Chapter V: Criminal and CIVIL Courts (3)

In the little apartment at 14 Green Tree street
there was a sound of laughing and dancing feet.
Answering the ring of a visitor Miss Phillips
opened the door with such a smiling countenance as
to obliterate any memory of downcast skies.

“I have just heard of Mr. Hammond’s great
kindness,” she said. “Just think of $500; why it’s
a nest egg for a fortune! He has always done so
many nice things for us girls ever since we cared
for him, but to think of his remembering us in his
will! I was with him several months and we grew to
be great friends after the crisis of his illness
was past.

“He often came to Chicago, and frequently would
call us up on arriving and arrange for us all to
go to the theater, or to dinner. He was by far the
most grateful patient any of us has ever had.”

* * * * *

SUIT TO BREAK WILL

_New York Herald_

An effort to obtain approximately one-half of the
bequest of about $2,000,000, left to Mrs. Carrie
Chapman Catt for the promotion of the cause of
woman suffrage, by the late Baroness de Bazus,
who was Mrs. Frank Leslie, was begun in the
Supreme Court yesterday by two step-grandchildren
of the Baroness. They ask $400,000 each and
allege that $200,000 is due to each of two other
step-grandchildren.

The plaintiffs in the two actions, which are
brought through James H. Westcott, of No. 40 Wall
street, are Mrs. Lonetta Leslie Hollander and Mrs.
Florence Leslie Weissbrod. Both are grandchildren
of Frank Leslie by his first wife, Mrs. Sarah Ann
Welham Leslie. They allege that by an agreement
made between the Baroness and Frank Leslie December
1, 1879, she promised, in return for receiving his
entire estate, to distribute by her will two-thirds
of it among the children of his first wife or their
heirs. This agreement, they allege, she entirely
disregarded in the document which left the large
residuary estate to Mrs. Catt.

William Nelson Cromwell and Louis H. Cramer,
executors of the estate of the Baroness, are the
defendants in both actions.

Frank Leslie was born in 1821 and in 1854
established the publishing business which at one
time issued thirteen periodicals. In 1841 he
married Miss Sarah Ann Welham. There were three
children by the marriage, Frank Leslie, 2d; Alfred
A. Leslie and Scipio L. Leslie. Mrs. Hollander
is the only child of Scipio L. Leslie, who was
married in June, 1875, and died in February, 1879.
Mrs. Weissbrod is the only child of the late Frank
Leslie, 2d, who was married January 5, 1874. Alfred
A. Leslie, who was married in August, 1868, and
died in August, 1905, had two children, Frank
Leslie, 3d, and Arthur Leslie.

Following the death of his first wife, Frank Leslie
married the Baroness May 1, 1875. She was then Mrs.
Miriam Florence Peacock Squires. Her first husband
was David Peacock, her second Ephraim G. Squires.
There were no children by any of her marriages.
Before her marriage the Baroness had been employed
in the publishing business of Frank Leslie. She was
born in 1828 and entered his employ in 1860. Her
maiden name was Miriam Florence Follin.

Frank Leslie became financially involved about
September 8, 1877, according to the two complaints
now on file. It is alleged that he assigned the
greater part of his property March 20, 1879, to
Isaac W. England for the benefit of his creditors
under an agreement whereby he was to receive the
property back again in three years if the business
had succeeded in clearing all indebtedness. It is
said that the business did not clear the debts but
that Mr. Leslie died before the property could be
returned.

Mr. Leslie also agreed with his wife, it is said,
to leave his entire estate to her on the condition
that she would use the income and dispose of the
principal in her will as follows:--One-third in
any way she desired; one-third of the remaining
two-thirds to each of the three children of Frank
Leslie by his first wife or to their issue.

The complaints allege that the Baroness received
everything which she possessed from Frank Leslie,
who died leaving about $1,000,000. This was
increased by her to at least $1,800,000, it is
said. The plaintiffs do not ask that the agreement,
which is not produced in connection with the
complaint, be fulfilled. They seek instead
$400,000 each as damages and allege that $200,000
is due also to Frank Leslie, 3d and Arthur Leslie.

* * * * *

WILL

_Springfield Republican_

The bequest of a bit of the wool of Mary’s lamb to
the Somerville historical society in the will of
Mrs P. H. Derby, which was entered in the probate
court in this city yesterday, brings to light the
interesting information that the nursery jingle,
“Mary had a little lamb, its fleece was white as
snow,” had a basis in fact. The piece of wool in
question was given to Mrs Derby in 1880 by Mrs Mary
E. Tyler, the original of the little lamb jingle.
It is a piece of yarn tied in a bow and fastened
on a piece of paper with pale blue ribbon. Under
it is written the words, “wool from Mary’s lamb.”
It seems that when the Old South church of Boston
became involved financially one of the ways hit
upon to raise money was suggested by Mrs Tyler. She
took a pair of old wool stockings that her mother
had knit for her from the wool of her pet lamb,
and that she had never worn, but kept in memory of
the departed lamb. These were cut up into lengths
and made into bows, like the one that was in the
possession of Mrs Derby, and sold for 25 cents
each. The result was that $200 was realized, and
thus the little lamb helped to save the Old South
church.

The story of Mary and her lamb is authenticated and
the incidents bear a close relation to the events
of the poem, or rather, jingle. Mary E. Sawyer was
born in Sterling, March 22, 1806, and the house
in which she was born is still standing. She had
two sisters and four brothers, none of whom ever
had themselves immortalized in rhyme as Mary did.
Mary’s father was a farmer and kept sheep. One
cold morning in March, 1814, just about 100 years
ago and one year over, twin lambs were born in
the Sawyer sheepfold one of which was to be known
in nursery rhyme for time immemorial. Like all
geniuses, she--for it was a girl--displayed the
vagaries of it before she was many hours old. So
much so in fact that her mother would have nothing
of her. Little Mary, age eight, took pity on the
young thing and asked her father if she might have
it, not thinking of the greatness that would come
of this charitable deed. She fed and tended it, and
the two became very fond of one another.

It was but natural that the lamb should in time
come to have a thirst for knowledge, and, as the
first stanza of the jingle has it, “It followed
her to school one day,” “Which,” we are told, “was
against the rule,” and, as might be expected, “it
made the children laugh and play, to see a lamb at
school.” It seems that the teacher laughed too, and
everything was lovely for a time. But discipline
had to be maintained, and:--

So then the teacher turned it out,
But still it lingered near,
And waited patiently about
Till Mary did appear.

All of which is strictly true to fact. It appears
that when Mary arrived at the school the teacher
had not come yet and so the mischievous Mary hid
the pet in her desk, which was a box-like affair.
When school began and the children were called out
for their classes, the lamb trotted out to have a
hand in the proceedings. And this, alas, caused it
to be put without the pale.

Now it happened, so strange are the immutable
workings of fate, that a young man of 17, a
freshman at Harvard, by the name of John Roulstone,
Jr., was visiting the teacher at the school that
day. The incident inspired him, and a short time
after he wrote and sent to Mary the jingle that is
so well known. The ideal way to have the thing work
out would have been the marriage of Mary and the
budding genius. But no, he died a few years later,
never having seen Mary again, so far as there is
any record.

The strain of being a celebrity was too much for
the lamb and after bearing up bravely under it
for two years it gave up the struggle, got in the
way of a bull on Thanksgiving day, 1816, and was
gored. It died an hour later, with its head on
Mary’s lap.

In 1835 Mary was married to Columbus Tyler,
superintendent of the McClean hospital for the
insane at Somerville. She became a matron at the
institution, a position she held for 35 years, and
several years after her husband died. She died
in Somerville, December 12, 1889, and was buried
in the Mt Auburn cemetery, near Boston, the same
cemetery in which the poet, Longfellow, is buried.
The glowing example of what happened to Mary ought
to inspire little children to be kind to dumb
beasts that they too may some time taste the fruits
of immortality.

Besides the lamb’s wool bequest, Mrs Derby left
the following legacies to various charitable
institutions: Springfield branch of the woman’s
board of missions, $300; Norton memorial fund
of the same organization, $200; Congregational
women’s home mission society of Massachusetts,
$300; trustees of the national council of the
Congregational churches of the United States,
$3000, to be applied to ministerial relief;
Massachusetts society for the prevention of cruelty
to animals, $200. Certain books from Mrs Derby’s
library are bequeathed to the Springfield city
library association and the remainder of the estate
is to be divided equally between her two nephews,
Dr Edward C. Booth of Somerville and Harry D. Booth
of Albany, Ill. Charles A. Gleason is named as
executor without bond.

* * * * *

NOTE--_How the same piece of news may be treated in
different ways is illustrated in the following two
stories._

VALUE OF AN ESTATE

(1)

_Chicago Tribune_

Doubtless Michael Kennedy’s schooling never
progressed to the point where he reaped the
manifold intellectual bounties of McGuffy’s second
reader. That venerable text book explains school
ma’ams. Their purpose is to teach the young idea to
shoot, it says.

Consequently there were those who believed Michael
misguided when he opened up his shooting gallery
in a basement on North Clark street near West
Erie street. There Mike--for the consideration
of 5 cents for five shots--taught the young idea
marksmanship after a fashion of his own.

“Mike, the ne’er-do-well,” they called him for
years. But a smile was Mike’s only answer. He
went right on loading rifles for whoever came and
painting out the bullet marks on the white targets
in the gallery.

On May 23, 1913, Mike died. Public Administrator
James F. Bishop took charge of the estate, hoping
he would get enough out of it to bury the target
tender. Mr. Bishop was surprised when he found
that Mike, the “ne’er-do-well,” had a snug bank
account--some $400.

Another surprise came yesterday when Administrator
Bishop announced the result of his seventeen
months’ investigation into Mike’s affairs. It was
learned that the “ne’er-do-well” left a nephew in
Blackburne, Lancashire, England, named as his sole
heir. In a safety deposit vault Mike had $42,000
worth of bonds--the products of teaching the young
idea to shoot.

(2)

_Chicago Herald_

“Mike” was a shiftless guy. Any of the bunch would
tell you that. Of course he always had money. But
then, too, he was always giving it away. He’d lend
you anything he had if he knew you, and many’s the
“bo” who got the price of a bed from him.

Mike at one time was known as Michael Kennedy, but
that was not during the time he kept the shooting
gallery in North Clark street. He was a rough
fellow, and not very affable with strangers. But
he’d go a long way for a pal.

He had his place of business in a basement room.
He slept there, and entertained his friends there
when not busy loading rifles for his patrons. And
everybody said that he could have a good home if
he were not so shiftless.

Well, “Mike” died a year ago last May, and it was
found he had $400 in the bank. The county buried
him and charged $106.75 to his estate. The fellows
he had befriended went to the funeral and said “We
told you so.” But they agreed that Mike was a good
fellow.

Public Administrator James F. Bishop was appointed
to take care of the shooting gallery owner’s
estate. He started an investigation.

He discovered that Kennedy had a nephew in
Blackburne, Lancashire, England, and that
the shiftless, open-hearted, free-handed
“ne’er-do-well” had just a little over $42,000
worth of gilt-edged stocks and bonds in a safety
deposit vault in the Masonic Temple.

The amount was turned over to the nephew, James
Kennedy, yesterday.