PDA

View Full Version : William P. Burr


Simon Wood
06-21-2009, 09:15 PM
Hi All,

Rochester Democrat and Republican, 3rd December 1888—

William P. Burr, of No. 320 Broadway, speaking of the man [Tumblety] yesterday, said: "I met him in July 1880. He brought a suit against a Mrs. Lyons, charging her with the larceny of $7,000 worth of bonds, and I was retained to defend her. It seems that several years before he met the son of Mrs. Lyons while walking on the Battery. The lad had just come from college and was a fine looking young man. He was out of employment. Tumblety greeted him and soon had him under complete control. He made him a sort of secretary in the management of his bonds, of which he had about $100,000 worth, mostly in governments, locked up in a downtown safe-deposit company. He employed the youth as an amanuensis, as he personally was most illiterate. On April 23, 1878, the 'Doctor,' as he was called, started for Europe by the Guion line steamer Montana. See, here is his name on the passenger-list, 'Dr. Tumblety.' He gave a power of attorney to the young man, and under that some South Carolina railroad bonds were disposed of, as it was claimed and shown, under an agreement that they were to be taken as compensation. When Tumblety got back the young man had disappeared and the mother was arrested, charged by the 'Doctor' with having taken the bonds. I remember the examination to which I subjected him at the Tombs Police Court.

"James D. McClelland was his lawyer, and I went into the history of the doctor's life. I remember well how indignant he became when I asked him what institution had the honor of graduating so precious a pupil. He refused to answer, and was told the only reason which he could refuse was that the answer would tend to humilate (sic) or criminate him. He still refused to answer, and I thought he would spring at me to strike. There was quite a commotion in court. The case fell through and the old lady was not held.

"The son returned and brought a suit against the doctor, charging atrcious (sic) assault, and the evidence collected in this case was of the most disgusting sort. The lawyer who had the matter in hand is now dead, but I remember that there was a page of the Police Gazette as one exhibit, in which the portrait of the doctor appeared, with several columns of biography about him. This suit was not pushed, and then came another suit brought by this Tumblety against William P. O'Connor, a broker, for disposing of the bonds. Boardman & Boardman defended and gathered up a great mass of evidence against the doctor. Charles Frost and Charles Chambers, detectives of Brooklyn, had evidence against him. At this time he kept an herb store, or something of that sort, at No. 77 East Tenth street. The suit did not come to anything, and I do not know of any other law matters in which this notorious man was concerned . . ."

Let's see what facts we can establish.

1. Attorney William P. Burr had an office at 320 Broadway [Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 2nd April 1891].

2. On 23rd April 1878, the Guion Line steamer Montana left New York for Liverpool.

3. James Dodds McClelland was a lawyer and congressman.

4. William P. O'Connor was a banker and stockbroker.

5. Boardman and Boardman was a firm of lawyers specializing in commercial law.

6. Charles Frost and Charles Chambers were Brooklyn detectives.

So far, so good.

A search of 1878-1882 press reports and daily Court Calendars for the same period reveals no case involving Tumblety and Mrs Lyons.

But on 1st February 1880 a Mrs Lyons, 30 years old, appeared at New York's First District Police Court [The Tombs] with her 13-year-old son, George.

Sophia Lyons, pickpocket, confidence trickster and wife of Ned Lyons, the famed 'Navy Yard Burglar', was attempting to keep young George on the straight and narrow, stop him hanging out in Kerrigan's Bar and stay at school. During the course of the hearing she told Justice Murray how her husband had once broken her out of jail, after which they went to Canada and opened a brokers office. When next arrested, Ned Lyons was in possession of $25,000 in bonds.

No lawyers were involved in the case of Sophia Lyons.

Subsequent cases cannot be found between Tumblety and Lyons junior; nor Tumblety and William P. O'Connor, who had been implicated in an insider trading scandal involving Missouri Pacific Railroad stock [New York Evening Telegram 25th March 1880].

Five points of similarity between Burr's story and that of Sophia Lyons put matters beyond the realm of coincidence—

1. The year 1880
2. The name Mrs Lyons.
3. A young son.
4. Stolen bonds.
5. The case heard at The Tombs.

How and why William P. Burr injected Tumblety into the story is a mystery.

BTW—Justice Murray was so intrigued by the notion of a 13-year-old singing at Kerrigan's Bar that he asked the boy to sing for him. Young George sang Ave Maria in Latin, after which Alderman Sneils offered to find him a good home.

Edward Haywood, Tumblety's boyhood biographer, also quoted in the Rochester Democrat and Republican, 3rd December 1888, was an interesting character. So, too, was Captain Streeter.

More on them at a later date.

Regards,

Simon

Joe Chetcuti
06-25-2009, 06:19 PM
"Subsequent cases cannot be found between Tumblety and Lyons junior; nor Tumblety and William P. O'Connor..."

Simon, a notice appeared in the July 24, 1880 NY Times. It was in reference to the Lyons-Tumblety lawsuit.

As for the Tumblety vs O'Connor case, the court ruled in favor of the defendant William P. O'Connor. The verdict was appealed, and the New York Appellate Court affirmed the judgment on April 13, 1885.

The Appellate Court opinion for the Tumblety vs O'Connor case can be viewed in Ripper Notes Issue #25 in the article entitled Brooklyn Precinct. Robert Linford, Tim Riordan, and Roger Palmer provided some valuable input into that article while I was writing it. The text mainly focused on the career of Detective Charles Chambers.

As for Boardman & Boardman, it's somewhat boring, but if anybody is interested, you can find out plenty of information about that law firm in the Passing the baton thread located here in the "Tumblety section" of the Jtrforums.

Simon Wood
06-26-2009, 02:02 AM
Hi Joe,

Your reference—New York Times, 24th July 1880—

5694

Lyons vs. Sumblety [sic] is hardly compelling evidence.

Could you please post the April 1885 Appellate Court O'Connor adjudication.

Regards,

Simon

Simon Wood
06-26-2009, 12:13 PM
Hi Joe,

According to William P. Burr, Tumblety brought a suit against Mrs. Lyons, charging her with the larceny of bonds.

Tumblety was the plaintiff. Mrs Lyons was the defendant.

If the notice in the NYT, 24th July 1880, had anything to do with the case it would have read Sumblety vs. Lyons.

Regards,

Simon

Joe Chetcuti
06-26-2009, 04:01 PM
"(Mrs. Lyons') son returned and brought a suit against the doctor, charging atrocious assault..." - William Burr.

The NY Times made a reference to this pending lawsuit against Tumblety on page 3 of their July 24, 1880 issue. Simon just displayed that reference on Post #3. The plaintiff was Mr. Lyons, and Tumblety was the defendant. That is why it was shown as Lyons vs Sumblety.

I'll post up the Appellate Court opinion of the Tumblety vs O'Connor case some time over the weekend.

Simon Wood
06-26-2009, 05:57 PM
Hi Joe,

William Burr met Tumblety for the first time in July 1880. Therefore the case heard at The Tombs Police Court against Mrs Lyons plus the onset of the subsequent suit brought by her son against Tumblety reached the New York Supreme Court, the highest judicial body in the State, where Judge Charles Donohue decided the matter in his chambers with a memorandum opinion [one which does not create a precedent].

And all within twenty four days.

I think not.

Regards,

Simon

PS. Thanks in advance for posting the appellate decision.

Joe Chetcuti
06-27-2009, 01:31 PM
I'll type up the Appellate Court opinion on my next post. What you see below in bold print came from the Brooklyn Precinct article.

The Lyons family attorney, William P. Burr, had been quoted in the Dec 3, 1888 Rochester Democrat and Republican:

"(Tumblety) gave power of attorney to the young man (Lyons), and under that some South Carolina railroad bonds were disposed of, as it was claimed and shown under an agreement that they were to be taken (by Lyons) as compensation."

This power of attorney that Lyons had over Tumblety's railroad bonds turned out to be inconsequential to the verdict in the Tumblety vs O'Connor case. O'Connor would have won the case regardless whether or not the power of attorney subject came into play. By word of mouth, called "parol" in legalese, Tumblety had given Lyons the authority to transact this financial business, and the court opinion implied that this was sufficient reason enough for O'Connor, the broker, to legally complete the transaction.

Tumblety's railroad bonds were "bearer bonds." They were as good as cash, and Tumblety's name wouldn't have even been listed upon them.


Tumblety had no chance of winning his case against O'Connor. The 'doctor' didn't have a legal leg to stand on. Lyons was in possession of the bearer bonds, and he legally cashed them in. O'Connor was simply the broker of the transaction. The bonds also had coupons included. These coupons were also cashed in by Lyons. It was explained to me years ago that the coupons represented the earned interest that the bonds had generated.

I'll post up the Appellate Court opinion in a few hours from now.

Joe Chetcuti
06-27-2009, 03:48 PM
Francis Tumblety, Appellant, against William P. O'Connor, Respondent.

(Decided April 13th, 1885.)

APPEAL from a judgment of this court entered upon the dismissal of a complaint at the trial.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

P. & D. Mitchell, for appellant.
Edw. C. Boardman for respondent.

Van Hoesen, J. - One fact is indisputable, and that is, that Lyons did not obtain the bonds under or means of the power of attorney. Tumblety himself carried the bonds to Lyons' house, and there gave them to Lyons' mother, that she might deliver them to her son. The bonds were payable to bearer, and were negotiable, and transferable by delivery. Unless O'Connor was guilty of bad faith in making the purchase of the bonds from Lyons, the plaintiff has no claim against him. There is absolutely no evidence of bad faith on the part of O'Connor. The authority given to Lyons to collect the coupons was by parol, and the power to sell the bonds might have been conferred in the same way. But it was proved that the power of attorney was mentioned to O'Connor, not as showing what authority Lyons possessed, but merely as evidence to his identity. There is no evidence, therefore, that would have justified the jury in finding O'Connor guilty of bad faith in purchasing the bonds, and the complaint was properly dismissed upon the merits.

LAREMORE and J.F. Daly, JJ., concurred.

Judgment affirmed.

Simon Wood
06-27-2009, 04:11 PM
Hi Joe,

Thanks for that. Very interesting indeed.

Could you please cite the source.

Regards,

Simon

EDIT: It's okay, Joe. I found it. It's even more interesting in its entirety. Thanks again.

Joe Chetcuti
06-27-2009, 05:06 PM
A law book entitled "A Treatise on the Law of Commercial Paper" (2nd edition, volume 2, published in 1899) contained the Tumblety vs O'Connor cite. It was in footnote 46, and it read:

Tumblety vs O'Connor 13 Daly (N.Y.) 177.

Robert Linford had located that law book, but neither of us had any luck in finding a reporter service named "Daly." I brought the problem to my older brother who is a professor and author in Workman's Compensation law. He often deals with law firms that specialize in finding old reporter services. He contacted a New York firm for us, and he asked them about the Daly Reporter Service. The attorneys on the other end looked hard, but they couldn't find a reporter service named "Daly" in either the 19th or 20th centuries.

I think those New York hotshots thought we were sending them on a wild goose chase!

I then contacted Tim Riordan, and before long Tim located the Daly Reporter Service at the Thurgood Marshall Law Library in Baltimore. It was contained in a 16 volume set of published work that was written by Charles P. Daly and titled "Reports of cases argued and determined in the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New York."

The cite of the Tumblety vs O'Connor trial provided by Robert Linford was proven accurate. Volume 13, page 177 of the Daly Reporter Service did indeed contain the court opinion of the case.

I particularly enjoyed rubbing it in on my brother! I still remind him of it. http://mail.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/09.gif His colleagues at that NY firm could not find what we were looking for, but Tim located it in just a short period of time.

All of this occurred over three years ago. I think I transcribed about 80% of the Appellate Court opinion into my Brooklyn Precinct article.

Simon Wood
06-27-2009, 05:37 PM
Hi Joe,

One good turn deserves another.

The Daly you are looking for is Chief Justice Charles P. Daly whose reports on decisions in the Court of Common Pleas were known as Daly's Reports.

Regards,

Simon

Joe Chetcuti
06-27-2009, 06:20 PM
Thanks Simon. We displayed a rare photo of Charles P. Daily in Ripper Notes. (Issue #25)

Daly's wife was very pro-Irish.

What I liked most about researching this story back in early 2006 was that I got a chance to work with Robert, Tim, and Roger all at once on a project. :thumb:

Joe Chetcuti
06-30-2009, 06:17 PM
Finding of a photo of Charles P. Daly was tough three years ago.

It's a lot easier today!

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4255140/2/istockphoto_4255140-charles-p-daly.jpg