Showing posts with label CT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CT. Show all posts

Monday, May 15, 2017

May 15, 1917 - I'm terribly lonesome for you, and would like to tear just five weeks off the map, at this very minute.

Here is a fun letter from Joe while on a business trip in Derby Connecticut. He is getting very excited and they are still adding to the wedding list just five weeks from now. When he is requesting guests to attend the wedding I really see the lawyer come out in him pleading his case. Below is a postcard photo of the Hotel Clark; take note of stationary.

  
 

 


Tuesday

Dearest,

Will you b'lieve me when I say that this letter is the first chance I've had to scribble a line to you since I left New York?

I was in Court all Monday and spent the entire evening with the Board of Aldermen (till midnight) and leaving at supper time from B'Port to get to Shelton on time.

All day today in Court, and am now - as you can see - in Derby, and scribbling while I get my first meal today. I'm so tired that I'm not hungry in the least.

Surest thing you know, I'll be in New York tomorrow night (Wed.) to see the sweetest girl in all creation. If I finish in Court on time, I'll take the 4:10 otherwise a little later.

If you're down town you can watch the train come in, but it will not be safe, for I don't know just what time I'll leave.

Dear, I'm terribly lonesome for you, and would like to tear just five weeks off the map, at this very minute. What think you?

I've been very fortunate so far. Tried two cases Monday and won, and tried two today and already have favorable decisions. Incidentally I succeeded in securing the settlement of the three cases in my favor, so my batting average, or streak - as you call it, has started again; tho it wasn't interrupted for long at all.

I want to write fifty pages to start telling you how much I love you, but my hands are weary and can hardly move along; they have been working - taking notes & evidence - for several days.
However I'll see you soon you know!

Oh yes; Charles thinks that Cousin Sig & Sallie and Gus  & Nat ought to be at our wedding. He's talked to mother and she thinks so too since our two families are so intimate in so many ways, and when I told him of conditions, he said that I've have been together so frequently and have interests in common that it isn't just the right thing for me to do at the most important event in my life. As regards to Mr. & Mrs. K. he said I met you through them, and have always been close and I ought really to have them come, perhaps on the same theory as Pauline and Albert. That would make twelve besides myself - whom perhaps you'll invite and as he says - for a man of my prominence and friends, that is a very small number, considering several others that really might be invited, but whom no mention is now made. So listen, girlie, just think it over, and take your time, and I'll go over the matter with you tomorrow. It strikes me, he is right, after all, but we'll talk it over in N.Y. tomorrow night.

Here's hoping you are feeling as charming and well as when I left you.

With love & kisses I am
Your
Joe

The next letter is May 18


Wednesday, December 7, 2016

December 7, 1916 - Motoring in a Cadillac

Here is a letter giving detail of some of his work plans. I guess he liked to let her know everything that was going on.




Thursday
My darling,
I have just received your long letter and clippings; and as you know it is unnecessary to make any comments on them.

I have concluded my little journeys for a little while. Last evening Mr. Keen and I went to Winsted 80 or 90 miles from here, motoring in a Cadillac. And would you believe it, when we struck the Berkshires, it was snowing pretty fast? The old fashioned snow storms had arrived; but on our return, found the moon and stars out here in all the nocturnal glory (some splash!).
How delighted I was to hear that you are to be here Sunday. Tonight, over the soup plate (I could say tea-cups, but why should I?) I will ascertain just when you should land here, and will write, so that we can all come back together.

In the meantime, I expect to leave Saturday on the 4:10 as usual; ready for the "Opry".
Regarding Spero's note, I agree with you that our Sundays are pretty well taken up till Christmas, and it would be advisable if you wrote to them to that effect; perhaps add that we might, if we got the chance drop in on them, but a little later would inform them when we'd be able to see them.

"Listen" sweetheart. One of my old fashioned long journeys seems imminent. It has begun to show itself in the last few days. It is very likely that I may have to go to the Canadian borders within a week or ten days. But I'll tell you all about my plans when I see you. It'll be a flying trip, mainly spent in going and coming. And do you know, a little secret, it's been so long since I've been on trains for days at a time, that it seems almost fascinating to just look forward to it. But hardship now will be to think of you in little old New York, waiting, peacefully waiting, for my return.Mother is getting along very well, though she is still in the house, taking very good care of herself.

Do you know, dear, that I feel terribly sorry I couldn't write yesterday, but things came so thick and fast; and really nothing of any consequence either, that just stopped or blocked me from writing.

Clara is alone at the office and has her hands full. Still looking , or rather again looking for a shorthand typer.

With heaps of love from
Your
Joe

The next letter will be on December 11.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

January 5, 1916 - Mistrial because of juror's strange action . . .

As a follow-up to the letter Joe wrote to Helen on January 3, 1916 here are two of three articles that hit the newspapers on January 5, 1916. All of that hard work and this small mistake changes the outcome. I am continuing to do research to see what happened when the case was brought back to court and what the verdict was.

 MISTRIAL FOUND BECAUSE JUROR’S STRANGE ACTION

Judge Gager Dismissed Jury in Auto Accident Case After Notification.

JUROR-HANDED NOTE TO DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL

Intention Was Honest, but Oath Was Unwittingly Broken, Said Court.

Through an incident about as ex­ceptional as ever recorded in jury tri­als in this county the case of Benja­min Feinman, administrator, against Caspar D. Wallace, was this morning taken from the jury because of the threat of mistrial.
A juror just before court opened handed to Judge A. B. Beers of coun­sel for Mr. Wallace a slip of paper which stated that there was a juror sitting on the case from the town where the accident happened.
The juror who handed the slip of paper to Judge Beers, was William H. Wessels of Greenwich. Judge Beers immediately informed Judge Edwin B. Gager and his honor, after thinking it over decided that the jury should no longer be retained on the matter.
Oath Violated.
It was not the presence of a juror from Bridgeport which had anything to do with Judge Gager's decision, but it was the fact that a juror had violat­ed his oath, unintentionally as Judge Gager said, in communicating with persons not on the jury regarding the case, which led the court to rule a mistrial.
Juror Wessels was very sorry when he found out how much trouble he had made over a matter of no concern. There is nothing in the law to prevent a juror from a town in which a case is returned sitting on that case. Mr. Wessels thought it did. He apologized after Judge Gager dis­missed the jury.
Has Jury Experience.
The curious thing about it is that Mr. Wessels is a man of considerable jury experience. He is in business in East Portchester in Greenwich, and is a man of the highest standing in that town. He is a relation of form­er Mayor Wessels of this city.
The action on trial is a suit to re­cover $10,000 for the death of a boy of four years, killed 'in April, 1914 on Congress Street in an automobile ac­cident.
The trial was commenced yesterday. Judge Alfred B. Beers and Judge Carl Foster appeared for the defendant, At­torney Joseph G. Shapiro for the plaintiff. A considerable part of the evidence had been put in when court recessed yesterday afternoon.
Hands Note to Judge Beers.
This morning when the court was about to open Juror Wessels handed the note to Judge Beers. The latter quickly realized that a situation had suddenly presented itself which must be brought to the attention of the court. Innocent as the purpose might be, such communication was contrary to the law.
Judge Gager was informed and he also realized the gravity of the seem­ingly unwitting action. After some consideration Judge Gager decided to dismiss the jury from further consid­eration of the case.
Court Calls Jury.
The jury was called in and Judge Gager addressed them. He said he regretted having to take the course he was about to, but under the cir­cumstances it was necessary. He also regretted having to name the juror. He told the jury that Mr. Wessels had communicated with the counsel one side.
Judge Gager went on to say that Mr. Wessels had informed counsel that there was a man on the panel from the town where the accident occurred. Judge Gager said this was nothing in itself. There was no rea­son for disqualification on that ac­count. Mr. Wessels had acted hon­estly, one might almost say, he had, been too honest.
The court read the jurors' oath which swears a juror not to com­municate with any one regarding the case on trial, except a member of the jury. This oath, the court believ­ed, had been violated, unwittingly, it is true, but none the less violated. For this reason, his honor considered it proper to dismiss the jury from furth­er hearing upon the case. His hon­or said further that if the jury thought anything was wrong it should be communicated to the court, which was impartial.
Mr. Wessels stood up manfully and made an apology for his act. He did not realize what the consequences of his act were. He hoped the court would excuse him.
It turned out from a study of the jury panel that there were in reality two Bridgeport men among the twelve, John H. Colgan of 301 Arctic street and Isaac P. Turney the well-known West End newsdealer.
The incident created a considerable, stir about the court house. The old­est inhabitant could not recall any­thing quite like it since the building was put up nearly thirty years ago.

JUROR PASSES NOTE, DAMAGE CASE HALTED
Court  Withdraws Wallace Damage Suit Because of W. H. Wessels' Action.
OATH IS INNOCENTLY BROKEN; NO CENSURE
Greenwich Man Only Wanted to Tell Counsel that One Juror Lived Where Accident Occurred.

Because Juror William H. Wessels of Greenwich passed a note to Attorney A. B. Beers, informing the latter that there was a Bridgeport man on the jury, which was considering the $10,000 dam­age suit of Benjamin Feinman, administrator, against Casper D. Wallace, Judge Ed­win B. Gager this morning in the Civil Superior Court discharged the jury from further consideration in the case, holding that Juror Wessels had innocently broken his oath as a juror, and under the cir­cumstances the court thought that the case should be with­drawn from the jury. Juror Wessels publicly apologized to the court and the apology was accepted.
VIOLATION INNOCENT
There were two men from this city sitting as jurors on the case, John H. Colgan and Isaac P. Turney. It is understood that Juror Wessels referred to Mr. Colgan in his note to At­torney Beers. Before court opened this morning, Juror Wessels passed a note to Attorney Beers conveying the information that a man from the place in which the accident was al­leged to have occurred was acting as a juror. Attorney Beers felt that it was his duty to inform the court of the note, and did so.
Judge Gager immediately took the matter under consideration, and after the jury had been called, he informed them that after thinking the. matter over, he had concluded that he would dismiss them from further considera­tion of the case. He said that one of the jurors had seen fit to hand a slip to one of the counsel in the case that there was a certain juror from the town in which the accident oc­curred, and that such action on the juror's part was an innocent breach of his oath. The court told the jury that it was the duty of each juror to keep his own counsel and that the law provides he shall not speak on the matter he shall have in hand, except with the jurors on the case.
Juror Not Censured
It was Judge Gager's opinion that Juror Wessels had acted with honest motives in  passing the note  to  the lawyer, and he did not censure the juror. He told the jurors that while they must not speak about any phase | of a case, they may have under consideration to anyone but a member of the jury, they had the right to men­tion anything which they thought should come to the attention of the court, to the judge. Judge Gager stated that the attorney did his duty in calling the court's attention to the fact that he had received the note.
It is understood that Juror Wessels received his information from an­other member of the jury, and that he gave the information to the law­yer for the defense, thinking that the latter should know that there was a juror from the town where the acci­dent occurred. There seemed to be no question but what Juror Wessels had the highest motive in passing the information to the lawyer and he felt badly over the sudden termination of the case because of his action, for be­fore Judge Gager had finished talking to the jury, he arose from his seat in the jury box and said, "I would like to apologize publicly to the court." The court accepted the apology. History of Case. Feinman sued Wallace for $10,000 damages claiming that the latter's automobile struck and killed his four-year-old son, Samuel, on Congress street, and that the death was caused by the reckless manner in which the defendant's machine was being operated.
Shapiro & Shapiro represented the plaintiff, and Attorneys Foster and Beers the defendant. There being no work for the jury this week, Judge Gager excused them until next Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock.

It appears from this article that the jury was excused until Tuesday January 11.

I did a little research about Judge Gager and found a photograph from the firm he was with at one time in Derby CT as seen below.
 
In the photograph are Col. Wm. B. Wooster (L) with three members of his Derby law firm who went on to become judges - William H.  Williams, Chief Justice David Torrance, and Edwin B. Gager.

I was also able to locate his obituary in New New York Times from April 29, 1922.


The next letter will be posted on January 10.

Saturday, February 1, 2014

February 1, 1914 - Personal Tax Bill

Having just paid the second installment of our property taxes yesterday this is comical to me. I spend lots time figuring out where I will pull the money from and how I will make it happen again. I manage to do this twice a year and am amazed every time. Coming across this receipt in Joe's papers was quite comical.


I do not know what he was paying taxes on but I did look up the street address which is Fairmont Place in Shelton, CT and that street still exists and it is a short walk to Howe Avenue where he went to pay the taxes.

The next post will be a short newspaper article on February 13.

Thursday, December 26, 2013

December 26, 1913 - The best laid schemes of mice and men . . .

One year ago I was busy working to set up this blog and excited to launch the beginning of a five year journey with Joe and Helen. These letters have been filled with more surprises that I had expected.

Here is the last letter from 1913. Since most of the letters were written from his office in the Meig's Building I thought it would be fun to show you a photograph of that building at about that time.





December 26, 1913
Dear Helen,

I have several matters to take care of in the city tomorrow that will keep me there; and so will not be in New York.

I have a deposition to take in the city on Monday, but have court engagements all next week except Thursday.

From this you can easily understand I will be unable to get down to New York on Friday or Saturday; and so will have to call off my opportunity of witnessing the musitrel and also "Butterfly".

Things at present point to my going to Charleston S.C. on January 4th; so if I have any spare time, I'll have to use it getting matters in shape to leave for a couple of days.

Saltman is in New York and fairly begged me to go along as he is to be there three or four days; but the fates are "agin it" (Remember Hubbard?).

But doesn't this illustrate quite apropos that

"The best laid schemes of mice and men Gang oft aglee"*?
Some of my Bridgeport friends in New York at present, who were here for diner yesterday, have extended me an invitation to take in the opera next week.

Sometimes you can't get a seat for $10; at other times you can't use them even if given to you. It reminds me that "Some have meat, and we can eat and so the Lord be thank it."**  I have invitations but "can't eat," figuratively speaking only, of course.

I trust that you are enjoying the vacation, and also that your mother is too.
Sincerely,
Joe

* Gang oft aglee - is Scottish for Often go wrong. Quote from a Robert Burns poem (see below).
** Quote from a Robert Burns poem.

I hope you have enjoyed following the blog so far and there is much more to come. Some of the coming year is sparse with letters. I have lots of newspaper articles from 1914 that I will use to fill you in on what was going on in Joe's life. Work was most likely playing a major role as they continued to build their law practice.

The next letter will be on January 11.