1883 March - 4

On March 10, 1883, the final chapter of the Brotherly Union conflict was reached in the Hamilton Police with Magistrate Cahill chastising the members of the society as follows: “if you can’t conduct the business of your meetings more orderly, you had better disband altogether.”
          The magistrate then proceeded to fine all the participants in the dispute two dollars each.
         
          “The professional whiskey informers from Toronto, the hirelings of the license inspector, did not confine their attentions to the saloons, hotels, and grocery stores. Acting, no doubt upon the declarations of their employer, they used all the means in their power to induce a couple of druggists to beak the law.”¹

¹ “The Whiskey Informers : Baldwin and Fisher Turn Their Attention to the Drug Store” Hamilton Spectator. March 10, 1883.

          R. N. Taylor and Co., druggists at the store on the corner of John and Main streets, were charged with selling liquor in a smaller quantity than allowed by law. Mr. Blaicher, a senior partner in the firm, appeared in the police court to plead not guilty to the charge.
          The informer supposedly had given a tinsmith named Nelson Taylor an eight-ounce bottle and a quarter to get liquor at the drug store, which Taylor was successfully in accomplishing.
          Blaicher claimed that he sold liquor regularly to Taylor because supposedly Taylor’s wife was ill. Blaicher also claimed that it was difficult to distinguish an eight ounce bottle from a six ounce bottle unless they had been stood side by side.
          As there was some doubt that Taylor had actually bought the liquor at Taylor’s Drug Store, the magistrate remanded the case to allow him time to consider his decision.
          The following day, another liquor case involving the work of a professional informer was heard in the Hamilton Police Court.
          The grocery store owned by James Thompson, located at the corner of King and Catharine streets, had been the location where a purchase of a small quantity of liquor by a female whiskey informer who appeared in court, “dressed in black, with her not very beautiful face half concealed by a crepe veil.”²

² “A Female Whiskey Informer : Who Gives Crooked Testimony in Crooked Liquor Cases” Spectator March 12, 1883

          The whiskey informer proved to be troublesome, even belligerent, while on the stand, even when giving her identity, saying “ Buck’s the proper name, but some people outs it Buckingham.”²
                The grocer, Thompson, swore that the lady had never been given liquor at his store, and that her real name was Saunders. He went to say that she had run up a large bill with him, and had never paid it.
          Mrs. Buckingham testified that the grocer was wrong and that he was mistaking her for her sister.
          After the magistrate adjourned the case with making a decision, the newspaper reporters spoke to Mrs. Buckingham :
          “ ‘Does your sister look  anything like you?’ was asked.
          “ ‘Yes, she looks very much like me.’
          “ ‘How old is she?’
          “ ‘ Twenty.’
          “ ‘You must be much older than that. What’s your age?’
          “ ‘Twenty six.’

“ ‘Only 26; and you say you have been 11 years married?’

“ ‘ Yes, you see when I was – let me see – 15, I ran away with Mr. Buckingham, and married him.”

“ ‘Buckingham is a colored man, isn’t it?’²

Mrs. Buckingham hesitated before saying no, but seeing that the reporters seemed to know about her husband, she said, “Well, you know, he’s kind of mulatto-like, not black.”²

Another case of note was on the docket of the Hamilton Police Court of March 12, 1883. Magistrate Cahill was presented with Vincenzo and Francis Nucci, who were charged with assaulting and stabbing William Smith who had been a customer in their peanut store on James Street North.

Smith had apparently entered the store, loudly demanded and received 10 cents worth of peanuts. He refused to pay.

Smith then jumped the counter and struck Vincenzo on the head. While a boy named Joseph Napier ran for the police, the Nucci brothers went after Smith, and bodily threw him out of their store.

Detective McKenzie arrived at the scene just as Smith had been sent flying out of the store and across the sidewalk. Smith was bleeding profusely from what appeared to be stab wounds.

At the police court hearing on the incident, prominent Hamilton lawyer Henry Carscallen defended the Nucci brothers. The lawyer successfully argued that there was no proof that a knife had been used and that his clients had been severely provoked.

Magistrate Cahill found ruled that the Nucci brothers were not guilty of any of the charges laid against them.

On March 12, 1883, an angry letter to the editor appeared in the Spectator complaining about the methods by which the Boston Gem gallery, a local photographic firm, was disposing of the duplicates of photographs taken at their studio. The surplus photographs were being dumped into one of the gullies in the north of the city :

“I can assure you it is not at all pleasing to a respectable person to have their photographs handled and looked at by all kinds and classes of people who may obtain them. I understand that in a certain factory near one of these gullies, there is a number of these ‘gems’ placed on the wall.”³

³ “Gems Cast  in a Gully” Hamilton Spectator. March 12, 1883

The next day, a response from the Boston Gem Gallery appeared in the Spectator. J. S. Simmonds, proprietor of the firm, tried to explain the matter as follows :

“We make eighteen Gems and give the customer the best fourteen out of the eighteen. The extra pictures have accumulated very fast lately. We put them with our sweepings and hired a drayman to haul them to an out of the way place. Send the address of the factory mentioned to the gallery and we will secure and destroy those Gems.”⁴

⁴ “Gems in a Gutter” Hamilton Spectator. March 13, 1883

On March 15, 1883, internationally famous actress, Elizabeth Langtry, “the Jersey Lily,” arrived in Hamilton to act in a performance of the play, “She Stoops to Conquer” at the Grand Opera House.

Because Mrs. Langtry did not like staying in what she termed “rubbishy” hotels in the cities she visited, she travelled in a private railway car which was transported from city to city attached to already scheduled trains, and was then parked on a siding near the station of the city in which she was to perform.

When it was first heard that the famous actresses’ private car had arrived at Hamilton’s Stuart street depot, a substantial number of citizens went there hoping to get a glimpse of Lily Langtry, widely considered to be a ‘professional beauty.’ :

“But the lady’s face is her fortune, and the young men and women were disappointed, nor did they feel much consoled with the thought that they might see Langtry in the evening at the reasonable rate of three dollars a peep.”⁵

⁵  “A Peep Show : Arrival of Jersey Lily – a Scene at the Station”

Hamilton Spectator . March 15, 1883

Instead of seeing the world-famous actress, those who gathered at the station only saw some of the other actresses in the touring company :

“It was intensely amusing to see sundry hideous members of the company posing at the car windows, each laboring under the impression that she was transcendentally beautiful, and that the mob mistook her for Langtry. The airs which some of these ugly young women put on were the occasion of much merriment on the part of the spectators.”⁵

Lily Langtry let it be known that she would make herself available to be interviewed by the Spectator:

“She was informed that that sort of thing would cost her fifteen cents a line – the customary rate for actresses’ interviews.

“ ‘But,’ insinuated the lady, ‘I am not an actress.’ This with the word ‘actress’ accentuated to indicate that she was none of the ordinary everyday who play for money.

“ ‘No, I have heard that you are not,’ acquiesced the reporter, forgetting his gallantry in his desire to be truthful.”⁵

According to the Times’ reporter who attended Lily Langtry’s first Canadian appearance at Hamilton’s Grand Opera House, there was a fashionable, full house on hand :

“Mrs. Langtry has no cause to be dissatisfied with her first reception at the hands of the Canadian public. Seldom, if ever, has the Grand Opera House held such a magnificent audience as that which greeted the appearance of the celebrated beauty last night. The house was crowded with the elite of the city and the surrounding towns, and the audience was warmly appreciative, sympathetic, responsive to every touch of wit, and humor, and would have been indulgent if there had been many faults to indulge; but the performance throughout was singularly free from serious faults”⁶

⁶ “Amusements : Mrs. Langtry’s First Bow to a Canadian Audience : A Flattering Reception” Hamilton Times. March 16, 1883.

The Spectator review of Mrs. Langtry’s performance as Miss Hardcastle in the play was mixed:

“Miss Langtry is a very unequal actress. At times, she rises to excellence; at times she falls below mediocrity. The representation certainly pleased the audience, which, attracted by the fame of the Jersey Lily’s beauty, was entertained by the play. The lady cannot be credited with extraordinary talent, nor would it by any means be just to call her a failure.”⁷

⁷ “Music and Drama : Dramatic : The Jersey Lily” Hamilton Spectator. March 16, 1883.

While the Spectator theatre critic was less than fulsome in his praise of Lily Langtry’s performance, the audience at the Grand Opera House responded differently :

“Three times Mrs. Langtry was called before the curtain, and repeated demonstrations throughout the performance gave evidence of general and continued satisfaction.”⁷

The Times’ critic spend little effort commending on the renowned actresses’ performance, instead focusing on her appearance:

“As it is by her beauty that the Jersey Lily has achieved her celebrity and since it is Mrs. Langtry the beauty, far more than Mrs. Langtry the actress, that the public throng to see, it is but fair to criticize the lady’s appearance.

“ ‘Is this the face that launched a thousand ships? Cried Marlowe’s Dr. Fautus when the magic of Mephistopheles revealed to him the countenance of Helen of Troy; and no doubt the thought that flashed across the minds of the audience when Mrs. Langtry emerged from the wings into the glare of the footlights was, ‘And is this the face that has been so talked of and painted and photographed and praised for years past ?’

“Though Mrs. Langtry’s beauty, when she first appeared, was set off by rich and elgant costume, the first feeling of the spectators was one of disappointment; but this feeling wore away in the course of the performance, and there is no doubt that the lasting impression that was left on the minds of nearly all who saw her was favorable.

“If a person fresh from the performance were asked if he thought Mrs. Langtry a really beautiful woman, he would pause and reflect a moment before he could reply with certainty.”⁶

About ten blocks away from the Grand Opera House, and just a few hours after the glittering scenes prompted by the appearance of the Jersey Lily, a terrible tragedy took place.

The opening of the Times’ account of the disaster reads as follows :

“One of the saddest and most harrowing events that it has been the duty of the Hamilton press to chronicle occurred in the city last night at the house of Alexander Allan, a signalman on the Grand Trunk.

“The house is a small frame structure on Macnab street – No. 300. The family has been unfortunate. On Monday last, the eldest son, John, had his arm broken while at work in the Ontario Cotton Mill, and on the following day, Mr. Allan himself had his arm broken by a fall on James Street.

When the family retired for the night, Alexander Allan, his wife and John slept in a room on the ground floor of the small home, while just above them in another small room slept the other four children in the family – Lydia, Willie, George and Jennie, aged 13, 7, 5, and 3 respectively.

Lydia told her story to a Times’ reporter the following morning:

“ ‘In the night,’ she said, ‘I woke up and felt dreadful sick. My head was throbbing and burning and I felt sick at my stomach. I think it was about 4 or 5 o’clock when I heard someone stirring in the room below. Later on, one of my little brothers came over to our bed crying. He said, ‘Oh Liddy, I’m so sick.’ We were all sick. I got up at last, and came down stairs. It was ten minutes to eight when I came down. I went into the room where my father, mother and brother were, but could hardly enter for the gas that filled the room.

“ ‘My brother John  was lying on the little bed then, just as you see him now. His hands were shut tight and resting on his breast. My mother was sitting on a chair leaning over the head of John’s bed, with her head resting on her arm. Her head was near my brother’s. My father was lying on the big bed, making, oh, such terrible noises, as if her were in great pain. I saw that my brother was dead, and I was so frightened that I ran over to Mrs.Donough’s in my night dress and told her that Johnny was dead, and that I couldn’t wake my mother. Then Mrs. Donough and other neighbors came in.”⁸

⁸ “Suffocated : A Mother and Son Killed by Coal Gas : The Father Near Death’s Door : Narrow Escape of the Rest of the Family : A House of Mourning”

Hamilton Times. March 16, 1883.

The times reporter who recorded Lydia’s harrowing tale, noted that the “pitiful story with many sobs and tears by the poor child, who, in addition to her other misfortunes, is afflicted with constitutional lameness.”⁸

The cause of the disaster was not hard to determine. The house was heated by a self-feeding coal stove of a very cheap make. The sliding top had been inadvertently left slightly open, allowing the free escape of the coal gas into the home, instead of it being forced up the chimney. In addition a back damper on the stove was found to be closed, while the front damper was open, making the escape of the gas even more intense.

As the Hamilton times was about to got to press in the afternoon it was learned that the father, although still listed as being in critical condition at the hospital, was slowly improving that that strong hopes for his recovery were being entertained .

Dr. White quickly concluded that an inquest on the two deaths was not needed, as the circumstances causing the unhappy affair were obvious.