number amounts to nine. The efforts of the police to discover the perpetrator or perpetrators have up to this time been utterly fruitless, and every supposed clew that has been followed up has proved to be without foundation. All kinds of theories have been indulged in by the police, professional and amateur, and by legal and medical experts, who appear to have exhausted their ingenuity in devising the most strained hypotheses in their attempts to account for these murderous crimes. In the foregoing remarks relative to madness and murder I have brought forward examples in illustration of several forms of mental derangement, any one of which may have been the predominating motive which has been the starting point of the crimes in question.

Thus they may have been committed by a person who kills merely for the love of killing, and who has selected a particular class from which to choose his victims, for the reason that being of very little importance in the social world, they could be killed with a minimum amount of risk of detection. The fact that unnecessary wounds and mutilation were inflicted gives additional support to this theory. The more hacking and cutting the more delight would be experienced.

They may be the result of a morbid impulse which the perpetrator feels himself unable to resist, and which, after he had yielded to its power, is followed by the most acute anguish of mind. It may be said against this view that if such were the fact the murderer would, in his moments of mental agony and. repentance, surrender himself to the authorities; but in answer I think it may be properly alleged that fear for his own safety would prevent him doing an act which he might feel to be right, but which he would know would lead to his speedy execution. To test the correctness of this hypothesis it would be necessary to offer him free and unconditional pardon. If he is the subject of a morbid impulse which he cannot resist, he will give himself up if immunity be promised him.

The murders may have been committed by one who is acting under the principle of suggestion. He may have recently heard or read of similar crimes (for such murders have been committed before) and has been impelled thereby to go and do likewise, until after the first two or three murders he has acquired a love for the act of killing, and for the excitement attendant on the risk which he runs. This last incentive is a very powerful one, with certain morbidly constituted minds, and has apparently been the chief motive in some notable series of crimes.

Again, they may have been committed by several persons acting under the influence of the power of imitation. This force, owing to the extensive publication of reports of crimes through the newspapers, is much more influential at present than at any other period in the history of the world. The more ferocious the murder the more likelihood that it will be imitated. It is not at all unreasonable to suppose that there may have been as many murderers of these women as there are murders.

I am inclined, however, to think that the perpetrator is a reasoning maniac, one who has received or imagines he has received some injury from the class of women upon which his crimes are committed, or who has assumed the role of the reformer, and who thinks he can annihilate them one by one or strike such terror into those that remain that they will hasten to abandon their vicious mode of life. He is probably a person whose insanity is not suspected even by those who are in constant association with him. He may be a clergyman, a lawyer, a physician, or even a member of the titled aristocracy; a cashier in a bank, a shopkeeper, an officer of the army or navy. All apparently motiveless crimes are exceedingly difficult of detection. It is quite conceivable that this man may leave the dinner-table or the ball-room and pass a dozen policemen on his way towards the accomplishment of his purpose. The higher he appeared to be in the social scale the less he would be liable to suspicion. He may be for a man some such person as Hélène Jégado was for a woman. This wretch, between the years of 1853 and 1857, killed twenty-eight persons by poison, besides making several unsuccessful attempts. In none of her murders was any cause alleged or discovered, though undoubtedly the pleasure derived from the perpetration of crime was the chief factor. Her victims were her masters and mistresses, her fellow servants, her friends, and several nuns, for whom in their lest moments she displayed the utmost tenderness and care. The plea of monomania was set up in her defense, but no evidence of insanity was brought forward by her counsel save the apparent want of motive for her crimes. It was shown, however, that she had begun her career when only seventeen years old by attempting to poison her confessor; that she had, while perpetrating her wholesale murders, affected the greatest piety and was for a time an inmate of a convent; that she had committed over thirty thefts; that she had maliciously cut and burned various articles of clothing placed in her charge; that when asked why she had stolen things that were of no use to her she had replied: "I always steal when I am angry;" that she was subject to alternate periods of great mental depression, and excessive and unreasonable gaiety; that she was affected with pains in the head and vertigo; that when she was angry she vomited blood; and that while in prison awaiting trial she was constantly laughing and joking about indifferent subjects. She was found guilty, and on being asked if she had anything to say why sentence of death should not be pronounced, made answer, "No, your Honor, I am innocent. I am resigned to all that may happen. I would rather die innocent than live guilty. You have judged me, but God will judge you." Her last words on the scaffold were directed to accusing a woman as her instigator and accomplice, whose name was not even mentioned during the trial, and who, upon inquiry, was found to be an old paralytic whose whole life had been of the most exemplary character.

If this woman had stopped after killing twenty-seven persons she would probably never have been detected. If the perpetrator of the so-called Whitechapel murders were to cease now his career of crime, there is no reason to suppose that he would ever be discovered. But it is not at all likely that he will fail to go on in the course which has now become second nature to him. His love for murder has become overpowering, and immunity has rendered him bold. Little by little he will become less cautious, and eventually he will be caught.

When arrested the question of how to dispose of him will arise. In what I have said I have assumed him to be a lunatic of some kind. If a certain degree of maudlin sentimentality should prevail he will be placed in a lunatic asylum and in the course of a few years may be discharged as cured. But such insanity as his is never cured. Doubtless while an inmate of the asylum his conduct will be of the most exemplary character. He will dissemble for years and will deceive the very elect among experts in insanity. Superintendents and clergymen and various other high personages will unite in testifying to his thorough change of heart and Christian bearing, and when he is discharged with the blessings of all with whom he has been associated he will begin to commit another series of murders fully as atrocious as those for which he has been sequestrated.

There is but one way to deal with a person like this Whitechapel murderer, and that is, to hang him as soon as he is caught. He is an enemy of society and is entitled to no more consideration than a wild beast which follows his instinct to kill. Laws are not made for the purpose of enforcing the principles of abstract justice; they are enacted solely for the protection of society. Some fifteen years ago, in a little book entitled "Insanity in its Relations to Crime," I urged that certain of the insane are properly as much amenable to punishment as though in full possession of all their mental faculties unimpaired. In a paper published in the North American Review for November, 1882, entitled "A Problem for Sociologists," I said:

"A man with murderous tendencies which he is unable to restrain is as much an enemy to society as a ferocious tiger or a mad dog, and ought to be dealt with in quite as summary a manner as we deal with these animals. It is all very well to talk of the inhumanity of such a proceeding, and to urge sequestration in a lunatic asylum as amply meeting the requirements of the case. But experience teaches us that, though it may be very difficult for a sane person improperly committed to get out of an asylum, it is the easiest thing in the world for a lunatic who has committed a crime to walk out of its doors with the full consent of the superintendent. Till these things are changed, the law, as recently laid down by Judge Noah Davis, of the Supreme Court of this State, and by Judge Cox, of the District of Columbia, and as almost universally held by the English judges, that every one is responsible who knows the nature and consequence of his act, is no more than sufficient for protection, the prime object of every law.

WILLIAM A. HAMMOND