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
-
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.
[...]
--endLeave a comment:
-
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.Leave a comment:
-
yes that is himOriginally posted by TradeName View Post
JenniLeave a comment:
-
Hi TradeName,Originally posted by TradeName View Post
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.
JeffLeave a comment:
-
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 PressLeave a comment:
-
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.Leave a comment:
-
As i was going to St. Ives...
The Cornishman, April 26, 1896, Page 4, Column 2
Occasional Notes
[...]
Mr. Lees, who has nearly quashed the license of the
Porthminster hotel, clearly is known to the staff of the
South London Mail. Its Saturday issue tells us that
"Robert James Lees, the founder of the Peckham People's
League, is not dead yet; in fact he is more alive and kicking
than ever. When Mr. Lees left Peckham through the
breaking down of his health, he went to St. Ives in Cornwall,
but his spirit would not rest there quietly. He
preaches nearly every Sunday in the Primitive-methodist
chapel at St. Ives, Cornwall, and during the past winter
he has lectured a good deal in aid of local charities.
Although he has been breathing the bracing air of St.
Ives for some months, he is still far from strong. He is,
however, strong enough to go for anything which he thinks
is 'not 18 carat.' He looked about and began to notice
things. He found there were only some half dozen beings
in the town who were Somebody, the rest being Anybody
or Nobody. Those who were Somebody did 'just what
they darn well pleased,' to use a vulgarism, and those
who were Nobody were allowed to keep their mouths shut
and look on. He has just thrown a bomb right into the
centre of a local institution, which used to be of the
Temperance order, but which through a somewhat strange
proceeding, bloomed out as a fully-licensed establishment.
That bomb has exploded with terrible violence, and the
result is that the license has been blown-up." Then the
paper tells the story of the Porthminster license.Leave a comment:
-
Lees and the National Social Union
An account by W. T. Stead of the organizing meeting of an idealistic undertaking called the National Student Union. R. J. Lees of Peckham is listed among a group of people nominated to communicate with a provisional committee. Not sure why the Webbs of the Fabian Society are mixed up with this.
The Review of Reviews, Volume 10, November 1, 1894, Page 498
III.—THE QUEEN'S HALL CONFERENCE.
The proposal to establish a National Social Union was submitted for the first time to a public meeting on London Reform Sunday, October 28th. London Reform Sunday is a new institution which is due to the public spirit and energy of the London Reform Union, a body which has Mr. Passmore Edwards as its president, and Mr. Thomas Lough as Chairman of its Executive Committee. Under its auspices more than 300 churches out of the 3000 in the City of London devoted special attention to the question of civic religion. Each preacher of each church was left to deal with the subject in his own way, but the general tendency of all those who responded to the invitation, was decidedly in favour of a more active participation of religions men and women in civic work. In this connection it may be noted as a very good sign, that the London Pleasant Sunday Afternoon Associations took part very generally in London Reform Sunday, and the following resolution was submitted to, and adopted by, many of those influential bodies of adults which assemble regularly every Sunday afternoon in connection with various places of worship:—
We, citizens of London, resolve to do all in our power to make our great city the city of God. By seeing—(a) That all our public officials are free from corruption, and that the press is freed from the patronage of gamblers and immoral men. (b) That all children shall have an efficient education. (c) That there shall be work for all willing workers. (d) That all charitable funds shall be properly appropriated, (e) That our criminals shall be treated with justice and mercy. (f) That all amusements shall be moral in their influence; and (g) That the liquor traffic, so long a bane of this city, shall be restricted. We also pledge ourselves in every way to Btrive to realise our Heavenly Father's will in our personal and public life.
The suggestion having been made to me by the secretary of the London Reform Union that I should take one of those pleasant Sunday afternoon services on London Reform Sunday, I at first refused, but subsequently, seeing that there was to be no general central meeting apart from the services in their different churches, I decided to utilise the opportunity for the purpose of submitting the project of the National Social Union to a large representative public meeting.
Bearing in mind the excellent results that had followed a similar action in Chicago, I summoned a public Conference at the Queen's Hall for Sunday afternoon, under the title of "If Christ Came to London, what would He have us do in view of the approaching elections?" Invitations were sent to all the clergy, ministers of religion, and all the members of the various public bodies who were charged with the administration of the forces of London, whether judicial, municipal, educational or otherwise. In order to secure the representative character of the audience admission was by ticket only, and several hundreds were turned away from the door. Proceedings at the Conference, which was presided over by Mr. James Branch of the London County Council and President of the P.S.A. Association, were extremely hearty and unanimous.
The general idea of the National Social Union, based as it is on the "Union of all who Love in the Service of all who Suffer," was set forth before those present with special reference to the coming School Board elections, and at the close of a sitting, which lasted two and a half hours, the following resolution moved by Mr. Stead, seconded by the Rev. Dr. Clifford, and supported by Mrs. Ormiston Chant and Mr. Macnamara of the Schoolmaster and Secretary of the London School Board Teachers Association, Mr. B. F. Costelloe of the London County Council, who is also a Roman Catholic, and Mr. Fletcher of the Daily Chronicle, was carried unanimously.
That in order to promote the Union of all who Love for the Service of all who Suffer, this meeting approves the formation of a National Social Union with affiliated Unions in every constituency, to act as a common centre for the co-operation of all the moral, religious, social, industrial and philanthropic forces of the community in attaining those objects which (ili good citizens desire, irrespective of distinctions of sect or sei, party or class.
And that in order to give effect to this Resolution, the meeting nominates the following persons—-Mr. James Branch. L.C.C. (Chairman), Mr. Fletcher (Daily Chronicle), Mr. John Burns. M.P., L.G.C., Mr. Macnamara (Schoolmaster), Mr. B. F. Costelloe, L.C.C., Mr. Ashcroft Noble, Mr. R. J. Lees (Peckham), Mrs. Sidney Webb, Mr. H. A. Day—-to communicate with the provisional committee of the National Social Union for the purpose of discussing whether any practical steps can be taken in this direction at the coming elections.
The following are the names of the provisional committee of the National Social Union, with whom the above parsons were appointed to confer:—
Mr. Sidney Webb, L.C.A., Fabian Society.
The Rev. Dr. Clifford.
Lady Henry Somerset, British Women's Temperance Association.
Sir John Gorst.
The Earl of Month.
The Earl of Winchilsea.
Rev. Hugh Price Hughes.
Miss James, Organiser of Women's Trade Unions.
Mr. Vivian, of London Co-operative Society.
The Chief Rabbi, or his representative
Mr. Percy Alden, Mansfield House Settlement.
Mrs. Haweis, Pioneer Club.
Rev. P. Dearmer, Christian Social Union.
A Representative of the Ethical Society.
Mr. Ben Tillett.
The object is to ascertain whether something could not be done to secure a common agreement among good citizens of all parties, sects, and classes as to certain clear and well defined objects to be placed before the electors which might contribute something to securing tho election of an ideal School Board, ideal Vestries, and ideal Boards of Guardians.
There are certain general principles governing the selection of candidates for any position of public trust and as to the mode of conducting elections on which all good citizens agree, but which are unfortunately too often forgotten.
Each of the pending elections has, however, its own set of questions on which it may be possible to make some approximation to an agreement, independent of either party.Leave a comment:
-
I'll use the mention of Ray Lankester in the article about Bishop and Labouchere to post these items about his appearance in a police court in 1895.
The Saturday Review, October 19, 1895, Page 495
When Candide and Pangloss approached the Turkish philosopher with the innocent inquiry, "Master, we are come to beg you to tell us why so strange an animal as man has been created?" they were met with the reply, "De quoi te mêles-tu? est-ce là ton affaire?" "But what is to be done about all this misery?" pursued Pangloss. "Hold your tongue," answered the dervish. And so says Mr. Newton to the unfortunate persons who come to Marlborough Police Court hoping for justice. He is one of those magistrates who make matters easy for themselves and very uncomfortable for the public, by always supporting the police. The streets over which he presides are, in one respect at least, admittedly the most disgraceful in Europe, and their state is due in part at least to the connivance of the police. A man cannot walk along Piccadilly or turn the corners into Regent Street after eleven o'clock at night without being accosted, and often pulled about, by unfortunates. If he appeals to the police for protection, he is told to move on, and if he insists he stands no little danger of being "run in" and charged with being disorderly, or even drunk.
This is almost exactly what happened to Professor Ray Lankester a few nights ago. He had asked a woman some innocent question in regard to a disturbance which was going on near by. He was forthwith "moved on" by a zealous policeman, and when he objected to being treated as a loafer, he was promptly "run in." Next morning he appeared with his solicitor, Sir George Lewis, before Mr. Newton. A policeman swore that Professor Lankester seemed to be drunk. Sir George Lewis wanted this curious statement noted; but Mr. Newton told Sir George Lewis he would not be bluffed, turned a deaf ear to everything urged by the defence, and completed his parody of justice by binding over Professor Ray Lankester, a man of European reputation, to keep the peace in his own recognizances of £10, just as if he were a rowdy corner boy.
This must not be regarded as an exceptional case. Mr. Newton's rudeness and injustice have passed into a proverb. We have received many complaints on the subject, and a distinguished correspondent has written to us declaring that "an association for the protection of the public against the police is necessary." This, however, it seems to us, is treating the matter too seriously. The unfortunate irritability and partisanship of one magistrate do not afford sufficienc reason for the formation of such a society. Besides, Mr. Newton has gone a little too far this time. He has opened all eyes by his treatment of Professor Ray Lankester, and it will probably be some time before he dares to appear again in his favourite rdle of the Turkish philosopher who was the butt of Voltaire's wit.
November 9, 1895, Page 607
It would really seem as if the London police were determined to teach every one how little their evidence is worth. The other day they accused Professor Ray Lankester of causing an obstruction in Piccadilly, and the magistrate, Mr. Newton, stultified himself by binding over a man of European reputation to keep the peace in his own recognizances of £10. Now we have again the same co-workers, a policeman and an unfortunate, attempting to prove that Mr. George Alexander, the actor, was guilty of gross misconduct in the street within a few yards of his own house. Constable 286 B gave positive and circumstantial evidence that showed long training in such accusations. The female prisoner, who, we are told, "was of very commonplace appearance, wretchedly dressed, and in evident bad health," corroborated her master, the constable, as was to be expected. Mr. De Rutzen, however, said that though "the police had given their evidence in a most satisfactory way, he would give Mr. Alexander the benefit of the doubt and discharge him."That is, the magistrate took it upon himself to insult a man of position and character on the evidence of a policeman and a streetwalker. We can only congratulate Mr. Alexander that he followed instead of preceding Professor Ray Lankester. The eyes of the public are being opened, and distrust of police testimony is growing, thanks to the efforts of the Press. A Bishop or a Cabinet Minister will be arrested one of these days on a charge of "drunk and disorderly," and then Mr. Newton or De Rutzen, as the case may be, will perhaps refrain from complimenting the police.
Already these magistrates can study the effect of their decisions. Mr. Newton will doubtless be interested in hearing that Professor Ray Lankester has been recommended for election into the Council of the Royal Society, and Mr. De Rutzen will be equally delighted to learn that the audience at the St. James's Theatre on Thursday evening welcomed Mr. Alexander's appearance with rounds of enthusiastic cheering.Leave a comment:
-
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.Leave a comment:
-
Lees/Cumberland
Still (tenuously) hanging on ....seriously, thanks
All the best
DaveLeave a comment:
-
An account, which originated in the PMG, of Irving Bishop's attempt to meet a challenge set by Henry Labouchere in 1883. There's a mention of a Mr. Lees, but I don't know if this is our Mr. Lees. I wonder if the Colonel Trench who came up with the fiver is the Colonel The Hon. W. Le P. Trench who contested Whitechapel in the elections of 1886 and 1892.
The Daily Graphic (NY), June 30, 1883, Page 860
How Bishop Did It
The Labouchere -Bishop Bet--Thought Reading and Its Vindication
Betting and thought-reading do not go well together.
Such at least is the conclusion arrived at
by most of those who "assisted" at the demonstration
given by Mr. Bishop in Si. James's Hall
last night in acceptance of Mr. Labouchere's bet
of 10 to 1, taken in hundreds, that the number of
a bank note, known only to one independent and
intelligent man, could not possibly be discovered
in two guesses by a blindfolded thought-reader.
The proceedings lasted three hours, and this is the
way in which the time was disposed of: Exposure
of spiritualistic phenomena, three-quarters of an
hour; thought-reading, fifteen minutes; quarrelling
about the bet and its conditions,
two hours. The prolonged wrangle
between Mr. Bishop and Mr. Labouchere's supporters
was the reverse of edifying; but when a
similar controversy was got up between Mr. Bishop
and an inebriated member of the audience, and
then between Mr. Bishop and the friends of Mr.
Charles Russell and Professor Ray Lankester, the
proceedings savored more of the betting-ring on a
race course when welshers are about than of the
conduct of a curious investigation in the obscure
corners of psychological research. The betting
spoiled the thought-reading, and transferred the
interest from the experiment to the wager. The
experiment was signally successful, but the
squabble about the stakes was dreary to the last
degree.
Mr. Bishop began last night by inviting the audience
to elect a committee of investigation to
surround him on the platform and subject all his
experiments to the closest investigation. Several
names were banded up, read out to the meeting
and approved. No one was rejected. The names
of Mr. George Augustus Sala, Mr. Passmore Edwards,
Mr. Charles Russell, Mr. Waddy, Colonel
Statham, Dr. Pope, the Rev. H. R. Haweis, Mr.
Lane Fox and the Rev. Dr. Wilberforce were
loudly cheered; but several of these named, if
they were present, remained in the hall. Ultimately
a dozen gentlemen were secured, including
Mr. Waddy, Mr. Passmore Edwards, Mr. Haweis,
Colonel Statham, Mr. Lane Fox, the Rev. Dr.
Tremlett and the Chief Constable of Northampton,
who undertook to conduct the Investigation
on behalf of the audience. Of the first part of the
performance little need be said. Mr. Bisbop
showed how little reliance should be placed
on the sense of touch by convincing the
Rev. Dr. Tremlett when blindfolded that he
was firmly grasping both his (Mr. Bishop's)
hands, while be only held one, and then followed
that up with an illustration of the fallaciousness
of hearing by convincing the Rev. Mr. Haweis,
who was also blindfolded, that a coin clinked
close to the tip of his nose was in reality clinked
at some distance to the right or left of his head.
Mr. Bishop then extricated one of his wrists from
a handcuff said to be sent with a police officer from
Scotland Yard, and performed several other experiments,
culminating with an exposure of the
Davenport trick in the dark seance. He was
tightly tied In the presence of the audience by
the Chief Constable of Northampton with surgical
bandages at the wrists and at the ankles.
His hands were tied behind his back, and then the
bandages were knotted tightly to a wooden stake
in the dark cabinet. The bandages round his
ankles were nailed to the ground and
another bandage was tied tightly round
his neck. The Chief Constable of Northampton
then entered the cabinet, grasped Mr.
Bishop's hands, and pressed firmly his shoulders.
The cabinet was then closed. In a few
seconds the banjo was flung about, hands were
applied to various parts of the Chief Constable's
person, a hammer was vigorously wielded, and
the watch of the Chief Constable was transferred
from his pocket to that of Mr. Bishop. The cabinet
was then suddenly thrown open, and Mr.
Bishop and the Chief Constable were discovered
as they were, with the knots tightly tied, and no
apparent change in the position of the pair.
After this exhibition the audience began to clamor
for thought reading. A young man apparently
respectable, but obviously Intoxicated, insisted
upon staking "a fiver" which he had brought in
an envelope that Mr. Bishop could not tell him
the number of it. After a scene of tedious turmoil,
during which he insisted upon speaking, Mr.
Waddv was elected chairman and the man
with the fiver was Induced to mount the
platform. He looked ineffably silly a" he first brandished
his envelope and then laid it on the ground,
crying, "That is all I've got to say. Here is a fiver:
tell me the number," until at last, (he audience losing
all patience, Mr. Waddy ordered him down, and
the first experiment in thought reading began. Mr.
Lane Fox, the well known electrician, took a pin—-
so small that it was quite Invisible to the audience—-
and when Mr. Bishop was absent from the hall concealed
it in the lining of an opera hat in the midst of
the hall. When Mr. Bishop returned he requested
Mr. Lane Fox to fix his mind steadily upon the spot
where the pin was hidden, forming a mental picture
of the place, the object in which it was placed,
&c. Then taking Mr. Fox's arm he dragged
him rapidly down the left aisle of the, hall
(the pin was hidden In the central aisle), then
crossed as rapidly to the centre, passed the hiding place
of the pin, and then returned, as if finding
the scent, to the immediate neighborhood where
the pin was concealed. There Mr. Bishop—-who,
by the by, was blindfolded—-began a very eager
search for the pin. He repeatedly asked Mr. Fox
to form In his mind a clear, definite picture of the
object in which the pin was placed. His fingers
quivered, he seemed in great nervous excitement
and once or twice appealed for patience. The,
audience, most of whom were, standing up, watched
with curious incredulity as Mr. Bishop was diving
here and.there in unavailing efforts to find the
pin, and suddenly with an air of triumph he produced
the tiny object of his search, and was
escorted back to the platform amid immense
cheering.
The critical test of the evening was now to
come. The easy chair set apart for Mr. Labouchere
was unoccupied. The £1,000 promised was
not tabled. But the experiment could be tried in
Mr. Labouchere's absence, and Mr. Bishop was
willing to stake his £100 with no other set-off
than the promise, willingly given, that the audience
would demand that if he guessed the number
aright Mr. Labouchere should hand over the
£1,000 to the Victoria Hospital for Children. Mr.
Charles Russell here introduced a diversion
which kept the meeting in an uproar for nearly an
hour. He sent word from the body of the hall—-
for he had refused to join the committee—-that he
had enclosed a £5 note in an envelope, and given
it into the keeping of Professor Ray Lankester,
who was also in the audience, and who alone
knew its number. He challenged Mr.
Bishop to read in the. mind of Mr.
Ray Lankester the number of that note.
If successful, the note should go to
the hospital. Mr. Waddy asked Mr. Bishop if he
accepted the challenge. Mr. Bishop demurred.
He had experimented before with Professor
Lankester and found him a hard subject. The
chances, he evidently seemed to think, were ten
to one against his success with Mr. Lankester.
To give him a fair chance he thought be ought to
try with some one with whom he had not experimental
before. He had, for instance, experimented
with Mr. Waddy, and if he were selected
as medium the chances were ten to one thai he
would be successful. It would he fairer to reject
all whose capacity for being read had been tested
beforehand and confine the experiment to a new
subject, to be freely selected by the audience.
Professor Lankester did not deny
the reasonable nature of this suggestion, but
a large proportion of the audience roared
their disapproval. A heated and violent wrangle
ensued, in the course of which Mr. bishop was
freely denounced as a shuffler. At last an old
gentleman with stentorian lungs proposed that
the chairman should nominate a medium. Mr
Lane Fox was suggested and negatived. A Mr.
Lees was also rejected; and at last, amid great
cheering. Colonel Statham of the Twentieth Lancashire
Rifle Volunteers consented to the experiment.
A fruitless attempt was made to induce
Dr. Lankester to impart the number of Mr. Russell's
note to Colonel Statham for the purpose of
the experiment; and then Colonel Trench, to
whose high character the Hon. Edward Stanhope
bore emphatic testimony, and who declared that
he bad never seen either Mr. Bishop or Colonel
Statham before, produced a £5 note, the
number of which be did not know, and
handed it to the chairman. A large blackboard
was then introduced, on which Mr.
Bishop was to write the as yet unknown number
of the note. In presence of all the audience,
closely scrutinized by the committee and the chairman,
while standing at some yards' distance from
Mr. Bishop, Colonel Statham unfolded the note
far enough to master its number. No one else
could see it, nor did any one else in the hall know
it but himself. Mr. Bishop then took his stand
beside Colonel Statham and drew on the blackboard
a parallelogram, which he divided Into five
spaces, one for each number of the note. He
then blindfolded himself, and grasping a piece of
chalk began to "read" the mind of his companion.
He shook all over, his right hand raised
above his head quivered violently; he slightly
touched Colonel Statham once for a second with
the tip of his finger, and then, without more than
a few seconds' delay, he began to chalk on the
board as follows:
6 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 4.
When he reached the last figure he hesitated for
a moment, clutched Colonel Statham's hand, and
then wrote down four. No one who saw the impassive
countenance of the volunteer colonel could tell
whether Mr. Bishop had succeeded or failed. "I
have two guesses," he said, " by the terms of Mr.
Labouhere's challenge. Have I read the number
rightly" Colonel Statham opened the note,
glanced at it, and then handed it to the chairman.
Mr. Bishop had won his wager. The numbers
were light, and the meeting burst out into a
roar of enthusiastic cheering, which was again
and again renewed. Outside a great crowd was
waiting to see the balloon ascent which was
to announce the success or failure of the test.
As it mounted in the air, displaying not the "lurid
red" color of failure but the bright white light
typical of success, the crowd cheered lustily. Inside
the hall, when a moment's silence had been
secured, Mr. Bishop said: "I appeal to tnis audience
of 3,000 Englishmen to demand of Mr.
Henry Laboucbere that he shall hand over to the
Victoria Hospital at Chelsea the £1,000 he offered
to stake that I could not read the note. I have
met his challenge on every point. Will you demand
the money?" A great shout of assent, followed
by long and continued cheering, mingled
with a few cries of "No," brought the meeting to
a close.
On questioning Colonel Statham afterwards, he
said that when Mr. Bishop had reached the last
figure be (Colonel Statham) forgot whether it was
4 or 0. It was when he was trying to recall the
figure that Mr. Bishop hesitated and grasped his
hand. He then decided for the 4, which Mr.
Bishop then wrote down. Mr. Bishop was very
exultant. Mr. Waddy for some time after the
meeting closed was surrounded by an eager crowd
of questioners, to whom he explained how it was
utterly impossible for Colonel Statham, even if he
bad been inclined, to have communicated to Mr.
Bishop the number of the note.—Pall Mall Gazette,
June 13.
--end
An 1884 interview of Stuart Cumberland by Labouchere which touches upon Bishop.
The Mineral Argus (Maiden, Montana), July 31, 1884, Page 6
Exposure of Mind Reading
lhe Subject of Mind-reading is attracting
considerable attention in London,
and Mr. Labouchere, the editor of
London Truth, has been publicly exposing
the tricks of the readers and
bitterly denouncing the imposition in
his journal. So savagely has he attacked
Irving Bishop, a noted performer, that
he was sued last week for libel and the
damages are laid at a large amount.
The following is the interview Mr. Labouchere
had with Stuart Cumberland,
a rival performer, which led to the suit:
Mr. Stuart Cumberland called upon
me one day last week to explain to me
how he succeeds in finding pins in [sic] other
such "manifestations." If a person
will concentrate his thoughts upon an
object, and if any one--whose perceptive
faculties are properly trained--takes
his hand, the operator will be,
Mr. Cumberland explained, inevitably
drawn to the spot where the object is.
"Thought-reading then, I said, "is
muscle reading." "To a certain extent,"
he replied, "but not absolutely.
You have to watch for other indications;
for instance, if I find myself close to the
article thought of, the hand of some subjects
gets hot, in others the pulse quickens.
You must watch these indications
as well as the muscles." "But, surely
you must have had a confederate when
you tied yourself to a man by a
string, and found an object
concealed by him." "No," he said:
"I could feel the string dragging one
way, and I followed the indication.
When I came near the object the string
trembled. This is the simple explanation
of the mystery." "And do you
mean to say that you can take hold of a
person's hand with one of your hands,
and with the other write a series of
numbers that he is to think of?"
"Certainly not." he replied; "the person's
hand must grasp the hand with
which I write; my hand remains almost
passive, and he without knowing
it, himself writes the numbers." "Well,"
I said, "I will think of something in
this room, and we will see if you can
discover it." I thought of a little card
case that was lying on the table. Mr
Cumberland blind-folded himself.
"Why do you do that?" I said.
"That my own thoughts should not be
diverted from what I am doing." He
took my hand; in a minute or two he
approached, the table, hovered over the
various articles upon it, and finally
placed my hand upon the card case. I
had thought all the while of this article
and I could feel my hand involuntarily
drawing him towards it. It would take
a person a long time to acquire Mr.
Cumberland's powers of preception [sic]; but
any one can realise how the trick--if I
may call it so--is done, by thinking of
some object on a table, and getting a
friend to grasp his hand and try to discover
it. He has only to concentrate
his thoughts upon the object and
the exact place where it is, in order
to find that his hand resists when
ever it is sought to divert it
from the direction towards the object
which it, apparently of itself, strives
to approach. In fact, the thought acts
upon the muscles much in the same way
as the desire to grasp something causes
the hand to grasp it. In both cases the
muscles involuntarily obey the brain.
"And how did Irving Bishop read the
number of a bank note that was enclosed
in an envelope without contact
with the only person who knew it?" I
asked. "To do so by what he terms
'thought reading.'" Mr. Cumberland
answered, "is absolutely impossible.
Without contact you can obtain no indication
of what is passing in the brain
of another person, as you may perceive
yourself if you have understood my explanation.
"Then the thing was a swindle." I
said. Mr. Cumberland smiled. "And
the mental picture which he professes
to see?" Mr. Cumberland smiled again.Leave a comment:
-
I noticed that after Cumberland's "Marked for a Victim", the New York Evening World ran a series of three sort of okay fictional crime stories by George R. Sims:
The Evening World, April 02, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
A Very Clever Scheme
by George R. Sims
Chapter I.
Whereon Detective Ellerton Gets a Peculiar Case.
The Evening World, April 03, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter II.
Wherein the Private Detective Meets wuth a Remarkable Adventure
The Evening World, April 04, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter III.
A Narrow Escape for the Ex-Scotland Yard Man
--
The Evening World, April 05, 1889, EXTRA MORRILL SOLD, Page 3
A Tragic Riddle
by George R. Sims
Chapter I.
The Mystery of Bloomsbury Square
The Evening World, April 06, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter II.
Wherein the Evidence Bears Strongly Against the Husband and He is Arrested
The Evening World, April 08, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter III.
The Solicitor Follows up a Promising Clue
The Evening World, April 09, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter IV.
Wherein the Solicitor Thinks He is on the Right Track
The Evening World, April 10, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter V.
Wherein the Italian, Moroni, is Arrested
The Evening World, April 11, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter VI.
A New Name is Found in the Tangled Web
The Evening World, April 12, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter VII.
A Vain Search for the Missing Margherita
The Evening World, April 13, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter VIII.
Jealousy at the Bottom of the Crime, But Whose Jealousy?
The Evening World, April 15, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter IX.
The Story of the Italian Girl
The Evening World, April 16, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter X.
The Tragic Riddle Solved at Last
--
The Evening World, April 17, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
The Earl's Wife
by George R. Sims
Chapter I.
The Countess of Dashton Receives a Startling Letter
The Evening World, April 18, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter II.
The Earl's Wife Has an Interview with Her First Husband
The Evening World, April 19, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 5
Chapter II. [sic]
The Countess of Dashton Tells Her Titled Husband the Facts
The Evening World, April 20, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter III. [sic]
Wherein the Plot Approaches its Climax
The Evening World, April 22, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter VI. [sic]
Wherein All Ends HappilyLeave a comment:
-
Jeff, here are a couple accounts of Bishop's death and autopsy and the trial of the doctors. Thanks for pointing this out.
Scientific American, Volume 60, May 25, 1889 Pages 320-321
W. IRVING BISHOP, "MIND READER."
W. Irving Bishop, whose feats in what is called "mind reading" have made him widely known in this country and in Europe, died at a New York City club house in the early morning of May 13, under extraordinary circumstances. There were present many men of some prominence in New York society, and the evening had been passed until a late hour in the social intercourse usual among club men, when Bishop, who was an invited guest, was asked to give an exhibition of his powers, He commenced with what he called an ordinary trick. On his leaving the room, one of the club members took a small dagger and made the motion of stabbing another member, after which the dagger was hidden. Bishop was brought in blindfolded, and, with the hand of the man who had hidden the dagger upon his own hand, quickly searched out the dagger, and made a similar motion of stabbing the same man in the way it had been done when he was out of the room.
Bishop then made light of the difficulty of this trick, and proposed to do something more astonishing. He asked the secretary of the club to think of some word in the club's books of account or record. The secretary, with Dr. J. A. Irwin, of this city, who was an acquaintance of Bishop, went down stairs where the books are kept, and selected the name of Margaret Townsend, found in some records, both fixing the word "Townsend"' in their mind, and noting just where it appeared; they hid the book and went back up stairs. Bishop, blindfolded, had the secretary's hand placed upon his own, and then led the party down stairs. He found the book without difficulty, turned over the pages rapidly till he came to the page where the name appeared, then, skimming his fingers over it, gradually settled upon the word itself, although he was not then told what the word was. All this had been done while be was blindfolded, and Bishop had been getting into a very excited state.
On being led back up stairs, he proposed to tell what the word was in a manner which would demonstrate that "muscle reading," as it is called, had nothing to do with the performance. He asked all to stand back, and, insisting that the secretary should think intently of the word, stood apparently in a state of half consciousness, the bandage covering his eyes and other parts of his face. Soon he said, "I think it is a name." After further apparently intense mental effort, he exclaimed nervously, "Give me something to write with." Being handed pencil and paper, without an instant's hesitation he wrote, "Townsend," not in natural form, but as the word would appear written on paper and reflected in a mirror. "That is it," he exclaimed, and, as the persons about burst into applause, Bishop stiffened out and sank back unconscious.
Dr. Irwin assured the others that it was only one of the cataleptic fits to which Bishop was frequently subject, and was not dangerous. Bishop was stretched on the floor, and soon, under the care of the doctor, began to show signs of returning consciousness. When he was able to sit up, though apparently only half conscious, the doctor was explaining something of the physical features of the case to those present, stating that the peculiar backward fashion in which the name was written might be accounted for by the fact that the original reflection of everything seen by the eye is inverted as in a mirror, and is reversed by the optic lens on the way to the brain. Bishop, who had apparently heard everything, interrupted the doctor and asked him to make it clear that what was written on the scrap of paper was the exact copy of what appeared in his eye, and was written by him without conscious intervention of the brain.
Bishop was now so excited that the doctor ordered him to be taken to an upstairs room. His pulse was frightfully high, but he so strenuously insisted on doing the trick over again that the doctor finally consented, as affording the best means of quieting him. The book was brought, and Bishop, blindfolded, set out to find the word again. He wandered over the book with great difficulty, but finally hit the right page, found the word, and indicated it by a savage stroke of the pencil across it.
The "mind reader" was now more exhausted and excited than ever, and Dr. Irwin, fearing a nervous collapse, sent for Dr. C. C. Lee to help him. Bishop had frequent spasms, and it was with difficulty that he could be held still. About 4 o'clock in the morning he had another violent cataleptic fit, and went from it into a state of coma, from which he had only moments of half consciousness for two hours, but not a clearly conscious moment from 6 o'clock in the morning until a few minutes past noon, when his pulse and breathing ceased, and he was apparently dead. For fear that it might be only a cataleptic trance, powerful electric currents were applied, and for half an hour some semblance of life was maintained, but at last the current ceased to have any effect, and the doctor said Bishop was unmistakably dead. The body was removed to an undertaking establishment, where, in the afternoon, an autopsy was made by Dr. Irwin and Dr. Ferguson, the pathologist of the New York Hospital.
The suddenness with which this autopsy was made, in the absence of authority from the friends or relatives of the deceased or from the coroner, has caused great feeling in the community. This is heightened by the fact that Bishop, his wife, and his mother, were opposed to any autopsy, and especially desired that in the event of his supposed death at any time the body should be kept as long as possible, for he had frequently been in a state of almost seeming death for a good many hours, as a consequence of these cataleptic tits, as had also his mother.
The autopsy is said to have shown nothing to indicate any cause of death, except the result of the great nervous strain to which Bishop had subjected himself. The brain was a little larger than usual for a man of his size, weighing 40 ounces. The gray matter was unusually dark in color, but there was no malformation or other physical indication that the brain was other than that of an ordinary man. The case is one, however, that is sure to attract wide attention in the medical fraternity, and the controversies about it commenced on the very day the " mind reader " died.
Bishop was born in Boston in 1856, and early obtained a reputation as a "mind reader." Some ten years ago, in England, he attracted much attention by what he did to expose the alleged tricks of Slade and other spiritualists, and did some surprising feats in telling the numbers upon bank notes which he had not seen. About three years ago, in Boston, he successfully discovered a hidden article, to get at which it was necessary for him, blindfolded, to drive a team of horses to a carriage a considerable distance through crowded streets—a trick he afterward duplicated in New York City.
To accomplish these feats he always had to be in physical touch of some sort with the person whose mind he pretended to read. Others have pretended to be able to perform the same feats, but it is not known that any feat similar to the one herein described has ever before been performed. Dr. Irwin says he thinks the feat cannot be accounted for upon any theory of known science or medicine.
The Medical Times, Volume 20, August, 1889, Pages 139-140
THE BISHOP AUTOPSY.
The death of Washington Irving Bishop, the mind reader, and the subsequent autopsy, have resulted in the trial of the physicians engaged in it, on the charge of having illegally dissected the body.
It appears that Bishop died at the Lamb’s Club, in New York City, about five hours before the autopsy was performed. On the night before he had been giving an exhibition of his powers to a party of about one hundred gentlemen, when he was seized with a hystero-epileptic fit, in which he fell to the floor. Dr. John Arthur Irwin, who was present, examined him and cautioned him not to go on with the exhibition. But upon growing stronger he persisted in going on and a recurrence of the fit resulted. He was not considered in any danger, but at four o’clock in the morning he began to sink, and after that he never became conscious.
Great curiosity was aroused among his acquaintances and-medical men generally, to know what peculiar brain he possessed to enable him to perform his tricks. He had frequently said that he didn’t know himself and that nothing but an autopsy would reveal it. Some of his friends advised an autopsy and it was accordingly performed, but his mother who had not been consulted insisted that her son had not been dead when his brain was removed, and even went so far as to charge the doctors with having murdered him. She alleged that he was subject to cataleptic fits or trances, and that he was in one of these when the scalpel was used.
Dr. Irwin was tried on the above charge at General Sessions, before Judge Fitzgerald. If convicted, the defendant might be sent to the penitentiary and fined.
The prosecution alleged that Dr. Irwin, Dr. Frank Ferguson and Irwin H. Hance, on May 13, 1889, performed an autopsy on Bishop’s body without having obtained the consent of_his relatives, as they had been ordered to do by the coroner. It was also insisted that there had been no necessity for the autopsy as the cause of death was well known.
Dr. Frank Ferguson, who was called as a witness for the prosecution, testified that he is connected with the New York Hospital, and had performed over four thousand autopsies. That he examined Bishop’s body with the greatest possible care, and was very emphatic in declaring that there was no room for doubt that the man was dead. That he took away portions of the liver, kidneys, lungs, heart and brain, and submitted them to a microscopic examination. He swore that the autopsy was made for the sole purpose of ascertaining the cause of death. It was not such a dissection as would be made for an anatomical demonstration.
Dr. Charles C. Lee, of Madison avenue, testified that he was called by Dr. Irwin for consultation on the morning of Mr. Bishop’s death. He approved of the treatment Dr. Irwin was giving the patient and helped continue it. After the patient’s death, Dr. Irwin told him that on account of the manner of death and the state of Bishop’s mind he was anxious to have an autopsy, and said that he was going to telegraph to the family in Philadelphia for their consent.
Here the prosecution rested, and Mr. Moran, for the defense, moved to dismiss the case. This motion was overruled, and Mr. Moran told the jury that he expected to prove for the defense, that the autopsy was held for the sole purpose of determining the cause of death and that the defendant did nothing more. And, further, that Bishop had requested Dr. Irwin to perform an autopsy. The request, he claimed, was made a few hours before Bishop’s death and fully justified the autopsy.
Dr. Irwin then took the witness-stand in his own behalf, and said that he went to the Lamb’s Club of which he is a member, at midnight, and found Bishop entertaining the members. Bishop asked him to feel his pulse. He did so, and advised him to discontinue the performance. Bishop persisted, however, and fell in a hystero-cataleptic flt. He had the patient carried up stairs, where he revived and discussed the case with witness and told him of other physicians who had treated him. Witness told him he must stop as certain changes were then taking place in his brain owing to a disease he had previously contracted, and that death would ensue if he kept up his work. Bishop retorted, “ Oh, you will find that out at the autopsy.”
On cross-examination, the doctor said that he had ordered the autopsy in order to determine the cause of death. He was now prepared to say that the immediate cause of death was hemorrhage caused by hystero-catalepsy, but that the latter was caused by another disease, the nature of which witness would not reveal.
Four reputable witnesses succeeded Dr. Irwin, all of whom swore that Bishop had frequently said, on being questioned about his mysterious powers, that “ the reason of it will only be revealed when I am dead.”
The testimony did not show that the autopsy had disclosed the cause of Bishop’s remarkable powers.
The jury failed to agree, and it is doubtful whether a second trial will be had.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: